[MBTI General] NFs and truth

[Nocapszy]

SJs pretend that the way things look is the way things really are.
SPs pretend that there aren't going to be any consequences.
NTs pretend that they know what they are talking about.
NFs pretend that reality is what you make it.

Or something like that.

Looks okay to me. But I'm only pretending to know what I'm talking about. And you're only pretending to believe me.

I don't see that NFs have an unusual level of disconnect from reality compared to different types. It's just a different kind and it probably makes about as much sense to others as the other types' disconnects do to us.

Maybe it's more like

NFs pretend they have connection to 'otherworld' or are enlightened to things that other's aren't?

Maybe that's more of an N trait altogether. (just trying to avert the probably inbound hypocrisy accusation)

 

[cafe]

Looks okay to me. But I'm only pretending to know what I'm talking about. And you're only pretending to believe me.



Maybe it's more like

NFs pretend they have connection to 'otherworld' or are enlightened to things that other's aren't?

Maybe that's more of an N trait altogether. (just trying to avert the probably inbound hypocrisy accusation)

I think it is more like NFs are the ones who don't pretend to know what's going on. We realize we are all just guessing.

 

[Gabe]

"Well, you have to look also at the perception axis. Fi... makes shit up (everything from compliments to imaginary friends to entire stories. Perception I think just helps out with those things), in addition to the values thing."

Well...no. How would a judgement process make things up? Now let's explore your original premise about reality. Now, I can't speak for other catylists, but I've rashly overreacted to things, and suspected certian stuff to be bogus and allowed a few hours to elapse before having the facts to back my opinion up.
But I still don't think that theorists are somehow more practicle. While your original post was cooly worded, but that doesn't make it true. What about string theory? Theoretical physicists have been working on that for like thirty years now, and it's been almost completely fruitless (by any honest evaluation). And yet, instead of giving other approaches a try, they come up with MacGuffen after MacGuffen to keep obsessively focusing all attention to it.

 

[Athenian200]

Also, another friend INFJ can't tell the difference between a guy who likes her and a guy who likes her vagina. Well, it's not that she can't tell, I think she just kids herself a lot, because she'd rather be in a relationship that she knows (somewhere in her mind) is fake, than not be in one at all.

How do you know that they aren't actually aware that it's fake, but like being "with" someone so much that they don't care if the person actually cares about them or not, and don't want to make themselves look bad by admitting that? Also, emotions aren't technically an aspect of reality, and do not represent one, but are rather an aspect of how people perceive reality, so how can something governed by one be "fake" or "real" by objective standards? Why would that be important to a Thinking type? The only difference between a "fake" and a "real" relationship is the presence or absence of a particular type of mutual feeling.

More clarification -- I'm not sure if I said this already, but in case I didn't. I think NFs will only reject or be unsure of the truth when it's not what they want to be real.

If it doesn't affect them negatively or isn't necessary for the survival of themselves/values, then they're perfectly fine with reality as it is.

Are you sure we really reject it? Perhaps we're just trying to find a way to achieve what's important to us, despite that it seems impossible. Just because most people believe something is possible/impossible doesn't make it so, and the only way to know for certain is to attempt everything you can to attain it. Even if I fail because it really was impossible, at least I don't have any regrets or lingering doubts.

I get the feeling I'm being manipulated.... like... you guys know I don't actually think you're dumb, but you want to hear me say that you're smart.

Actually, they're assuming (consciously or unconsciously) that anyone who doesn't acknowledge reality and is oblivious to truth must be stupid. Then, hearing you say that NF's don't acknowledge reality, they presume that you believe that they're stupid. Because they're projecting that assumption onto you. I doubt it's manipulation.

Also, I thought you were INTP. Did you reevaluate or were you just pretending over on INTPc?

Well, that wouldn't surprise me if they had. INTP's aren't typically tolerant of FJ's over there, and other types can mimic INTP behavior if they study it. The way you phrased that implies (on an emotional level) that it would have bothered you if that were the case. Did you intend to convey that?

I'm not so sure she meant she didn't believe in it. She doesn't have a very broad vocabulary, so my guess is she couldn't think of a better word.

Alas, this represents another triumph of illiteracy and superstition. Most regrettable.

Though, looking at what both my friend and my brother were saying -- it almost appears as though they reject those things so they can shirk responsibility. Perhaps this is just motive?

It depends. Did they have anything to gain by pretending not to understand these things? What responsibilities would it have absolved them of, if they rejected those things?

Well, you have to look also at the perception axis. Fi... makes shit up (everything from compliments to imaginary friends to entire stories. Perception I think just helps out with those things), in addition to the values thing.

Technically, Fi "stores" the values it derives from imagination/compliments, and keeps trying to find and apply them again. It's actually Ne that that makes up the connections, and Fi that judges them in terms of values. It's just that the criteria they're judged on is beyond my comprehension.

[Do] NFs pretend they have a connection to 'otherworld' or are enlightened to things that other's aren't?

It's more that we don't trust that the world around us is actually as it appears to be, and we have an idea of how we would like it to be. So we're more attuned to our idea of reality than reality itself. Personally, I dislike focusing on objective reality because it's too chaotic, and I need order.

Maybe that's more of an N trait altogether. (just trying to avert the probably inbound hypocrisy accusation)

I'll admit that F's tend to think about a more idealized/stylized reality than T's do. T's are interested in reflecting the nature of reality in their abstractions. F's are more focused on creating abstractions (ideals) that reflect how reality should be, how we should want and work for it to be.

 

[CzeCze]

I posted this on INTP central some time ago, and got their perspective, but now I'm curious what you NFs here think. There's a higher concentration of you idealists here on MBTIc, so I figure I might get a little more feedback from them here.


Well?

Fortunato posted another take on the situation. I'll get the quote and post it, because I think her take on it is if not more accurate, at least an interesting thought.

It's not that I delude myself, I just know that reality is about performance.

So don't hate the player, hate the game. HA HA HA.

Also, I think you are mixing 2 separate tendencies.

1) The tendency to appear ambivalent or act contradictory to what you said not 5 minutes before.

2) Blatantly saying 'so what' and believing what you want.

The 1) is not self-delusional, it's actually very authentic. Somewhat what you touched on, if your modus operandi is based on your 'gut' and filtered perceptions and all this stuff going on in your mind interpreting and finding meaning in everything you think you see -- sure, your actions may seem erratic or whimsical to more solid sensing types. But it doesn't mean and NF or ENF is acting hypocritically or 'delusionally' or even 'inconsistently'. This behavior is very CONSISTENT with internal barometers and checks and balances that you don't see. Just because you don't see it yourself, doesn't mean it isn't so.

And 2) Again, I don't delude myself. I'm not an emotional lightweight, I'm actually quite a masochist and the Truth is always sought after and desired over patronizing sugarcoating and outright lying. The more it hurts, the more truthful it must be. Awesome. Let me pour some alcohol over that and rub in some salt and have me a masochistic truth cocktail. I also don't want to waste time on energy on things I deserve to KNOW will not happen or should not happen. I'm actually proud of this because it's not a natural ability, it's something I made myself face head on and unlike people who are more emotionally detached and 'purely rational' -- this shit HURTS. Deep. But I'll take it and more to live authentically and that means with courage. (You hear that world? That means I have balls. Thank you)

BUT --

I take a grain of salt with everything. Why? Life is about PERCEPTION. And so much about life is what is beneath the surface, behind the facade, and exists everywhere but the official stated reality. Some people want to live a certain way because you are SUPPOSED to or you HAVE to or it's the RIGHT way or the ONLY RIGHT way. According to who? No one lives purely on what is real and what is right, you only live on your PERCEPTIONS of these things and the decisions you make yourself that you can live with. That the's grain of salt that I take with everything.

 

[CzeCze]

NFs don't necessarily consider truth and fact the same thing, nor see concrete reality as the only reality.

...

SJs pretend that the way things look is the way things really are.
SPs pretend that there aren't going to be any consequences.
NTs pretend that they know what they are talking about.
NFs pretend that reality is what you make it.

Or something like that.

I don't see that NFs have an unusual level of disconnect from reality compared to different types. It's just a different kind and it probably makes about as much sense to others as the other types' disconnects do to us.

Wow, you summed up what I was gonna say so well! But I read it after I wrote my post, because you know, ENFPs have way too much important stuff they have to write when the urge hits them and they can't wait to read the rest of the thread first. And by ENFP, I mean me.

Kekekeke -- for the NT part. SO TRUE! Hahahaha.

And the NF summation -- yep, that sounds about right for me. Except I'm not pretending.

 

[CzeCze]

I get the feeling I'm being manipulated.... like... you guys know I don't actually think you're dumb, but you want to hear me say that you're smart.

HAHHAHA -- I think the whole 'hate and ENFP' forum devolved into this. None NF's thought it was a not so thinly veiled ploy from the posting ENFPs to fish for compliments and be reassured that we are indeed, not hated and in fact that people think we are 'quite awesome'.

Perhaps this is a common stumbling block between NF and NT? NT feels they are being manipulated into saying nice things about NF or throwing NF a bone because NF 'so obviously' wants NT to say, "NF, I don't agree with you, but we're cool man, we're cool"

Honestly, at least for me, I didn't get the tone you were outright attacking NFs - because dude, there are other threads here that do that! For the record, I wasn't trying to get you to admit you think we're smart. Seriously. I already know I'm smart.

 

[TenebrousReflection]

Are you sure we really reject it? Perhaps we're just trying to find a way to achieve what's important to us, despite that it seems impossible. Just because most people believe something is possible/impossible doesn't make it so, and the only way to know for certain is to attempt everything you can to attain it. Even if I fail because it really was impossible, at least I don't have any regrets or lingering doubts.

Very well spoken. Thats how I feel, but much better worded than my reply.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

There's no miscommunication.

....Yes.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not attacking you. Believing what you want instead of what is, is not the same as saying you're stupid.

We're quite aware of this. I didn't say you were attacking us but that what you said came off as insult, it appears as if your trying to insult us.

There's no miscommunication. I think most of you are extrapolating wrongly from my post that I think NFs are stupid, and that's exactly the opposite of how I feel

Glad to read it.

Also, I thought you were INTP. Did you reevaluate or were you just pretending over on INTPc?

No, just a case of mistaken identification.

 

[redacted]

i don't know if i'd make any generalizations about NFs overall; let's separate NFJs and NFPs

NFJs -- because of Fe, they may not always say what they believe to be true if they think there's some negative social consequence to saying it. this has nothing to do with what they actually believe; it's only how they interact. ALSO, Ni always second guesses any statement, so the NFJs may be reluctant to say much with complete certainty (this is more true for INFJs).

actually, NFJs with strong Ti may have an even more accurate view on reality than NTPs because Ni sends Ti more perspectives to analyze, whereas Ne isn't as self-questioning. (just defending myself here, heh.)

NFPs -- i think this is actually what you're getting at. if Fi doesn't want to believe something, it wont. at all. it believes in the things it values. so when an NFP is in a debate, they're much more likely to dismiss factual evidence if it seems "wrong" to them. the frustrating thing is that they can see the same possibilities as their NTP counterparts, so the NTPs may expect the same level of analysis from them...but, while Ti makes logical conclusions, Fi makes "right" conclusions.

this is not to say that NFPs don't use Ti, though. it's just that there's less focus on it. and you're right, Fi is probably much less likely to make use of Se and Si than Ti is, because Ti is constantly looking for more things to analyze and Fi doesn't really care as long as its values are in tact.

one of my best friends is an ENFP, and we debate like all day long when we're together. she will sometimes refuse to see the "truth" (Ti truth); she'll just defend whichever stance seems most "right" to her. our debates almost always end with her acknowledging that my stance is more logically correct, but she "just doesn't like looking at it that way".

 

[Domino]

I'm having trouble with this though. My ENFP sister has always hit reality head on. I have not, even with a developed Ti.

 

[INTJMom]

I posted this on INTP central some time ago, and got their perspective, but now I'm curious what you NFs here think. There's a higher concentration of you idealists here on MBTIc, so I figure I might get a little more feedback from them here.

Well?....

I agree with you. I do this sometimes myself. I am an INTJ/INFJ combination. I've been married 25 years to a realist so I have learned that I can't just believe whatever I want unless it's based on facts, but it didn't used to bother me to believe something solely based on intuition. When I say "bother" I mean I have learned it's better, and other people like it better if I have "facts" to back up my beliefs.

 

[Gabe]

i don't know if i'd make any generalizations about NFs overall; let's separate NFJs and NFPs

NFJs -- because of Fe, they may not always say what they believe to be true if they think there's some negative social consequence to saying it. this has nothing to do with what they actually believe; it's only how they interact. ALSO, Ni always second guesses any statement, so the NFJs may be reluctant to say much with complete certainty (this is more true for INFJs).

actually, NFJs with strong Ti may have an even more accurate view on reality than NTPs because Ni sends Ti more perspectives to analyze, whereas Ne isn't as self-questioning. (just defending myself here, heh.)

NFPs -- i think this is actually what you're getting at. if Fi doesn't want to believe something, it wont. at all. it believes in the things it values. so when an NFP is in a debate, they're much more likely to dismiss factual evidence if it seems "wrong" to them. the frustrating thing is that they can see the same possibilities as their NTP counterparts, so the NTPs may expect the same level of analysis from them...but, while Ti makes logical conclusions, Fi makes "right" conclusions.

this is not to say that NFPs don't use Ti, though. it's just that there's less focus on it. and you're right, Fi is probably much less likely to make use of Se and Si than Ti is, because Ti is constantly looking for more things to analyze and Fi doesn't really care as long as its values are in tact.

one of my best friends is an ENFP, and we debate like all day long when we're together. she will sometimes refuse to see the "truth" (Ti truth); she'll just defend whichever stance seems most "right" to her. our debates almost always end with her acknowledging that my stance is more logically correct, but she "just doesn't like looking at it that way".

I think you might have the definitions of Ne and Ni backwards
Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes

Now, there's nothing that makes introverted thinking any more 'real' than introverted feeling. In fact, 'proving' is often in the domain of extraverted thinking, and extraverted thinking often concerns itself with facts. Extraverted thinking is often also a well used process of __FP types. There is no reason that an introverted feeling type would make any less use of sensing than a thinking type

 

[redacted]

I think you might have the definitions of Ne and Ni backwards
Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes

Now, there's nothing that makes introverted thinking any more 'real' than introverted feeling. In fact, 'proving' is often in the domain of extraverted thinking, and extraverted thinking often concerns itself with facts. Extraverted thinking is often also a well used process of __FP types. There is no reason that an introverted feeling type would make any less use of sensing than a thinking type

first of all, i definitely don't have the definitions of Ni and Ne confused. Ni focuses on seeing as many perspectives on an issue as possible. that's why i said it makes people question their judgments. once a judging function makes a conclusion, Ni says, well, that's only right from this one perspective...what about other ones?

Ne makes connections and generates possibilities, and will try to make new connections all the time. but it doesn't question it's own ideas. that's Ti or Fi's job.

and i disagree about Ti vs. Fi. Ti wants to analyze and systematize all the input it gets. if it doesn't have enough information to correctly systematize something, it'll ask another function to get it more information...like Se or Si for example. i think Fi is less likely to do this because it's not as concerned with a complete logical framework for something. it would definitely ask other functions for more info if it couldn't conclude whether or not something is good or bad (Se or Si or whatever...Ne or Ti or Ni even). but i think Fi is more quick to make good vs. bad conclusions than Ti is to make true vs. false conclusions.

i dunno, that's just my perspective

edit: add-on: NFPs obviously use Ti, too.

 

[Gabe]

first of all, i definitely don't have the definitions of Ni and Ne confused. Ni focuses on seeing as many perspectives on an issue as possible. that's why i said it makes people question their judgments. once a judging function makes a conclusion, Ni says, well, that's only right from this one perspective...what about other ones?

Ne makes connections and generates possibilities, and will try to make new connections all the time. but it doesn't question it's own ideas. that's Ti or Fi's job.

and i disagree about Ti vs. Fi. Ti wants to analyze and systematize all the input it gets. if it doesn't have enough information to correctly systematize something, it'll ask another function to get it more information...like Se or Si for example. i think Fi is less likely to do this because it's not as concerned with a complete logical framework for something. it would definitely ask other functions for more info if it couldn't conclude whether or not something is good or bad (Se or Si or whatever...Ne or Ti or Ni even). but i think Fi is more quick to make good vs. bad conclusions than Ti is to make true vs. false conclusions.

i dunno, that's just my perspective

edit: add-on: NFPs obviously use Ti, too.

Really, any function can 'second guess' you at times. I don't think that line of thinking really goes anywhere. Now. I know the way you illustrate it, you'd think that introverted thinking accepts more "information", but the way you're describing it, it's starting to sound more like Ne or Te.

One thing. If we're talking about Fi, and Ti uses, we're usually talking about very different contexts.

Fi can ask other functions for information too! So maybe (speaking just for myself here) Fi makes conclusions and then backs them up (heck if that happened the other way around, it'd be thinking leading the way).

Still doesn't say much about sensing/lack of.

I'm still reminded of how string theorists are trying to change the definition of science from being supported by experiment to being mathematecally somewhat consistant. That seems more to me like taking sensing off the table (redifining reality if it doesn't fit a model). Definately not asking sensing for information.

Did you read the link I posted?

 

[redacted]

Really, any function can 'second guess' you at times. I don't think that line of thinking really goes anywhere. Now. I know the way you illustrate it, you'd think that introverted thinking accepts more "information", but the way you're describing it, it's starting to sound more like Ne or Te.

One thing. If we're talking about Fi, and Ti uses, we're usually talking about very different contexts.

Fi can ask other functions for information too! So maybe (speaking just for myself here) Fi makes conclusions and then backs them up (heck if that happened the other way around, it'd be thinking leading the way).

Still doesn't say much about sensing/lack of.

I'm still reminded of how string theorists are trying to change the definition of science from being supported by experiment to being mathematecally somewhat consistant. That seems more to me like taking sensing off the table (redifining reality if it doesn't fit a model). Definately not asking sensing for information.

Did you read the link I posted?

"you'd think that introverted thinking accepts more "information", but the way you're describing it, it's starting to sound more like Ne or Te. "
the whole purpose of Ti is deduction. you can't deduce without information. that's all.

"Fi can ask other functions for information too! So maybe (speaking just for myself here) Fi makes conclusions and then backs them up (heck if that happened the other way around, it'd be thinking leading the way)."
of course Fi can ask other functions for information. i even said that explicitly in my last post. Fi and Ti have access to the exact same information.

the difference in function between Fi and Ti is that Ti looks for probabilistic logical truths by method of deduction (analyzing inputs and assigning probabilities and truth values based on logical rules). Fi looks for what is "good" or "worth believing in" by deduction (runs input through the self-defined rule system of personal values). also, their attitudes are slightly different: Ti wants to build up its framework as much as possible, whereas Fi is more likely to be satisfied with the values that have already been defined.

my point is that "good and "worth believing in" are much less exact than "probabilistic logical truths"...therefore Fi may come to a satisfactory conclusion with less precise information. that's really the only assertion i'm making...that Fi can make satisfactory judgments with less information than Ti.

although now that i'm reading back over my argument, i don't know if i'm necessarily right about the attitude of Ti. maybe it really is satisfied just applying its rules...maybe it's another function (Ne?) that wants Ti to have more information. bleh.

anyways, its obvious that both Ti and Fi can make conclusions about information coming in from Se. it's not as obvious that Ti and Fi would be equally likely to employ Se for something.

"Did you read the link I posted?"
yeah i've read that site a million times

 

[redacted]

eh, i just noticed a hole in my logic.

i was basically saying that if Fi is satisfied, it will be less likely to use Se.
but that's obviously true for Ti too.

and i guess its hard to say Fi is more likely to be satisfied than Ti. in fact it may be the other way around. hmm...

 

[Eileen]

I believe that there are absolutes. However, I also believe that there are different kinds of absoutely true truths, and that contradictory things can be simultaneously true.

 

[alcea rosea]

I have no problem processing truth, I just don't believe in it in the same sense that NTs do.

Truth is an interpretation of the available information. It is what people conform to believing is the most verifiable conclusion. Truth is an individual perspective. It is completely subjective and everyone sees it differently. If not, then it's because they choose to conform to someone else's perception of truth. There are no absolute truths in this world, only best fit truths that are suitable for certain situations and points in time. People and society are always changing and evolving. Truth inevitably changes and evolves with them.

I totally agree with Kiddo. I understand truth similar way.

 

[Totenkindly]

I believe that there are absolutes. However, I also believe that there are different kinds of absolutely true truths, and that contradictory things can be simultaneously true.

I agree with that too.

Usually there is impersonal truth (things that just are, regardless of the observer -- such as the atomic composition of iron, or how cells divide, or who actually performed a particular action). They are statements of fact and replicable: People observing at different points in time will come to the same answer.

But as soon as an observer is involved and someone is determining the relevance or motivation or impact of something, well, those sorts of "truths" become more fluid and can be even paradoxical in nature.

The inclusion of human beings with limited perspective (and we are all limited -- we cannot see everything from every side from every point of view all at once) results in a multiplicity of observations.

So the truths in the secondary category can seem to conflict. And there are also conflicts when truths in the second category masquerade as truths in the first.

It seems to me that NFs tend to focus on this latter type more than the first type. It is very important for me to understand the latter, but the only category that has "certainty" is the first. I can draw loose rules for the latter, but they are general rules, not specific ones.