• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NF] Communicating between Fe and Fi

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here, time for a real-life example:

What do we make of this at least in regards to Fe (and potentially Fi?):

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Sharon Stone's "karma" comment is having an instant effect on her movie-star status in China.

The 50-year-old actress suggested last week that the devastating May 12 earthquake in China could have been the result of bad karma over the government's treatment of Tibet. That prompted the founder of one of China's biggest cinema chains to say his company would not show her films in his theaters, according to a story in The Hollywood Reporter.

"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," Stone said Thursday during a Cannes Film Festival red-carpet interview with Hong Kong's Cable Entertainment News. "And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?"

Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless, according to the Reporter.

UME has branches in Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Hangzhou and Guangzhou, China's biggest urban movie markets.

During the brief interview, which has also surfaced on YouTube, Stone also said she cried when she received a letter from the Tibetan Foundation asking her to help quake victims.

"They wanted to go and be helpful, and that made me cry," she said. "It was a big lesson to me that sometimes you have to learn to put your head down and be of service even to people who aren't nice to you."

Stone's words created a swell of anger on the Internet, including at least one Chinese Web site devoted solely to disparaging her comments.

"To Sharon Stone's comment, it's unlikely that we will respond," said a woman who answered the phone at the Foreign Ministry in Beijing. She refused to give her name or position.

After-hours phone calls and email to a representative for Stone were not immediately returned Tuesday night.

Story here.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
I dunno, but Sharon Stone was one of the most unresolved "type that celeb"s we ever discussed due to her Mensa IQ and ability to present herself the way she wants to present herself. Perhaps this foible will let us see more into her ways?

This is clearly an Fi based foible, right?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I dunno, but Sharon Stone was one of the most unresolved "type that celeb"s we ever discussed due to her Mensa IQ and ability to present herself the way she wants to present herself. Perhaps this foible will let us see more into her ways? This is clearly an Fi based foible, right?

Her comments seem Fi originating to me, but I was more focused on the obvious big to-do regarding Fe demands by China and other organizations.

(i.e., they weren't actually interpreting her comments straight-forwardly, based on content, they were focused on the social context and timing and what was socially "(in)appropriate.")
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Her comments seem Fi originating to me, but I was more focused on the obvious big to-do regarding Fe demands by China and other organizations.

(i.e., they weren't actually interpreting her comments straight-forwardly, based on content, they were focused on the social context and timing and what was socially "(in)appropriate.")

Yes. She'd be the Fi, they'd be the Fe reactors.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
It does seem insensitive to me to say the death of over 100,000 people is retribution. The earthquake is a tragedy in it's own right. I think she should be able to recognize that and not confound the two. Is now the time to address China's treatment of Tibet while they're still digging thousands of people out of rubble? I'm not saying it can't be criticized, but her timing is horrendous and, uh, inappropriate.

So as far as her social faux pas is concerned, I think that while she ultimately has a point, she'd advance her cause a lot further if she had better timing. Like for instance, if Tibet comes through and offers China aid money, it would be a better time to say what it because circumstances would be more congenial to the statement.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
It does seem insensitive to me to say the death of over 100,000 people is retribution. The earthquake is a tragedy in it's own right. I think she should be able to recognize that and not confound the two. Is now the time to address China's treatment of Tibet while they're still digging thousands of people out of rubble? I'm not saying it can't be criticized, but her timing is horrendous and, uh, inappropriate.

So as far as her social faux pas is concerned, I think that while she ultimately has a point, she'd advance her cause a lot further if she had better timing. Like for instance, if Tibet comes through and offers China aid money, it would be a better time to say what it because circumstances would be more congenial to the statement.

Absolutely, I agree with you. I'm saying it would take using Fe to get to this logic, and that she clearly wasn't using it. I didn't mean "reactors" in a negative term, just a neutral fact term.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I think what happens when I'm supposed to give my feelings on a topic is that if there's anything there, there will be an outpour, but soon I have no idea what I'm talking about and just end up muddling the issue.

Sorry.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I don't really believe in Karma. It is as distasteful a comment as when a small child dies a horrific death and people say "It's God's will" to comfort a grieving parent.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I don't really believe in Karma. It is as distasteful a comment as when a small child dies a horrific death and people say "It's God's will" to comfort a grieving parent.

Why would a God punish a people for what their overlords do?
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Since I'm up late enough to find bandwidth here to post.... (we've been continuing the thread at The Other Other Place)

Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
It does seem insensitive to me to say the death of over 100,000 people is retribution. The earthquake is a tragedy in it's own right. I think she should be able to recognize that and not confound the two. Is now the time to address China's treatment of Tibet while they're still digging thousands of people out of rubble? I'm not saying it can't be criticized, but her timing is horrendous and, uh, inappropriate.

So as far as her social faux pas is concerned, I think that while she ultimately has a point, she'd advance her cause a lot further if she had better timing. Like for instance, if Tibet comes through and offers China aid money, it would be a better time to say what it because circumstances would be more congenial to the statement.

Usehername
Absolutely, I agree with you. I'm saying it would take using Fe to get to this logic, and that she clearly wasn't using it. I didn't mean "reactors" in a negative term, just a neutral fact term.

Jennifer
The forum's down over there again. (sigh) So I missed anything that was said.

I don't disagree with PM. Definitely a large social faux pas. I guess I just tend to see more than one side. So I understood what Stone intended and could overlook her really bad timing, but I also see why people were so offended and took it the way they did.

It just is frustrating when you see two sides digging into their particular worldview (and I guess this really is an Fi vs Fe sort of tussle) without just acknowledging what was intended or that the other side has a point, then coming to a workable compromise. Neither side takes responsibility for their own reaction/interpretations, they blame their behavior on the other side. Lines get drawn and both sides fight for their own view. meaning the truth (which needs to incorporate both views) is inevitably distorted.

Is that Ti at work? I don't know.

Proteanmix
I don't think that people don't see the multiplicity of sides, it's just knowing how to strike when the iron is hot, how much pressure to use, how many strikes you need, what do you want the object to eventually become, that kind of thing. In other words, DIPLOMACY.

Diplomatic people pick their words very carefully and use them wisely, not a bunch of scattershots thrown every which way. So it's not about being able to see as many sides as possible it's about choosing a path that doesn't get your nads blown off.

Athenian200
Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
I don't think that people don't see the multiplicity of sides, it's just knowing how to strike when the iron is hot, how much pressure to use, how many strikes you need, what do you want the object to eventually become, that kind of thing. In other words, DIPLOMACY.

Diplomatic people pick their words very carefully and use them wisely, not a bunch of scattershots thrown every which way. So it's not about being able to see as many sides as possible it's about choosing a path that doesn't get your nads blown off.
I think this is a good point. There's no denying that the other point is valid, even if it hurts people. The question is, based on people's tendency to view such a thing as a slight, especially at a time when they're confused, frustrated, and need support... is it a good time to bring up the point if actually you want to acheive the objective you likely had in bringing it up, rather than eliciting defiance and hostility? As they say, "Let not the right hand know what the left is doing." Never show your actual cards (intentions) if you want to win.

The point is, sometimes you have to say or express something other than the truth in order to acheive the objective you have because you know the truth. You should say something that makes the person more likely to do the thing you want them to, rather than something that increases awareness of what is being done. Awareness can inhibit action rather than promoting it, sometimes.

Proteanmix
Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post

The point is, sometimes you have to say or express something other than the truth in order to acheive the objective you have because you know the truth. You should say something that makes the person more likely to do the thing you want them to, rather than something that increases awareness of what is being done. Awareness can inhibit action rather than promoting it, sometimes.
As Machiavellian as that sounds, it's very true.
I was having this exact conversation with one of my coworkers today at lunch, about knowing how to tell someone the truth about themselves in such a way that it won't destroy them.

So taking this Sharon Stone comment, I for one never disagreed with what she said. When I get into conversations with FPs about this kind of moral/ethical dilemma stuff we almost never disagree about content, but we usually disagree about delivery. Her delivery sucked ass, plain and simple. What she said isn't untrue, but people won't receive it unless you dress it up for them and cut it into bit-sized portions in compartmentalized plastic plates.
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
Here, time for a real-life example:

What do we make of this at least in regards to Fe (and potentially Fi?):

It could probably go both ways, but more importantly, she's a stupid F-eeling bitch. 'Nuff said. Karma is for suckers.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
It could probably go both ways, but more importantly, she's a stupid F-eeling bitch. 'Nuff said. Karma is for suckers.

Preettty sure she's smarter than you, with her MENSA qualifying IQ and all. Just sayin'. And I don't know how literally she meant that; I perceived it as more of an existential, deep conversation on the topic of human interaction, not karma specifically, though she probably did wonder about that. But she said she wondered about it, not that she believed it. I definitely read it as her just putting thoughts out there, not making any definite conclusions.
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
Preettty sure she's smarter than you, with her MENSA qualifying IQ and all. Just sayin'. And I don't know how literally she meant that; I perceived it as more of an existential, deep conversation on the topic of human interaction, not karma specifically, though she probably did wonder about that. But she said she wondered about it, not that she believed it. I definitely read it as her just putting thoughts out there, not making any definite conclusions.

Perhaps. I'll cut her some slack for "pondering" rather than "believing". I don't doubt that she could of thought of those existential human interactions - I did as well when I read the article. Where is my media circus? Kidding aside, my problem lies in her lack of action. She just reminds me of a person with a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker - it's a marketed passive "belief". If it matters to her so much, why hasn't she actively gone over to make a nationally recognized Tibet a reality? (I'm aware of the philosophical inquiries regarding "freedom" - in this case, sovereignty from China)
 
Top