• 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.

[MBTI General] F mystery debunked

Status
Not open for further replies.

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
Night said:
You don't have to agree with me. My opinion is mine alone.
It's less a matter of agreement than a matter of acknowledging the plausibility of what you've suggested.
 
Last edited:

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What is the relevance, Jennifer?

The relevance of what -- that he's a self-promoter interested in getting others to buy into his ideas, rather than a communicator interested in conveying his ideas in ways that his audience can digest?

I think it's obvious.

You note that the disagreement here is not about what is possible but what is plausible.

I think that a two-year failure to communicate with two general audiences would make the former case seem much like plausible than that latter. Regardless of BW's intent (which could be to constructively help "humanity" or whatever, I can see that being some sort of undeveloped and raw desire within him), his ego rather than his audience is still the primary beneficiary of his efforts.

How do we know this? Because he's consistently unwilling to accommodate the needs of his audience. Instead, he satisfies his own personal needs in the communication. The pattern doesn't lie. HE wants to feel like HE is contributing; that's the priority.

Until the ego gets out of the way, the communication will not be effective.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Jennifer's right. My IMs with him show nothing to the contrary.

And yes, I say that knowing full well that when I get home from work tonight, there's going to be a series of messages attacking my assessment skills.

I welcome them.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
It's less a matter of agreement than a matter of acknowledging the plausibility of what you've suggested.

My plausibility?

I don't think you want this fight, Dana. Your weapons are dull.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
Seriously, Night. How could you have possibly interpreted my post to be a personal attack or an attack of any sort?
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
We're clearly not speaking to the same concepts.

This issue is growing stale. Let's move on.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
Let me clarify what I said..

I wasn't simply agreeing with you... I was acknowledging the plausibility of what you suggested...

Meaning, I do not know for *sure* that what you are saying about BW's intent is true, as neither of us are BW; given that, I acknowledge that it is quite likely that the reason you have given to be true.

But, that was before Jennifer posted, and that seems even more likely.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Then, the error is mine.

I apologize for the misconception.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Thus when they say the wall is red, they are not talking about the actual wall, but about their feelings about the wall.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that T's only respond to the actual wall, whereas F's merely respond to their own interpretation of the wall. This is false, everyone has their own interpretation of the wall, F and T affect what it is you prefer about the wall. As do all the other functions.

And of course whether or not they be saying it is red depends on their mood and the moods of those around them. It all depends on whether or not they like red or those they converse with do, and of course a myriad of subjective emotional implications that go along with this.

Once again this can be applied to all people. What a person focuses on is going to be wildly affected by their moods, and moods are unrelated to F and T functions. (look at the calm and limbic traits in another personality theory)

Some claim that Feeling is a rational function, that it sticks to values and the Feeler does what he believes in. That is not true at all, as too often we hear them say 'but I don't feel like it' or 'I am not in the mood' or just simply 'doesn't feel right'. If he were acting out on principles he would say, this is what I believe in, this is a matter of fact, completely objective, and this is what I shall do. Doing this requires a tough-minded attitude with and aptitude for objective reality which manifestly requires a Thinking faculty. Feeling does not have any firm principles as it is this profoundly infused in the flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh.

A theme your post seems to have is F functions=emotional functions. This is not true, F functions have no relation to emotions, they relate to values and feelings. Values and feelings are constant I assure you, they are also based on, or at least strongly related to, reality. An F who is not acting on these values is called an unhealthy F, because they cannot actually see/stop themselves defying their own values.

T's are based on principles, a rule which helps them achieve a particular thing and that they see as true, they gather these together and normally aim to discover more. F's on the other hand, set out values, which admittedly can seem arbitary (e.g I want to be a kind person) and then set out to achieve them or come closer to them.

Of course, values strongly influence T's, and principles the same to F's.

Very often their goal is to be liked by others, and when relating to others they utter total non-sense and play the hurt feelings card when Thinkers do not reciprocate. Of course, we ought to know that what they say has nothing to do with making sense or matters of fact, its all about how others will react to them and what feelings it will evoke. Words are simply extensions of gestures like smileys, nods, head-shaking, laughter and so on. When they express what seems to be an objective opinion, especially about people, this has nothing to do with objective reality, it is inevitably an expression of their feelings. When I listen to this, it is reminiscent of..

Again this is an emotionally driven person. Anyone who is currently being driven by emotions is going to act like this (depending on the emotion of course), regardless of F and T functions.

It is incredibly frustrating how self-assured they may be and how on a heat of passion they may assert their opinions with great vehemence hardly paying attention to the fact that what they say has very little, if any basis in objective reality. That would be fine as long as they acknowledged their claim as an expression of sentiment, but they pass it off as fact. This is what 'your feelings are valid' cant is about. We are supposed to budge into the unreasonable expectations they impose upon us as if what they said was a matter of fact, matter to be taken seriously. They hardly see a problem with changing their mind or maintaining the exact opposite of what they claimed earlier, as once more their claims are but expressions of sentiment, they bare no rational judgment, and their feelings may change like weather. As after all where could they get a backbone if not from solid, dispassionate judgment. A kind of judgment that treats ideas as true or false, matters of fact and not matters of mood-what we tend to associate with the Thinking function. This they sorely lack.

See above.

They pride themselves on sensitivity to other people, fear offending others, but strikingly fail to realize that many people (like me) are deeply offended when they do not take their thoughts seriously. (When a T shares a well thought out perspective or a solution to a problem, they just go on about their personal experiences on the matter or how they still feel the same way, in effect not having presented any evidence of reflection upon the claims they are responding to.)Thoughts that other people have devoted much effort to. Fail to honor the personal values of some people concerning consistency and clarity, simply do not understand that for some of us it is important for situations to make sense. Fail to honor the value of truth, as because some of us need for the situation to make sense it is more important to call it like it is as opposed to wallowing in heart-warming fantasy. As well as they fail to communicate clearly (again the value of the need to make sense) because they're too caught up in making it sound 'nice'.

More false F stereotypes. F's can be cold, rational, insensitive and uncaring. T's can not care about your theories and thoughts, be completely emotional and irrational, and sit there crying to Forest Gump.

Fs...please dont respond...I dont want to know if its a sad day..I dont want to know if your other INTP friend appreciates F..I dont want to know about how it will feel good if I do X...I just want a simple, impersonal reply to the above statements.

And the same again.

tl;dr I recommend you rethink (refeel?) your definition of F and T functions.
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
To everyone assuming they know BlueWing's intentions: Why are you guys assuming? You can guess but you can't know for sure. You're not inside of him. A lot of things point in certain directions but still, you can never know for sure.

I'm not assuming anything.

I mean in another post I said that I assumed he was venting but I really meant to say that if I were to assume then that's what I'd assume. I really don't know what his goal is.
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that T's only respond to the actual wall, whereas F's merely respond to their own interpretation of the wall. This is false, everyone has their own interpretation of the wall, F and T affect what it is you prefer about the wall. As do all the other functions.



Once again this can be applied to all people. What a person focuses on is going to be wildly affected by their moods, and moods are unrelated to F and T functions. (look at the calm and limbic traits in another personality theory)



A theme your post seems to have is F functions=emotional functions. This is not true, F functions have no relation to emotions, they relate to values and feelings. Values and feelings are constant I assure you, they are also based on, or at least strongly related to, reality. An F who is not acting on these values is called an unhealthy F, because they cannot actually see/stop themselves defying their own values.

T's are based on principles, a rule which helps them achieve a particular thing and that they see as true, they gather these together and normally aim to discover more. F's on the other hand, set out values, which admittedly can seem arbitary (e.g I want to be a kind person) and then set out to achieve them or come closer to them.

Of course, values strongly influence T's, and principles the same to F's.



Again this is an emotionally driven person. Anyone who is currently being driven by emotions is going to act like this (depending on the emotion of course), regardless of F and T functions.



See above.



More false F stereotypes. F's can be cold, rational, insensitive and uncaring. T's can not care about your theories and thoughts, be completely emotional and irrational, and sit there crying to Forest Gump.



And the same again.

tl;dr I recommend you rethink (refeel?) your definition of F and T functions.


yuuuup.
true.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Silencing the opposition, not a fallacy, but its not very respectful.

Well, it may not be a fallacy, but it is still means he is failing to perform critical thought. Part of being a critical thinker means having the ability to acknowledge other points of view. It doesn't mean you have to agree, you just have to acknowledge them. That's obviously not possible when you are barring people from providing their point of view.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Hasty generalization. Your describing an unbalanced F in a bad mood. Strawman fallacy as well, which makes sense because if you're attacking an entire group (F's) your view is going to be distorted (you can't accurately describe an entire group of people, especially just when its the F part of Mbti when Fs will be very different depending on other Mbti features.).

This would have been the case if I indeed was generalizing, or trying to explain how all Fs work, or how Fs in general tend to be. I have already covered this point. Review earlier posts..)

Weak Analogy fallacy with the intent of damaging the opposition (partial Ad Homineum because you're referencing Osama bin Laden when talking about Feelers)..).

The analogy is strong. The point was 'jibberish'. Arguments containing logical inconsistencies can indeed be categorized as jibberish. They cannot be sound in their own right, they're simply non-sense. This is an apt criticism for the phenomenon I have cited earlier. Bin Laden image was not part of my argument. You may as well turn off the video and focus strictly on the audio.

Once again the 2 mentioned before. You're obviously describing a Specific person with the characteristic "F" that you're upset with, however you continue flagrantly throwing the word "they" around.)..).

See above for how the term 'F' and they were used.

Also..

No True Scotsman fallacy.)..).

Comment to Jennifer was not an argument. Was a personal hunch.

You could have made this thread ALOT more constructive very easily. You could have described the specific F or Fs that you are having problems with (maybe even their specific types), described why you have the problems with them (not in heated rant fashion), and then asked everyone here (not just T's) what we think about it and if there is a possible solution or understanding to be formed.


So long as you think of 'persons' and 'human behavior' when you think of 'Fs' or any other type, you will always be off the mark.

See my essay 'Problems of Typology'.

Here are three such instances where he qualifies some of what he is saying. He seems to be working on definitions that are different than what most readers of MBTI function information are familiar with. That is why I say that he is a little guilty of the fallacy of proof by assertion- at first he simply states his definitions without providing evidence or reasoning, but then comes back and adds to them a little more each time someone questions him. That is probably why his original post inspired a lot of outrage.

I will also say in his defense that although a lot of the OP was fallacious, so also were a lot of the comments it received. Argumentum ad Hominem, of both the abusive and tu quoque (especially this one) flavors, seemed to be a favorite among the majority of respondents (not all).

I have provided a very detailed rationale for how I have defined my terms in the essay of 'problems of typology'. Those who are familiar with my earlier posts should be well aware of how my system is distinct from MBTI.

The relevance of what -- that he's a self-promoter interested in getting others to buy into his ideas, rather than a communicator interested in conveying his ideas in ways that his audience can digest?

I think it's obvious.

You note that the disagreement here is not about what is possible but what is plausible.

I think that a two-year failure to communicate with two general audiences would make the former case seem much like plausible than that latter. Regardless of BW's intent (which could be to constructively help "humanity" or whatever, I can see that being some sort of undeveloped and raw desire within him), his ego rather than his audience is still the primary beneficiary of his efforts.

How do we know this? Because he's consistently unwilling to accommodate the needs of his audience. Instead, he satisfies his own personal needs in the communication. The pattern doesn't lie. HE wants to feel like HE is contributing; that's the priority.

Until the ego gets out of the way, the communication will not be effective.

My ego mainly wants to learn. Its all in favor of my systems that I worship. I communicate with others, consciously and unconsciously to further my thought experiments. Most of the time I am baffled by the emotionally motivated responses I get. I truly do not take people into the equation. Its just an idea, cold and dispassionate as far as I am concerned, no need to dramatize it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I have provided a very detailed rationale for how I have defined my terms in the essay of 'problems of typology'.

I realize that now. Unfortunately I was unaware that I needed to have familiarized myself with your 'literature' before posting in this thread. Perhaps in the future you should attach a list of required reading.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
My ego mainly wants to learn. Its all in favor of my systems that I worship. I communicate with others, consciously and unconsciously to further my thought experiments. Most of the time I am baffled by the emotionally motivated responses I get. I truly do not take people into the equation. Its just an idea, cold and dispassionate as far as I am concerned, no need to dramatize it.

I'm calling "bullshit." Ideas serve a purpose, too. MBTI theories end their analyses at this point and will have you believe that NTs or INTPs juggle ideas for their own sake and use people as tools to refine theories. (I've read the descriptions, too, Seahorse.) It's bullshit. There's always a motive, and people like us who are addicted to modeling are chasing after something as well: relief.

Not only that, but I'm not convinced that people are just tools to help you refine your ideas. You might use them as tools on occasion, but you still have social needs that rise above your need to model ideas, however dirty or impure you think they might be.

This isn't dramatizing, it's analyzing and observing the bigger picture.
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
He's testing to see how well his book will sell.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, BlueWing, it seems more like you're just using every method in the book to convince yourself, and possible even others, that you're right.
That's really not the same as seeking to learn.

If I'm right about this, then you are making a mistake characteristic of one of your functions. No, not Thinking. I mean Intuiting. You have the idea that you just spring up in your head, and then you devise "reasoning", and do "observations", that really serves no other aim then to confirm what you've already thought of. Freud was one of the worst perpatrators of this.

If you are really seeking to learn, then you're supposed to let the debating process build the idea. Not whip up the idea, and then go through the whole debating process defending and pushing it. That would be persuasion, not learning.

You're complaining about what are effectively the subjective qualities of Feeling, but you forget that while Feeling is the subjective mode of judgement, Intuition is the subjective mode of perception, and you are succumbing to the worst kind of Intuitive subjectivity.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, BlueWing, it seems more like you're just using every method in the book to convince yourself, and possible even others, that you're right.
That's really not the same as seeking to learn.

If I'm right about this, then you are making a mistake characteristic of one of your functions. No, not Thinking. I mean Intuiting. You have the idea that you just spring up in your head, and then you devise "reasoning", and do "observations", that really serves no other aim then to confirm what you've already thought of. Freud was one of the worst perpatrators of this.

If you are really seeking to learn, then you're supposed to let the debating process build the idea. Not whip up the idea, and then go through the whole debating process defending and pushing it. That would be persuasion, not learning.

You're complaining about what are effectively the subjective qualities of Feeling, but you forget that while Feeling is the subjective mode of judgement, Intuition is the subjective mode of perception, and you are succumbing to the worst kind of Intuitive subjectivity.

I have a very strong feel you're right! Both of you, you and Edahn! This may change when I wake up this morning in 2 hours! Yes, Intuition is a subjective mode of judgment, or perception, whatever it will feel to me then!

Obviously if I want to learn I dont just state an idea and think about it, I seek to find out whatever most people FEEL the answer is, and change accordingly!

Yes, yes it is all about the overwhelming need for acceptance, this is why we talk ideas in the first place, for the 'social need' as Edahn very eloquently puts it! The social need eclipses all other needs one may have, it is the underlying drive for all our activity, no matter how much anyone may deny this, I have a very strong FEEL this is it. Absolutely! Every other 'need' we may have is but a disguise for this one! Its a disguise for this 'dirty impulse'. Logical rigor, careful thought..etc..its all obviously non-sense. It is all a matter of Feel after all! Everything we do, starting from basic 2 plus 2 make 4 to complex proofs of mathematics are but an expression of this wondrous FEEL which is a disguise for our dirty impulse social need! Whoever Loves the truth more shall please us most with his discoveries! The mathematician who appeases our prejudices most of all is the one with all the right answers! Who could of thought!? I just cant be wrong, let noone dare say otherwise, unless of course I wake up on a different side of the bed soon..

And Magic! You're my favorite INTP on the board! Noone has pointed out such noble truth with such picturesque rigor.

Oh yes, Edahn, this isnt dramatizing either. This is just a response to the picture with a very cool, rigor seeking, detached eye, that I put forth on occassion! Who knows, maybe the next day, I'll take image A from self 12, Image Z from shelf 561, and Image XTZ from shelf 1021, scramble them all together and call it VERY careful, consistent and focused observation aimed at putting a whole coherent view together.

What..what..what are you all looking at me for! I have a very strong FEEL this is the truth, 'BULLSHIT', 'BULLSHIT' I call on to all of you..who may disagree in advance! I sense it! I sense it! This is all part of me THOROUGH OBSERVATIONS! OBSERVATIONS I TELL YOU! Dont you dare question how I come up with these observations! I sense it and thats period!

Yes, magic again,

Whoever does this!

If you are really seeking to learn, then you're supposed to let the debating process build the idea. Not whip up the idea, and then go through the whole debating process defending and pushing it. That would be persuasion, not learning.
.

Obviously does not love the truth! How dare him be right, who GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO BE RIGHT, lets look around here, does such a person here think HE COULD BE RIGHT? If everyone feels this way, how could the truth be to the contrary!

I'm calling "bullshit." Ideas serve a purpose, too. MBTI theories end their analyses at this point and will have you believe that NTs or INTPs juggle ideas for their own sake and use people as tools to refine theories. (I've read the descriptions, too, Seahorse.) It's bullshit. There's always a motive, and people like us who are addicted to modeling are chasing after something as well: relief. .

Indeed! Descriptions, descriptions! All they are! Make sure when you go to think about this again YOU NEVER DARE TAKE ANY SYSTEM IN MIND..THOSE ARE JUST IDEAS..THEY ALL BUT SERVE A DIRTY PURPOSE TO COVER OUR PERSONAL NEED WHICH IS ALL OUR ACTIONS ARE ABOUT! Remember, a person is always doing more than just collecting information and making decisions, he is telling jokes, picking his noses, laughing etc..this is what it is..no need to analyze it further or even dare thinking to systemize! What more grievous sin could there be than putting such a HOLY matter as 'FEEL' and 'people' into Categories. Any impersonal thought must be sheer grave wickedness! How dare them, philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, Jung..have the obstreperousness to let us sink thus far! They have left us bereft of all our human dignity.

Bow to our revrt to romanticism and stone age! FEEL ITS POWER! DONT THINK ABOUT IT! Remember, next time you dare THINK, Think the 'DIRTY SECRET', that ought to teach you...
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'd be the last person to say that truth was a matter of giving into popular sentiment. That has nothing to do with my point about learnng through the process of debate. It has nothing to do with my point about going too far to confirm your own beliefs.

I'm disgusted by your sarcastic floundering. It is indicative of someone who is defeated and denies defeat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top