[NF] NF Arrogance

[Southern Kross]

The claim was "Secondly, it's kinda bullshit, because NTs rarely admit they are bad at feelings."

If I thought the OP's admission wouldn't be sufficient, I'd have admitted it as well in an earlier post. I am bad at feelings, at least compared to an NF or SF. I can't see any reason for other NTs to hesitate to admit the same.

Not seeing when emotions apply may be a flaw of NTs, but it is not the same as the claimed flaw: that we don't admit to being bad at it.

No, my reply was to the immediate post that was quoted above what I wrote. Ti style argument forces me to comb through immediate details as they come (which I would honestly rather not do), so that's what I was doing. Don't make out that I'm just shifting the argument to suit myself.

The OP made the claim that NTs readily admit to being bad at feelings. My point is that our definitions differ wildly on what constitutes the emotional-driven aspects of life, and that when NTs do admit to it, they are often only admitting to being bad at emotion as defined within their very narrow parameters, that they may have a sense of disdain for anyway. The rest of the Feeling realm that isn't just raw emotion, they often still claim to be good at. To me that renders the admission inaccurate, if not dishonest, and perhaps even a veiled boast in the guise of humility.

Ignoring emotional elements can cause them to no longer be a factor. Even if we can't ignore emotional elements, separating them out and considering them separately from everything else is often reasonable, and can simplify analyzing the rest. Even when emotional elements are inextricably intertwined in something, at least some parts of it can be separated out and considered apart from emotional considerations.

I agree, but there can be something of the Dunning-Kruger effect involved, where the Thinker believes they understand more than they do. I'm sure the same thing happens with NFs with regard to impersonal logic, but this is less of an issue as it can be judged by more objective standards (even if they were to refuse to accept that fact). But it can be harder to prove to Thinker that they are overestimating their ability/understanding when it comes to subjective elements, even if it is true. As a Feeler, this can be very frustrating.

Pursuing objectivity is neither blind nor arrogant. It's a very good idea. Even if we can't reach the goal of perfect objectivity, getting a reasonably close approximation is well worth the effort.

Done right, it's not a blind spot, it's something that *helps us find our blind spots*.

I agree to some extent, but there are downsides, as with the blind men and the elephant analogy. In the pursuit of objectivity, subjective data or bias is often ignored or swept under the carpet without recognizing how it can undermine that whole process.

Again, I do not mean to claim Feeling is superior to Thinking; there is need and room for both. I only meant to point out that there can be misguided flaws in 'objective' analysis. This is not to say it is worthless; only that it is imperfect, like subjective analysis. If you can't recognize that then you are simply making my point for me.

Is there a difference? If so, what is it?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[ancalagon]

Ti style argument forces me to comb through immediate details as they come (which I would honestly rather not do), so that's what I was doing.

What is your ordinary/preferred style?

The OP made the claim that NTs readily admit to being bad at feelings.

He supported this by admitting it. So did I. There wasn't any hesitation, nor did we try to hide/downplay/qualify it. I see no reason to doubt that other NTs would generally do the same thing.

My point is that our definitions differ wildly on what constitutes the emotional-driven aspects of life, and that when NTs do admit to it, they are often only admitting to being bad at emotion as defined within their very narrow parameters,

Sure.

that they may have a sense of disdain for anyway. The rest of the Feeling realm that isn't just raw emotion, they often still claim to be good at. To me that renders the admission inaccurate, if not dishonest, and perhaps even a veiled boast in the guise of humility.

I think the 'veiled boast' thing you keep bringing up is not a very good point. Sure, there are probably a few people who do that, but I doubt there are many. For one thing, being bad at feelings doesn't make you good at logic. For another, Thinkers don't always devalue Feeling as much as you think. Maybe we don't value it in the way you do, or as much, but that doesn't mean we think it's worthless.

There is nothing dishonest in the admission either. I think you are reading into us an emotion that (at least for most of us) just isn't there. I don't feel any sort of shame at being bad at feeling, anymore than I feel shame at being bad at drawing. My drawing is one step above stick-figures, certainly not the worst in the world, but any real artist could draw circles around me without trying. But just because the artist could understand my mistakes better than me doesn't mean he can reasonably claim that I'm dishonest when I say I'm bad at drawing.

I'm not exactly sure exactly what you're referring to when you say "The rest of the Feeling realm that isn't just raw emotion". I don't believe that NTs regularly claim to be good at that. I suspect you may be using the word 'claim' in a funny way.

there can be something of the Dunning-Kruger effect involved, where the Thinker believes they understand more than they do. I'm sure the same thing happens with NFs with regard to impersonal logic,

Agreed.

In the pursuit of objectivity, subjective data or bias is often ignored or swept under the carpet without recognizing how it can undermine that whole process.

There are two ways to interpret 'ignored' here.

If you mean that the misleading effect of subjective biases is ignored, then that's not objectivity, it's an attempt at objectivity that failed.

If you mean that subjective ideas or biases or emotions are ignored on purpose where they aren't relevant, that's a good attempt at objectivity (though it may still fail to be perfect).

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You appeared to be claiming that there's a difference between "Truth" and what is found by "hard, impersonal logic". I was asking what the difference was. It may have something to do with the fact that you spelled Truth with a capital T.

 

[Qlip]

While it might be true that NTs may admit that they are bad at feelings, for the most part I've noticed that they disregard the importance of them. This could be seen as arrogance from a certain vantage, like for instance, an NF vantage.

 

[Southern Kross]

What is your ordinary/preferred style?

As a Fi-dom I'm simply not as detail-oriented as Ti-doms. Being a Te user also means I have difficulty with argument based on the idea that nothing can be assumed and everything must be proven in painstaking detail.

This is not the fault of Ti-users by any means, but it is so very exhausting for me.

He supported this by admitting it. So did I. There wasn't any hesitation, nor did we try to hide/downplay/qualify it. I see no reason to doubt that other NTs would generally do the same thing.


Sure.


I think the 'veiled boast' thing you keep bringing up is not a very good point. Sure, there are probably a few people who do that, but I doubt there are many. For one thing, being bad at feelings doesn't make you good at logic. For another, Thinkers don't always devalue Feeling as much as you think. Maybe we don't value it in the way you do, or as much, but that doesn't mean we think it's worthless.

There is nothing dishonest in the admission either. I think you are reading into us an emotion that (at least for most of us) just isn't there. I don't feel any sort of shame at being bad at feeling, anymore than I feel shame at being bad at drawing. My drawing is one step above stick-figures, certainly not the worst in the world, but any real artist could draw circles around me without trying. But just because the artist could understand my mistakes better than me doesn't mean he can reasonably claim that I'm dishonest when I say I'm bad at drawing.

I'm not exactly sure exactly what you're referring to when you say "The rest of the Feeling realm that isn't just raw emotion". I don't believe that NTs regularly claim to be good at that. I suspect you may be using the word 'claim' in a funny way.

There are two ways to interpret 'ignored' here.

If you mean that the misleading effect of subjective biases is ignored, then that's not objectivity, it's an attempt at objectivity that failed.

If you mean that subjective ideas or biases or emotions are ignored on purpose where they aren't relevant, that's a good attempt at objectivity (though it may still fail to be perfect).

You do insist on missing the point, don't you?

You appeared to be claiming that there's a difference between "Truth" and what is found by "hard, impersonal logic". I was asking what the difference was. It may have something to do with the fact that you spelled Truth with a capital T.

I mean that some 'Truth' can be found in impersonal logic and some 'Truth' can be found in subjective logic; neither Thinkers nor Feelers can be said to better at recognizing Truth.

While it might be true that NTs may admit that they are bad at feelings, for the most part I've noticed that they disregard the importance of them. This could be seen as arrogance from a certain vantage, like for instance, an NF vantage.

Agreed. I have been trying to say the very same thing.

 

[ancalagon]

While it might be true that NTs may admit that they are bad at feelings, for the most part I've noticed that they disregard the importance of them. This could be seen as arrogance from a certain vantage, like for instance, an NF vantage.

I can't really see how that could be interpreted as arrogance.

Let's try flipping this around. If an NT were to say that NFs disregard the importance of logic, and that this was arrogant, would you agree?

I mean that some 'Truth' can be found in impersonal logic and some 'Truth' can be found in subjective logic; neither Thinkers nor Feelers can be said to better at recognizing Truth.

This doesn't say what you mean by "Truth".

You do insist on missing the point, don't you?

I have been trying to say the very same thing.

If what you're saying is that what Qlip said is what you've been saying all along, why didn't you just say it? Why are you still insisting that NTs don't admit being bad at feeling if that's not what your point is?

 

[prplchknz]

You know if I'm arrogant fine, whatever, I'm probably better than you anyways.

 

[Qlip]

I can't really see how that could be interpreted as arrogance.

Let's try flipping this around. If an NT were to say that NFs disregard the importance of logic, and that this was arrogant, would you agree?

Yes, I would, or at least I might.

The arrogance in either situation, which are both common, is the disregarder considering anything beyond their personal abilities of little value. Arrogance is a defense mechanism used to bolster self importance.

 

[Starry]

I can't really see how that could be interpreted as arrogance.

Let's try flipping this around. If an NT were to say that NFs disregard the importance of logic, and that this was arrogant, would you agree?

You can't see how dismissing the importance of the way in which another individual formulates conclusions, etc. (what information is made use of/guides the individual) might be perceived as arrogant? What would you interpret it as? Fact?

 

[ancalagon]

You can't see how dismissing the importance of the way in which another individual formulates conclusions, etc. (what information is made use of/guides the individual) might be perceived as arrogant?

Not really. What is important is what the conclusion is, whether it's correct, and how we can know that it is actually correct. How they got there is usually irrelevant.

It can be relevant, if the topic is itself about how people think, or if someone is trying to teach someone something that they aren't getting and they need to be able to explain it so that it is understood, or if two people are trying to communicate and there's a bad enough misunderstanding that knowing how the other person thinks is necessary to understand what they're saying at all, or something like that.

What would you interpret it as? Fact?

Basically. It's a fact that they reached that conclusion, so it must be a fact that there was a way for them to reach it.

 

[Qlip]

Not really. What is important is what the conclusion is, whether it's correct, and how we can know that it is actually correct. How they got there is usually irrelevant.

It can be relevant, if the topic is itself about how people think, or if someone is trying to teach someone something that they aren't getting and they need to be able to explain it so that it is understood, or if two people are trying to communicate and there's a bad enough misunderstanding that knowing how the other person thinks is necessary to understand what they're saying at all, or something like that.


Basically. It's a fact that they reached that conclusion, so it must be a fact that there was a way for them to reach it.

Hah, I don't want to speak for Starry. But it's assuming that most situations have a 'correct' conclusion, and that there are even 'correct' ways for other parties to assess the 'correctness'. This is Fi talking, we tend to find such impositions arrogant. For us truth is subjective.

I find things like 'correctness' are hard to evaluate when the goals are not shared. Goals are functions of values, which really aren't factually verifiable. From an MBTI perspective, this could be prioritized by any of the rational functions.

 

[ancalagon]

But it's assuming that most situations have a 'correct' conclusion, and that there are even 'correct' ways for other parties to assess the 'correctness'. This is Fi talking, we tend to find such impositions arrogant. For us truth is subjective.

I find things like 'correctness' are hard to evaluate when the goals are not shared.

I think you guys are definitely using different definitions of 'truth' and 'correctness'. 'Truth' and 'correctness', as I mean them, aren't things subject to mere personal opinion or things that are affected by sharing or not sharing goals.

For example, in Return of the Jedi, when Luke confronts the Emporer, they both have wildly different opinions about all sorts of things -- whether the Empire or Rebels should win the battle, whether the Emporer's intent to slaughter all of Luke's friends was pleasant or unpleasant, whether the Death Star's main weapon being operational was a good or bad thing, etc. But they did agree that some things were true. They both knew that the Death Star's main weapon was operational, that the Emporer's intent to slaughter all of Luke's friends, and that there was a battle going on.

When the Emporer patted Luke's lightsaber and said "You want this, don't you?", he was correct. Their goals were nearly opposites, but the correctness of that statement was not hard to evaluate at all.

 

[Qlip]

I think you guys are definitely using different definitions of 'truth' and 'correctness'. 'Truth' and 'correctness', as I mean them, aren't things subject to mere personal opinion or things that are affected by sharing or not sharing goals.

For example, in Return of the Jedi, when Luke confronts the Emporer, they both have wildly different opinions about all sorts of things -- whether the Empire or Rebels should win the battle, whether the Emporer's intent to slaughter all of Luke's friends was pleasant or unpleasant, whether the Death Star's main weapon being operational was a good or bad thing, etc. But they did agree that some things were true. They both knew that the Death Star's main weapon was operational, that the Emporer's intent to slaughter all of Luke's friends, and that there was a battle going on.

When the Emporer patted Luke's lightsaber and said "You want this, don't you?", he was correct. Their goals were nearly opposites, but the correctness of that statement was not hard to evaluate at all.

Yes, but you're elevating objective truth only by the virtue that it's verifiable. This is the purview of the Thinker. It's the subjective truths are the things that caused the conflict, that were central the the reason the story exists, the truth of the Empire and the truth of the Rebels. The movie itself, of course, doesn't give you the space to ponder the complexities. It makes it easy to tell, cuz Nazis.

Anyway, I find it ironic that you're using Star Wars in this little conversation. We were discussing about the propensity for NTs to dismiss the importance of emotion, whether they acknowledge it or not, and all-the-bad-shit in the movie happens because the Dark Side takes advantage of those unaware of their feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

 

[ancalagon]

Yes, but you're elevating objective truth only by the virtue that it's verifiable.

I'm not elevating anything, that's just the ordinary meaning of the word.

It's the subjective truths are the things that caused the conflict, that were central the the reason the story exists, the truth of the Empire and the truth of the Rebels.

So when you say 'truth', you mean feelings/opinions/values?

all-the-bad-shit in the movie happens because the Dark Side takes advantage of those unaware of their feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

I don't think we should take a movie morality based on a fictional mystical energy field too seriously, but if we did, it would be more like 'the Dark Side is feelings'.

 

[pmj85]

This may have already been discussed, but I'm going to arrogantly skip to the end.

Has anyone ever experienced inadvertent alienation? Sometimes I get the distinct impression that people simply don't like me for some completely indiscernible reason. This thread (and the observations of those close to me) has made me wonder if it is indeed to do with appearing arrogant. For example, I'm currently training to be a counsellor. The other week I got to practise my skills on a '''client''', and was praised for my performance. I was totally humbled by the experience because, long story short, I was dealing with a genuinely horrible thing. Truth be told I was fighting back the tears - as were my fellow students who were observing. I took the praise graciously and thanked people for their input.

The week afterwards, people's attitudes had noticeably changed towards me... for the worse! Not everybody, but a few of my classmates are shunning me so hard that their disapproval is palpable. Now, I'm not usually one for giving much of a shit about what people think of me; I'm a good person who seeks to do no harm, so if someone takes a dislike to me, well... balls to them, but this? This is just weird. Did I come across as arrogant, or something?

I also made the mistake of offering a small bit of constructive criticism (it was being pushed for) after another classmate had finished her practise session. I was met with silent but vehement disapproval. Recipient of said criticism (which was measured and fair - I'm a fucking INFJ, come on!) no longer speaks to me.

Ugh. People.




/rant.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think he's right.

To a certain extent. It's hard to beat NT analysis, as much as I hate to admit it.

What I know about NTJs is that N of the F type is fuzzier and harder to nail down. It's more irrational, because T is more rational than F. Therefore, it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges.

Basically, it just means arrogance comes more easily to NT, than NF. NFs naturally feel arrogant sometimes, but we know as a negative emotion, it isn't ideal, so we have inner conflict. It's as simple as that.

 

[tkae.]

Most INFP's are women, and since most INTP's are wildly insecure about women and their own intellects, this is just a hit-piece on the that specific group, couched in the 'fair and balanced' manner of the cardigan wearing NT 'father class'. NT's always try to sell themselves as sensible, even when they are being irrational and petty. Ever notice that? I have noticed it, even though I 'can't think'. Can some rationalist tell me what to do? I can only feel...

... what? lol

The person who said it is a male NF and this is a discussion entirely based on type. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it, and if you draw misogyny from it, then you're the one framing it in that way and need to work through your own issues about it, because it's obsessiveness with an issue when you inject it into neutral discussions.

My first question is what do you think of this idea of NF arrogance?

I don't think it's arrogance so much as typical self-doubt that we tend to have, and it's hard to tell where the line between human stops and INFP starts on that issue. Introverted feelers would be more prone to feeling self-doubt, I guess. That could make sense. Whether it's true or not, I don't know. As far as feeling better than NT type thinkers at NT type thinking, that's absolutely not true. I've never felt that way ever in my life lol

We might feel delusions of competency occasionally, but we're feelers. We feel lots of things. It's like asking a professional taster if they've ever tasted a kind of fruit. It's not based on actual reason, so I don't think saying we ever "think" we're better at something is that great of a way to put it. We may "feel" it, and that's irrational since it's a feeling. But don't we all do that? We do good at something and think it puts it at a higher level of capability than we are based on rational and objective reasoning?

So on that part of the question, no, I don't think that's true. I think it might happen, but the conclusions drawn from it are wrong.

 

[AzulEyes]

I don't follow that NFGeeks guy any longer. He is scary to interact with. Something is not right with that guy.

 

[Thalassa]

I think this is incorrect. I have also seen NT types be very arrogant in the wrong way, meaning they think their intelligence is the only type of intelligence. Is there a right way to be arrogant? If so I think Se doms might actually be that, because the way Se is arrogant actually serves a tangible purpose, and that is to swindle others.

 

[vorfreude]

"I also think it's possible NFs, and feelers in general, react to the negative stigma attached to feeling and emotions by inflating their perceived thinking abilities to compensate."

I think this is it... especially true for the males... the word "perceived" might be a bit harsh though

 

[Quay]

This may have already been discussed, but I'm going to arrogantly skip to the end.

Has anyone ever experienced inadvertent alienation? Sometimes I get the distinct impression that people simply don't like me for some completely indiscernible reason. This thread (and the observations of those close to me) has made me wonder if it is indeed to do with appearing arrogant. For example, I'm currently training to be a counsellor. The other week I got to practise my skills on a '''client''', and was praised for my performance. I was totally humbled by the experience because, long story short, I was dealing with a genuinely horrible thing. Truth be told I was fighting back the tears - as were my fellow students who were observing. I took the praise graciously and thanked people for their input.

The week afterwards, people's attitudes had noticeably changed towards me... for the worse! Not everybody, but a few of my classmates are shunning me so hard that their disapproval is palpable. Now, I'm not usually one for giving much of a shit about what people think of me; I'm a good person who seeks to do no harm, so if someone takes a dislike to me, well... balls to them, but this? This is just weird. Did I come across as arrogant, or something?

I also made the mistake of offering a small bit of constructive criticism (it was being pushed for) after another classmate had finished her practise session. I was met with silent but vehement disapproval. Recipient of said criticism (which was measured and fair - I'm a fucking INFJ, come on!) no longer speaks to me.

Ugh. People.




/rant.

I often feel this way. I'm starting to see the arrogance others see in me as a value system I have for myself, simply put. Whenever I express myself, it's because I have thought and felt it out.

NFs naturally feel arrogant sometimes, but we know as a negative emotion, it isn't ideal, so we have inner conflict. It's as simple as that.

Yep. Always the inner conflict. It lessens as I grow older. Thank Goodness.