[NF] Why Immature F-ers give me the creeps?

[Magic Poriferan]

I'd say both types of people are pretty awful. Too much so and too complexly for me to say which is generally worse.

 

[Mondo]

What about when people make decisions based on (faulty) thought that harms others in some sort of way?

Having a reason makes the perpetrator of a crime less culpable? Anyone can attempt to logically justify anything... even murder of innocents.

I would probably consider the reason to be wrong and unjustified.
It is true that anything can be logically justified, however that means almost everything dealing with subjective matters can be refuted logically.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I would probably consider the reason to be wrong and unjustified.
It is true that anything can be logically justified, however that means almost everything dealing with subjective matters can be refuted logically.

This goes back to something that's oft discussed on the forums... my opinion is that any argument concerning human affairs (politics, art, literature, sociology) has to be grounded on some fundamental set of value judgments, which rely entirely on feeling. No matter how much pride one takes in one's logical thinking, one is bound to value judgments without which one would have no grounds for an argument relating to human affairs.

More simply put, any logical argument concerning human affairs relies on Feeling. Mind can only follow Heart.

 

[ThatGirl]

Ok. When I said I was very busy today I meant it so I don't have the time to go into detail like I wanted to and I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if this has already been said.

In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.

When basing your life on feeling rather than thought you open yourself up to lots of failure and lots of disappointment that you will blame on others.

No one can make everyone happy and if your goal is to be happy it is best to abandon that will from early on.

Sorry if that didn't make sense I am literally typing while people are talking to me through the bathroom door so. I will get back as soon as I can.

 

[disregard]

In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.

Bullshit, anyone?

Get it while it's hot!

 

[2XtremeENFP]

In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.

Whoa. I'm a Feeler and I definately made decisions based on NOT hurting other people's feelings. I tend to do what I feel isn't selfish and tend to put other's needs over myself. I'm such a strong F that if i know a certain decision would better myself but ultimately make things worse for another person, I will do whatever I can to make sure that I'm not being selfish.

Some Ts that I know [stress on some...] don't use their Feelings enough that they tend to hurt other peoplebecause they aren't thinking about the others needs. Some that I know think only about what can better their situation without looking at it from anothers point of view.

I guess that I feel that some Fs look more at the situation from both point of views and some Ts dont consider the other's feelings.

 

[heart]

In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest.

You stated this as if it is fact. Really it is just your opinion/theory. I really hesitate to call it your theory because you don't do a very good job of supporting the opinion except to say it is what you think.

Do you have any data to back this statement up? Where is the proof that feelers are the most likely ones who seek revenge? Like if you could go through the records for all the revenge killings in a major US city for last year and then tally up the number of feelers verses thinkers and show with some evidence, then I could accept this statement as fact. Otherwise it's just your opinion/theory.

They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest

Yet BW told us thinkers tend to put sympathy aside. Which is it?

Without sympathy, the natural course would seem to be towards self interest over the interests of others. Too many mouths to feed in the row boat? Start tossing them overboard, unless you need their mind for something later, otherwise they are dead weight taking away from your own chances of surviving. (to make clear I am saying this is what would happen in the situation without basic human sympathy.)

When basing your life on feeling rather than thought you open yourself up to lots of failure and lots of disappointment that you will blame on others.

Self-hate is a feeling too. So is shame and guilt.

No one can make everyone happy and if your goal is to be happy it is best to abandon that will from early on.

Wow, I've never realized this. Thank goodness a thinker came along to tell me!

(Taking your meaning here to be saying that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Your meaning was a bit unclear here.)

Sorry if that didn't make sense I am literally typing while people are talking to me through the bathroom door so. I will get back as soon as I can.

It made sense in that I could understand the content, but honestly it sounds mostly like a rant. You've done nothing but give opinions, which is fine, but don't believe you've made some sort of rational, clear-cut argument here.

 

[CzeCze]

I'm confused. Bluewing, didn't you vote to be an INFP if you could be any type?

 

[Algora J]

In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.

When basing your life on feeling rather than thought you open yourself up to lots of failure and lots of disappointment that you will blame on others.

I completely agree. Feelers can be very vindictive, but so can Thinkers when they are stressed out.

 

[ThatGirl]

This is being written on my phone and sometimes I can't type fast enough to resemble a straight line of thought.

Conversation between a policeman ENFJ friend and I.

Me: can you get me one of those stickers for my car that get me out of tickets

Him: no those stickers don't really get people out of tickets

Me: so what does can I get a sticker for my liscense?

Him: I don't know what you are talikg about but you need one of these *pulls out police liscense id*

Me: can you get me one of those

Him: sure just make it through the academy you'll get one

Me: well that's not going to happen so how do you decide if someone gets out of a ticket or not.

Him: well if someone is getting pulled over it means that you are breaking the law in the first place

Me: so the law doesn't always take into account circumstance they should.

Him: the law is the law its your job to uphold it

Me: so what if someone wasn't intending to break the law but the circumstance was unavoidable they are not likley to do it again unless the situation presented itself at which point it is reasonable.

Him: it doesn't matter the law is the law. If we let some slide we are not doing our job. People try to screw you if they can and I a$ done catering to individual circumstances. But mostley if someone knows that what they did was wrong and they have no priors they are likey to get a warning.

Me: so someones past dictates whether or not they get a ticket in any given situation. That's not right each incident should be evaluated on the same basis. Your job is to remain objective *warrents are different*

Him: you don't understand you can pull someone over for a tail light out and find a bag of dope on them. In which case you are thankful they had a tail light out.

Me: that doesn't matter a tail light is a tail light. I get pissed when someone pulls me over for something stupid because they assume that I am up to no good. And I am not very nice in respect to the harassment that they give off of no prior evidence.

Him: the law is the law. You cannot cater to everyone it is the majority law that you must uphold.

Me: but what about extenuatimg circumstances don't you think leaneancy is bennificial there. *states some examples* not everything fits into a black and white box

Him: people lie about a lot of those things and you can't let everyone off the hook.

Me: so you judge everyone on a narroe perception. And punish those who are otherwise law abiding citizens despite the urgent circumstance.

Him: the law is the law but I will tell you the quickest way to get a ticket is by having an attitude like that?

Me: so people you would otherwise let off the hook, if they are percived as having attitue or annoyance over the situation, you will surely give them a ticket?

Him: absolutley, that's isn't smart and not a good decision on their part

Me: is it against the law to give attitude to a police officer?

Him: no but where I may have let you off now I won't.

Me: why? I thought the law was the law and that's it

Him: if someone wants to play johnnj hard ass with me then they are getting a ticket

Me: so you may have let them go to begin with?

Him: not after they showed attitue and thought they were bad ass. Especially when I am the one who can either say yay or nay to the ticket.

Me: so because he offended you or hurt your pride he gets a ticket

Hime: I wouldn't have pulled him over if he hadn't done something wrong

Me: but you are saying that the only thing standing between you and the ticket is how you feel about how he handelded the situation. What about the law is the law. Its not personal. It is personal if that is how you base your judgment for punishment.

Him: I hope you have bail money

WTF? Fs tend to take everything personal

 

[Little Linguist]

"I felt like it" is an SP response, not an F response.

I would never justify an action with "I feel like it". Among my possible rationale, which may or may not be based on F or T might be:


I thought I was doing the right thing.
I had believed it was the best thing for everyone (i.e.: win-win situation).
It did/did not fit in with my values/beliefs.
I had a gut feeling (intuition, one could say) and I went with it (not the same thing as 'I felt like it,' which implies an id/base rationale).
After careful analysis and weighing the issues, I decided to do X.
After performing a cost-benefit analysis, I realized Y was the right course of action.
Due to my experience in this field, I thought Z would be the right choice.
Due to input from various independent and objective sources that corroborated what I felt, I decided to do N.
Because of the circumstances and people involved, I had to choose Q.
After process of elimination, I realized D was the only choice.
Association helped me to choose R.

But an exchange like this:

"My God, George, why the hell did you do that?!?!!?!?"
"Ahhh, who gives a shit, Mary. I just felt like it!!!"
"What?!?!!? That's not a reason!!! I want a reason, damn it, damn it!!!"
"Because."
"Because why?!"
"Because. Just because. Period."



DOH!!!!! Answers like that drive me to drink.

You can be sure I have a reason. Perhaps a rational one. Most likely a judgmental one. Probably an emotionally-based one. But hell, at least I HAVE one. And not just an id-based "Dude, 'cause it's cool!!" or "Hell, yeah, man, rock on!!!" or "Because." or "Because I felt like it." or "Dude, live or die."

People like this make me wanna scream.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And most will also agree that this statement has great potential for inhumanity. It has also BlueWing's typical vagueness. We can apparently presume that all people suffering in a Thinking society are to blame for their suffering, due to a lack of strength, which seems unreasonably general/presumptuous. Also, what defines this strength, and what degree of it counts as strong enough, is left a total mystery. Nor is there even a hint at how this happens. The statement is basically empty fluff, it could mean almost anything. It's only clear quality is that it states people who suffer are weak, and it's not a problem if weak people suffer. This is an ethically unagreable statement, and most likely an ignorant one as well..

In this context strength is defined as the ability to adapt to the current environment. If you need help, state your needs clearly. If we decide that it is useful to the society to help you, as you will be of use to us, therefore you are adaptable, or strong. If we decide that it is not useful to help you, than you are maladjusted, therefore weak.

First of all, I've already made it as clear as possible that the definition of rationality concerns all Judgement. It does not have an bias toward Thinking...
We've been over this before. Yes, rationale has to do with reason It is not specified that rationale/rationality has exclusively to do with logical reasoning, it just has to do with some kind of reasoning.

All reasoning is logical reasoning. Logic is the only way that exists to rationalize. As it represents the very laws of thought. (Famously argued George Boole, Laws of Thought. ) Non-logical reasoning merely represents a failed attempt to utilize laws of thought or reason clearly.


Thus Thinking is in closer affinity with rationality because it corresponds directly with the laws of thought. Feeling does not. As Feeling by definition is a mere emotive signal in favor of disfavor of a notion.

We've been over this before. Yes, rationale has to do with reason.].

You could say Feeling seems to be part of reasoning the regard that it debauches logic by substituting genuine laws of thought with our fancies, but it is not worthy of the name of 'reasoning' because it is destitute of the very essence of 'reasoning' or logical coherence.

First of all, I've already made it as clear as possible that the definition of rationality concerns all Judgement. It does not have an bias toward Thinking...

There is rational judgment, and non-rational. Good Thinking is by definition rational. Feeling is not. It violates the logical form by claiming that an idea is true because 'I feel like it'. Hence, even if Feeling arrives at the correct conclusions, it is not rational because it violates the logical form. It commites a 'formal' logical fallacy.


What have we here?

I once again point out that save a few field specific definitions, reason refers to any form of Judgement, not just Thinking,

Really?

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

I once again point out that save a few field specific definitions, reason refers to any form of Judgement, not just Thinking,

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.

Your claim holds for number 1 as the basis could be deemed illegitimate. This is an abuse of reason however for the aforementioned reasons. Hence, this definition is colloquial rather than linguistically precise.

Same with number 2, as a statement presented in justification could be unsound. However, the purpose of 'reason' or 'justification' is to put up a sound argument. The two are not applicable to the definition of reason as they represent debauchery of the faculty rather than sound use thereof.

3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.

This represents the ability to form judgments, yet again, not precise enough of a definition as the purpose of reasoning is not well served unless such conclusions are logically valid.

5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

This one is very colloquial if not most colloquial of them all, yet in closer affinity with the true definition of reason as it underlines sound thinking.

6. Logic. a premise of an argument.

This one is irrelevant to the vernacular specie of the term reason.

7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

This one is the most technical and the most accurate. Clearly pointing out reason as a faculty to acquire truth. Hence, we have our earlier distinction between good use of reasoning where thinking is sound, and the bad use where it is unsound.

b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

This one is sound as well, as it insists on only good thinking being considered reasonable.

c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

This one is irrelevant to the definition of reason in the vernacular and the term here is redefined to befit Kantian metaphysics.

Reason is defined as exercise of cognitive faculties to the end of arriving at logically valid thinking and at a later point at sound arguments which by definition lead to truth. Logicians like Bertrand Russell and our contemporary Willard Omar Quine have argued persuasively that the purpose of logic should be to help us arrive at the truth, not to merely concoct logically consistent figures of reasoning.

Now. Lets take your claim further and pretend that a thought process does not need to be good or logical thinking in order to be considered reasonable.

How about this.

If I had a scratch on my toe, I was scratched.

I had a scratch on my toe.
Therefore I was scratched.

Logically valid argument. Modus Ponens form. If A then B. A. Therefore B.

Now.

If I had a scratch on my Toe, I was scratched.
I was abducted by aliens.
Therefore I was scratched.

If A then B.
FHIDIFDSIDSOHFFDS

therefore B.

Logically invalid argument.

Reasonable?

Or how about

If Bill clinton is 6 foot 10, he is the tallest man in America.
Bill Clinton is 6 foor 10.
Bill Clinton is the tallest man in America.

Logically valid argument, but unsound because it contains false premises.

It is common sensical to esteem men who are able to think clearly and come up with the most adequate ways to deal with the current situation reasonable. Is there a reason to call a man who cannot put his thoughts together, or is divorced from reality (has inaccurate facts. EG Bill Clinton is 6 foot 10) reasonable, man of common-sense, down to earth, pragmatic? In our colloquial terms, all of these words are intimately intertwined.

Thus good thinking is to be defined as synonymous with reasonable thinking, and bad thinking as unreasonable. Failed attempt to be reasonable. The very opposite of reasonable.

The next question to ask is, does Feeling involve faulty reasoning? Feeling in itself is only a sentiment in approval or disapproval of what the Thinking which supports it informs it to be the nature of the object. So feeling in itself is not to be directly associated with a flawed attempt to reason. It is the Thinking in the feeler which is enslaved by Feeling that leads to flawed reasoning by replacing genuine laws of thought with the fancies of the Feeler.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

^ NO logical system to date has been able to capture the wide range of inferential steps that are encompassed by the human thought process.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

^ NO logical system to date has been able to capture the wide range of inferential steps that are encompassed by the human thought process.

This does not preclude the possibility of further progress.

We need to keep going. Get as far as we can possibly get.

If it were possible for humans to be purely thinking beings then yes likely you would be right. The problem I was describing is when feeling exists but is either not percieved or not admitted to or it is even feared.

The more you rely on Feeling the more likely you are to be directly affected by your prejudices when clear-headed thinking is necessary.

It is bad enough that even the most hard-core of Ts have Feelings to deal with, no need to exacerbate the issue by dwelling on the sentiments further.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No I didn't overlook anything, I simply pointed that out intentionally as an example of a thinker using "logic" to justify feeling motives. .

'Intention' is not relevant. What we have to deal with is the statements made explicitly.

If she said that her personal motives were the deciding factor in the claim that Feelers are irresponsible and immature than your claim would have been relevant. But this is not what she said.

Intense Thinking preference is not able to tell whether one's decisions are being affected by feelings because they neglect Feeling,.

If Thinking is done soundly, being affected by Feelings is not relevant. What we have is the objective logical form with which you must check in with to see if your reasoning is sound. If your emotions threw you off the rails, you could see where you've made the error by virtue of the objective formula, and therefore will be forced to redo the thought process.

I don't read here where she's made the delineation about feelers that you claim she has. She just says F people and F'ers. Since she hasn't, why should I assume she's making any exceptions? .

You look at what is said. Feelers by definition means 'some' feelers. The 'some' may involve all, may not be all. It is an unwarranted assumption that it refers to all rather than not all. It is a very vague term. The onus is on the writer to clarify the meaning of it. As a reader, your information is insufficient to complete that thought.

Therefore we adduce that ThatGirl did not claim that her message depicts all Feelers.

Yet BW told us thinkers tend to put sympathy aside. Which is it?

Without sympathy, the natural course would seem to be towards self interest over the interests of others. Too many mouths to feed in the row boat? Start tossing them overboard, unless you need their mind for something later, otherwise they are dead weight taking away from your own chances of surviving. (to make clear I am saying this is what would happen in the situation without basic human sympathy.)

You have it backwards. Fs do have sympathy, but far more for themselves than for others. It is all about making themselves feel good, perhaps through being sympathetic to others on occassion. This only changes through cultivation of the Thinking faculty.

Cutting down on sympathy altogether allows for one to make the most rational decisions possible. Most fitting for the given situation. It does not matter what the person wants to do, even if you were right that lack of sympathy makes one want to be selfish, he will do what is rational to do, not merely what he desires.

The next question to ask is, does a Feeling attitude or the Thinking attitude lead one to act more in self-interest?

Thinking attitude is merely concerned with what is rational. There it is the impersonal interest of rationality no further. The Thinker may be forced to use logic for self-interest by his own emotions, but that is clearly the dictates of Feeling. This is more common among Feelers than Thinkers.

Feeling in itself leads to merely doing 'what I felt like'. Whoever is truly commited to reason should be influenced by this urge much less than someone who is ruled by emotions.

The selfishness is innate in Feeling, it is often however masked by altruism when Feelers wish to feel good about themselves by reaching out to others.

Case in point.

When I was younger I would react this way often to others. I felt as it was my duty to make people feel good about themselves probably because I was insecure and wanted the affection back..

Clearly thinkers are motivated by emotional self-interest to use logic as well. However this selfish urge is much less pronounced in them than in feelers simply because emotions play a smaller role in their psyche. They could even push certain emotions aside in favor of doing what is pragmatic. Promoting the impersonal interest of reason over their own whims, certainly at the bottom it is inspired by self-promotion, yet much of the selfish urge had to be quenched in order to do what is contrary to instinct in favor of what is pragmatic.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

^ NO logical system to date has been able to capture the wide range of inferential steps that are encompassed by the human thought process.

This does not preclude the possibility of further progress.

We need to keep going. Get as far as we can possibly get.

Then you can't hold forth on this:

"All reasoning is logical reasoning. Logic is the only way that exists to rationalize."

It's just a bald asseveration at this point.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Then you can't hold forth on this:

"All reasoning is logical reasoning. Logic is the only way that exists to rationalize."

It's just a bald asseveration at this point.

I do not understand.

What we know is that we know many ways in which we could use logic soundly, just because we do not know all ways in which we could use it soundly does not mean that we do not know some ways in which it could be utilized well.

Again logic is the proper form of reasoning. This statement is completely irrelevant to whether we have discovered all proper forms of reasoning. Our ignorance of proper methods of reasoning does not preclude them from existing.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

You're saying:

"For all x that is rationalizing, x is [the use of] logic."

But since we haven't mapped the human thought process to a comprehensive model which proves that, your statement is unjustified.

Also, you haven't rigorously defined exactly what 'logic'. Even if we could represent human inferential techniques in a strict and comprehensive model, it wouldn't change the fact that all arguments relating to "human affairs" must ultimately rest on a value judgment.

You've never adequately defended your thesis against this issue.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You're saying:

"For all x that is rationalizing, x is logic."

But since we haven't mapped the human thought process to a comprehensive model which proves that, your statement is unjustified.

I am completely lost now.

Do we need to know how all laws of thought operate in order to say that we know how some laws of thought do?

Our model is very comprehensive. There are just a few minor things we have not figured out. For the very least we have our basics down very well.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I am completely lost now.

Do we need to know how all laws of thought operate in order to say that we know how some laws of thought do?

Our model is very comprehensive. There are just a few minor things we have not figured out. For the very least we have our basics down very well.

I totally disagree with this.

____________________

statement: No human being can live beyond the age of 165 years.

counter-statement: No human being has ever lived past the age of 164 years.

____________________

We haven't come up with good systems to account for why we intuitively feel that the counter-statement is a good defeater for the statement. Also, use of probability and Bayesian systems runs into the Lottery Paradox and sundry other issues.

You're also not taking into account major breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, whose revelations about consciousness and the time-space continuum are revolutionizing the way we think about how human thought interacts with the world and which modes of reasoning are the best... particularly since on a Planck plane many of our most cherished basic laws of logic (like the law of non-contradiction) are not universally valid.

To be fair, quantum physicists weren't the first to discover this... Nagarjuna expounded on the tetralemma back in the 1st millennium. There were others too...
_________________________