Fe Fakeness

[Nicodemus]

Ponder, conceptualise, relate to other concepts... then spit it out with the thought that it should measure up to--or somehow eventually be--some external standard.

What do you mean by 'external standard'? A standard for communication? That would make sense, though 'standard' might be too stiff a word. Certainly, we should aim to be understandable so that we can be understood - that, in the end, is the purpose of communication. However, if by 'external standard' you mean something else, then that is not part of what I was asking for, nor do I consider it necessary.

But do I really want other people to stick just to that? The thought of it is both cozy and claustrophobic.

If you feel the urge to ask yourself, the answer is probably 'no'.

Pragmatically, experience seems to suggest that other types won't play ball exactly and that ultimate connection between people will fail. Unless, perhaps, there is some universal translator. But everyone would have to know that the translator existed, and would have to join in.

Or would they?

Actually, experience tells us that communication, if not perfect, is possible. As long as we provide context, maybe attempt to paint a picture of what the invisible looks like, we can at least approximate real understanding. That is enough for everything else; I reckon it should suffice for the question at hand.

 

[Kalach]

What do you mean by 'external standard'?

You said "then we compare". I took it a bit further and thought of it as "then we measure... and cull." Even if the goal is genuinely just to compare and finally leave the original ideas as they were, such a state can't last. It's static. Some polarising judgment is required to move things along. This will certainly happen inside the person. And they'll externalise it? Maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be polite. But the cull happens eventually anyway.

But yeah, it's still not clear even to me what the external standard was. There was one. But what was it?

(Holy flashbacks: is this why Fe types won't detail their plans? The shifting determination of the external standard silences them too?)

Actually, experience tells us that communication, if not perfect, is possible.

It does?

I know mentation is possible. I know thought is possible. I guess in principle communication must be possible too. The Private Language Argument in reverse: if there is a private language, then there must be a real world, and connections, however tenuous, to that real world. Pathways for connection.


Ahhh, Harmony. Not just a character on Buffy.

 

[Nicodemus]

You said "then we compare". I took it a bit further and thought of it as "then we measure... and cull." Even if the goal is genuinely just to compare and finally leave the original ideas as they were, such a state can't last. It's static. Some polarising judgment is required to move things along. This will certainly happen inside the person. And they'll externalise it? Maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be polite. But the cull happens eventually anyway.

I suspect there will be but minor differences between the ideas of what truth is. The wording will differ, the details will differ and tempt some and more to argue about the whole picture, but that need not concern us. Anyway, a public discussion of this topic would sooner or later drown in metaphysics where all arguments are ultimately futile, so my aim is simply to compare. We can learn something worthwhile from comparing.

But yeah, it's still not clear even to me what the external standard was. There was one. But what was it?

It seems to me you are looking for it in your blog, too. Endless rumination of categories, always attempting yet never able to touch the ground. My guess is the problem lies with the words. You cannot point to Ni. There is no Ni, just as there is no Paris, only a giant system of buildings, roads, people, noises, and vast complexity. When a bomb blows up in Paris, you cannot pinpoint its actual location if 'Paris' is the most fundamental category at your disposal.

I know mentation is possible. I know thought is possible. I guess in principle communication must be possible too. The Private Language Argument in reverse: if there is a private language, then there must be a real world, and connections, however tenuous, to that real world. Pathways for connection.

If we were unable to have communication, we would not be aware of misunderstandings. Oh, and how aware we are of those!

 

[highlander]

I'm sure the forum persona of the username Zara and others are perceived as an INTJ within this community. Multiple datapoints confirm this and reinforce that belief. I'm not disputing that.

Let's leave that for a second however.

Would you agree that there are degrees of belief around other people's types on the forums?

I don't know what you mean by "degrees of belief" but I do know a lot of people on this forum (including Zara) have spent a good deal of time attempting to understand their own type. From experience, I can tell you that it is difficult to assess another individual's type. Professionals have some level of expertise and through assessments and through spending sufficient time with a person in a one on one dialogue, they can help a person to understand what type they are likely to be. I think with enough experience, you can learn to recognize certain cognitive functions that a person is using by the way they communicate. There are other methods as well - such as attempting to piece together various clues as to what someone might be - a sensor or intuitive, judger or perceiver, extravert or introvert. You can begin to guess what type they might be by things such as this. However, it is not very easy and I've spent a good deal of time attempting to both understand this and to implement it in practice over a period of many years.

While one's own view of the world is important, we gain more robust insight and reach better decisions by trying to understand others perspectives and as Uumlau has stated, by adopting a language which is consistent with the way others communicate. I think the essential problem here may be that you are communicating in a way that others do not understand and that they feel you are not listening to what they have to say. That becomes frustrating to them. It might help to put yourself in the shoes of the person you are communicating to. If you were them, would you understand what you were saying? How would you feel if you were them? Communication is defined as a "two-way process of reaching mutual understanding, in which participants not only exchange (encode-decode) information but also create and share meaning."

 

[PeaceBaby]

There is no true nature of truth; there are merely different definitions. To get to the bottom of our question, though, we can simply ask different types to introspect, think, ponder their words and give us a definition of their conception of truth. Then we compare.

This stands out for me ..... so I will share my perspective on it.

When I try to share my version of truth, which I often do here, I feel it's regularly dismissed, not taken at face value, or it is actually disagreed with. I mean, it's my vantage point, my well-considered version of truth so - give it permission to exist, thank you very much!

At this point, I simply think it's extremely hard for most people to permit alternate views of the universe to exist. The words and thoughts from other vantage points must be evaluated as "right or wrong" and other people feel a need to justify themselves in context with those thoughts.

I cannot think of a time on the forum where an Fe/Te dom or aux has said, "So that's how you perceive it, isn't that cool? Isn't that interesting?" and seem to really accept that. It always seems to have to go through their truth monitor too, and that monitor spits out another judgment to pronounce whether my truth is true or false. It's really very silly actually.

btw, I am excited to entertain new ideas that challenge my ideas of truth, so it's not about a dislike of examination. I LOVE that! It's more about ... someone saying, "No, that's not how it is, that's wrong..." without any type of discourse or dialogue. And that happens here on the forum all ... the ... time.

Somehow, in Fi dom-hood, the greatest probability exists to acknowledge individual truth and give it permission to breathe.

 

[Nicodemus]

This stands out for me ..... so I will share my perspective on it.

When I try to share my version of truth, which I often do here, I feel it's regularly dismissed, not taken at face value, or it is actually disagreed with. I mean, it's my vantage point, my well-considered version of truth so - give it permission to exist, thank you very much!

At this point, I simply think it's extremely hard for most people to permit alternate views of the universe to exist. The words and thoughts from other vantage points must be evaluated as "right or wrong" and other people feel a need to justify themselves in context with those thoughts.

I cannot think of a time on the forum where an Fe/Te dom or aux has said, "So that's how you perceive it, isn't that cool? Isn't that interesting?" and seem to really accept that. It always seems to have to go through their truth monitor too, and that monitor spits out another judgment to pronounce whether my truth is true or false. It's really very silly actually.

btw, I am excited to entertain new ideas that challenge my ideas of truth, so it's not about a dislike of examination. I LOVE that! It's more about ... someone saying, "No, that's not how it is, that's wrong..." without any type of discourse or dialogue. And that happens here on the forum all ... the ... time.

Somehow, in Fi dom-hood, the greatest probability exists to acknowledge individual truth and give it permission to breathe.

I think you talk about things that are true rather than truth itself. Our topic was the latter.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I think you talk about things that are true rather than truth itself. Our topic was the latter.

Well, no, because I recognize my truth is simply my own truth, borne out conceptually and experientially and it may not align with anyone else's.

How is that different from the topic at hand? Explanation?

I realize Ni truth feels like it supersedes other truths, even subsumes them, but from my vantage point, it does not.

 

[Nicodemus]

Well, no, because I recognize my truth is simply my own truth, borne out conceptually and experientially and it may not align with anyone else's.

Then it is so outlandish to me that I did not even recognize it.

How is that different from the topic at hand? Explanation?

I am not sure yet. It seems you treat truth as something that is confirmed completely internally (Kalach might be right after all). Your reply in the newly created truth thread should prove very interesting.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Then it is so outlandish to me that I did not even recognize it.

I even interpreted your comment to me, "I think you talk about things that are true rather than truth itself. Our topic was the latter." as a rendering of judgement on top of what I was trying to say up there. You served to illustrate my point, in a way. You assumed you knew what I meant and was talking about. And shared your opinion, without consulting wider, without asking any questions.

I looked at the thread you just made, and will ponder on it. The scope seems so broad, and I am initially unsure about what I might say there.

Thanks though ... I am only puzzled at how to overcome what feels like a continual battle to have my viewpoints recognized for the truth they are to me, and the others who align with those feelings and that truth I express.



P.S. the word outlandish has some negative connotations, but I am choosing to ignore them atm.

 

[Nicodemus]

I even interpreted your comment to me, "I think you talk about things that are true rather than truth itself. Our topic was the latter." as a rendering of judgement on top of what I was trying to say up there. You served to illustrate my point, in a way. You assumed you knew what I meant and was talking about. And shared your opinion, without consulting wider, without asking any questions.

Yes, I assumed, as you just assumed you knew what I was saying. There is no other way. If we do not allow ourselves to interpret other people's words, we can just as well stop speaking. I did say 'I think', though, indicating the state of guessing I was in so that you would see both my interpretation of your words and that they did not pertain to the topic (had I interpreted them correctly).

P.S. the word outlandish has some negative connotations, but I am choosing to ignore them atm.

It was meant to stress the strangeness, not to insult. You know, English is not my first language.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

After reading the last few pages, I would like to have babies with Nicodemus and Kalach.


Great job btw, you two!

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yes, I assumed, as you just assumed you knew what I was saying. There is no other way. If we do not allow ourselves to interpret other people's words, we can just as well stop speaking.

Yes, indeed - good point that. Agreed.

I did say 'I think', though, indicating the state of guessing I was in so that you would see both my interpretation of your words and that they did not pertain to the topic (had I interpreted them correctly).

Interesting in that I hear your statement as a declarative, not as a question. I do think that a Te type is generally quite open when it comes to evaluating new information, but the statement seems definitive, and almost defies challenging.

It is like you have come to this conclusion, "I think ..." and the rest of your judgement follows that part. It sounds ... more final than a question.

Fe is not much different there, btw. "I feel ..." then add judgement. Again, it sounds final to my ears, and I know you all see it as more of a question, sort of, but it doesn't register that way with me.

It was meant to stress the strangeness, not to insult. You know, English is not my first language.

Yes, I am aware, and I didn't think you intended an insult, yet it did have the potential to look like one. Thanks for the clarification though, it is appreciated.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

Idealized Fe leadership to me is that you try to motivate the potential within your minions, what of course needs a lot of room for error in the beginning. Things Fe people in that regards have to learn is to recognize when its not possible to motivate someone any further, because he just doesnt want to be motivated. And to develop the ability to tell someone he has majorily fucked something up and doing that without being fogiving too quickly.

+10

This is very true in my case. I just hate to see one's potential wasted. It's much more difficult for me to empower Fi'ers as they tend to not wanting to be bossed. With Fe'ers I have no problem with this as we both tend to appreciate each other's wanting the best and believe in we all have many rooms for improvement and wanted to be push for motivation.

Though I'm not sure about Fe'ers being forgiving easily though. I thought it's should be the other way around as Fi'ers tend to be more forgiving.

 

[Nicodemus]

I know you all see it as more of a question, sort of, but it doesn't register that way with me.

Noted for future encounters.

 

[Zarathustra]

Mock and ridicule come is a first order emotional response to those that do not understand, yet are annoyed because it seems to contradict a firm belief.

Actually, that is just one possible manifestation of mocking and ridicule.

Another possible manifestation is where an idiot is claiming all kinds of false knowledge, and those who actually know mock him for it.

As [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] refreshingly admitted, people generally do not like to be wrong.

Yes, but apparently you didn't realize that he was mocking you.

If someone of no consequence and carrying no truth says things, as an INTJ I would simply ignore them.

Actually, you are once again conflating two things that you should not be.

That is fine that you would ignore them (which, in fact, by virtue of your response, you have not).

But that is not what every INTJ would do, just because that's what you would (claim to) do.

Frankly, I have ignored you, in a sense, in that your opinions are more-or-less irrelevant to me on this topic.

But, ignoring the relevance of your opinions on this matter: if I still choose to mock you, then I will.

There's nothing in the secret code of INTJhood that you (falsely) proclaim to possess that says an INTJ must do any different.

As an actual INTJ I have zero interest in approach of others...

Once again, a false conflation of what you do and what you think all INTJs should do.

You do this a lot.

Also, once again, you claim the above is what you do, but, by virtue of your response, you do the exact opposite.

...if someone is obnoxious or not its completely irrelevant to me, I'd listen to them by looking past that into the content. I have no emotional response to obnoxiousness.

And, as I said before, have you been diagnosed with or ever considered the possibility that you have Asperger's?

I'm being dead serious here. I'm not just trying to mock you.

Multiple people have agreed with me that your behavior does seem to imply as much.

We have had other INTJs on here who have Asperger's; there's nothing wrong with it.

You welcome to look at my record.

You have no record to look at, man...

As I (and others) said to you before: nobody cares about your document; it means nothing to us, as we don't know the people on it.

Your record here essentially consists of your 100+ posts, which have shown an incredible inconsistency between what you say and what you do (not just in this post I'm responding to, but in the vast majority of your posts earlier in the thread), the consistent belief that whatever you do is what all INTJs should do (and that, if they do not do these things, then they're not actually INTJs), and a strong tendency to jump to conclusions based on too little data (inferior Se; Pi tunnel vision). Now I and the other member you've talked to outside of this forum both agree on this, and so do many other members who have contributed to this thread, so, the question you really should be asking yourself is, "Are they all delusional, and I'm the one who's seeing things clearly, or am I delusional, and they're the ones who are seeing things clearly?" Unfortunately, I'm more-or-less certain which of these two you're going to go with, but I and most everybody else on here would probably like to see you make the wiser decision and give the latter a little more consideration.

 

[Nicodemus]

As I (and others) said to you before: nobody cares about your document; it means nothing to us, as we don't know the people on it.

We know the one person he typed as INTJ to a certain degree.

 

[Kalach]

It seems to me you are looking for it in your blog, too. Endless rumination of categories, always attempting yet never able to touch the ground.

Well there it's easy. Although it's written in public, it is by tone and design largely an inner world. The handling of the concepts is idiosyncratic, the working out is individual, the language is opaque. It's organised, somewhat, but that's the extent to which I modify it. What's interesting is what happens when genuinely outer world interaction occurs. Having someone throw in some information or interact with the ideas in their own way throws me off my stride. The mentation mode is altered, and with it arrives a different standard of determination. Instead of speculation with some measure of organisation, there is now the need to properly evaluate, to actually touch, even to stomp upon, the ground, as the mortals do, and get a proper foundation. To harmonise.

I think perhaps the ideal standard of "truth" as far as Je is concerned is "the world", or more exactly, the matching of the declarative content of utterances to the conditions of the world. But it'll endlessly remain ideal because one doesn't check declarative content against the world so much as one checks against perceptions of the world. Obviously, however, one aims to refine perception, the better to be that check. One acknowledges that perception can be faulty, but suggests that it does come in contact with the real and can be improved as description of what was contacted. So there's a process. And right there is the standard and also the reason it shifts and yet in shifting doesn't flummox us. The external standard is that collection of declarations we have thus far agreed upon and will use as a basis for further study. The further study will change, develop, and refine the collection of declarations and become, once appropriately accepted, the new standard. Harmony grows.

My guess is the problem lies with the words. You cannot point to Ni. There is no Ni, just as there is no Paris, only a giant system of buildings, roads, people, noises, and vast complexity. When a bomb blows up in Paris, you cannot pinpoint its actual location if 'Paris' is the most fundamental category at your disposal.

I'd be guessing there's a problem with words only if there exists some world that's better and more compelling than the real world. The problem arises in the matching--the knowing of which concepts suits which actual existent.

And someone call Paris. Nicodemus may be plotting.

 

[Zarathustra]

What's interesting is what happens when genuinely outer world interaction occurs. Having someone throw in some information or interact with the ideas in their own way throws me off my stride. The mentation mode is altered, and with it arrives a different standard of determination. Instead of speculation with some measure of organisation, there is now the need to properly evaluate, to actually touch, even to stomp upon, the ground, as the mortals do, and get a proper foundation. To harmonise.

 

[Kalach]

HEY MAN! That's why INTJs eventually become leaders. It's a good thing.

 

[Zarathustra]

Why do you think I do it to you?!