Odd idea about (some) NT's and NF's.

[Athenian200]

I was thinking about a Star Trek episode in which Data was contrasted with Spock. Spock is half-human, but seeks to be completely logical and free of passion. Data is an android, but seeks to be more human.

The idea this gave me was Spock as representing NT's in a way, and Data representing NF's in another way.

So here's my idea... could it be that our first two (conscious) functions represent what we consider important, how we try to live? Like Spock's desire to be completely logical and free of passion, and Data's desire to be human?

And conversely, could our weaker functions represent our limitations in pursuit of that? Like Spock's being half-human and Data's being an android?

The reason I thought this was interesting was because I think it gives a picture of how our less conscious functions have as much influence over us as our more conscious ones.

Data may or may not be an NF, but it seemed to me that there's something NF-like in the idea of a "quest to be more human." I think on some level, we must seek meaning because we don't have the innate sense of purpose that many other types seem to have intrinsically. Not to the extent an android doesn't, but a similar quality may be there in some way.

After all... who seeks what they already have?

What do you think?

 

[wildcat]

I was thinking about a Star Trek episode in which Data was contrasted with Spock. Spock is half-human, but seeks to be completely logical and free of passion. Data is an android, but seeks to be more human.

The idea this gave me was Spock as representing NT's in a way, and Data representing NF's in another way.

So here's my idea... could it be that our first two (conscious) functions represent what we consider important, how we try to live? Like Spock's desire to be completely logical and free of passion, and Data's desire to be human?

And conversely, could our weaker functions represent our limitations in pursuit of that? Like Spock's being half-human and Data's being an android?

The reason I thought this was interesting was because I think it gives a picture of how our less conscious functions have as much influence over us as our more conscious ones.

Data may or may not be an NF, but it seemed to me that there's something NF-like in the idea of a "quest to be more human." I think on some level, we must seek meaning because we don't have the innate sense of purpose that many other types seem to have intrinsically. Not to the extent an android doesn't, but a similar quality may be there in some way.

After all... who seeks what they already have?

What do you think?

Marilyn Monroe was an android. Well, not exactly. I know that you have heard of her. She was a famous actress long before you were born.

She had a quest to be more human because she did not have an innate sense of purpose.

She said she was a phony. That is how she looked to herself.
Do you have this feeling? That you are a phony?

I do not know if Marilyn was an NT or an NF. Probably NT.

I always had a feeling that I am a phony. Even now, whenever I post, I always think: A phony post, I am a phony.
This is because I do not have the innate sense of purpose.

I think this is a phony post.

 

[Athenian200]

She said she was a phony. That is how she looked to herself.
Do you have this feeling? That you are a phony?

Not really... I feel more that I'm searching for something to define myself by. Nothing ever seems to capture it as well as I'd like.

It's more that at times I feel a vague sense of something missing, an innate understanding I think other people have. I want to know what it is, and what it means.

I always had a feeling that I am a phony. Even now, when I post, I always think: A phony post, I am a phony.
This is because I do not have the innate sense of purpose.

Why does not having an innate sense of purpose make you phony? How can you be untrue to something that doesn't exist?

I think this is a phony post.

For what reason?

 

[wildcat]

Not really... I feel more that I'm searching for something to define myself by. Nothing ever seems to capture it as well as I'd like.

It's more that at times I feel a vague sense of something missing, an innate understanding I think other people have. I want to know what it is, and what it means.



Why does not having an innate sense of purpose make you phony? How can you be untrue to something that doesn't exist?


For what reason?

Other people (= the bourgeoisie) have the innate understanding and certainty. It is therefore they do not feel phony. They feel the opposite of phony.
Colin Wilson called the phony an outsider. The title of his book.

To be a phony I think is to recognize that we live in a hostile, indifferent space. It is called the Universe. An existentialist philosophy.

For what reason? The existentialists do not have the answer.

 

[Athenian200]

To be a phony I think is to recognize that we live in a hostile, indifferent space. It is called the Universe. An existentialist philosophy.

Does this make you phony because it isn't the case, or because it is?

For what reason? The existentialists do not have the answer.

Are you an existentialist?

 

[wildcat]

Does this make you phony because it isn't the case, or because it is?



Are you an existentialist?

How could I think it isn't the case? If we know anything about existence, we are existentialists, we recognize it is the case: It is the recognition that makes us feel phony.
The bourgeoisie have the innate certainty because they do not see where they live. Their unfounded illusion is called realism.

 

[Athenian200]

How could I think it isn't the case? If we know anything about existence, we are existentialists, we recognize it is the case: It is the recognition that makes us feel phony.

That seems ironic. If you are the one who is not deluded, why is that you are the one who feels phony?

The bourgeoisie have the innate certainty because they do not see where they live. Their unfounded illusion is called realism.

So they are certain because they are capable of accepting an illusion that I can barely even see? Interesting.

 

[ygolo]

Funny. I identify more with Data (after he got his emotion chip) than Spock.

I would like to understand my feelings and those of others. Its funny, in a strange way, I got my "emotion chip" a few years after I hit puberty. Until then, pepole (including my own dad) used to accuse me of being emotionless and robotic.

Every now and then people will still do an impersonation of me as a robot. But that hasn't happened in years.

 

[Xander]

NTs versus NFs. I'm amazed a war has not broken out!!

First off I think your reasoning is perhaps too polarised but as I think I've said similar before I'll just move on.

In reference to yourself (I'm not thinking of getting answers in reference just using you as my example ) there is the possibility that you are indeed an NF but one who has by circumstance been indoctrinated as a T and has thereby adopted the INTJ approach to things. A parallel example to this is my brother in law who despite being an ENFP types as an ENFJ and seems to be an ENFJ, it is only in the details that you see he is a caged person and that his P is trying to break out. He does insane kind of neurotic pictures of geometric shapes covering A3 sheets done first in pencil with rulers and such then gone over in pen. A painstaking process.

In direct reference to your question, I'd say that it's not that NFs desire to be more human or that NTs desire to be more machine like but rather the T thinks first of the thought and the F of the emotion. Also I guess ti could be termed as the focal point of their judging process with Ts supporting the most reasoned solution (in preference) and Fs supporting the most compelling solution (in preference).

I think that what Spock best represents is the NT claim to being creatures of logic alone and them struggling internally to suppress the emotions which they claim not to have.

 

[Mycroft]

Other people (= the bourgeoisie) have the innate understanding and certainty. It is therefore they do not feel phony. They feel the opposite of phony.
Colin Wilson called the phony an outsider. The title of his book.

Odd. In America, it's the bourgeoisie children of bourgeoisie parents who start up crappy rock bands and screech about being phonies and outsiders.

 

[wildcat]

Odd. In America, it's the bourgeoisie children of bourgeoisie parents who start up crappy rock bands and screech about being phonies and outsiders.

Exactly.
A touch of irony.
A reminiscence of the "phony" outsiderism of the Hippy movement of the 60s.

The baby boomers were rich in number. Too rich.
It did not help if the daddy was rich.
Unless he was very rich.
Even the elevated did not enter college.

To add insult to injury: There was a war going on.
It did not go well.

Only the college kids were safe.
The traditional kids of the traditional families were not safe.

A paradigm.
When Hitler invaded France in 1940, forty per cent of the communist leaders turned fascist.

A son in the crappy rock band attracts the attention of the father.

 

[Xander]

Athenian,
After reading through the more philosophical posts on here, I often read these threads piecemeal sorry, I have a few more thoughts.

What is it that causes a problem which causes you to search for a definition for yourself or some load points upon which to hang a definition/ label (after all definitions are labels)?

Do you recognise that as an individual you are more likely to find contradicting things which are true of you than congruent ones?

Would you not agree that a wise man loses a piece of certainty every day? If so why?

Does knowing that an apple is an apple change it's flavour? Obviously not so the question should be, why search for a definition?

Oh and in an intuitive side point, have you tried the enneagram or some other such psychological tool and see if that fills in the gaps? For example me as a pure INTP doesn't work too well because I'm actually quite sociable (you'd never guess ) however the enneagram and the FIRO Behaviour tests in particular have filled in a lot of those gaps and now I'm fairly confident that I've got a damn good psychological model of myself. Of course I was interested in finding the correct definitions to better understand myself, I'm querying your reasoning only because it's often the question people forget to ask.

 

[Mempy]

My first thought was that Data was more NT-like and Spock was more NF-like. They could both be very extreme examples of an NT and an NF who wanted to master what they were not very good at. In essence, the T did not feel complete or happy without developing his F, and the NF did not feel complete or happy without developing his T. However, both are taking it to an extreme and behaving in an unhealthy way, because instead of looking to simply balance their dominant functions with their weaker functions, they're looking to completely transform themselves, permanently.

Spock is an NF in the sense that he believes he is not innately logical and that in order to become happy he must become more logical. Data is NT-like in the sense that he is not innately sensitive and thinks he will achieve happiness by becoming more sensitive.

Just adding my two cents. I really liked the way you looked at it, too. If we simply want to capitalize on our strengths and enhance our innate gifts, we would develop our dominant functions, yet we are in a sense held back by our other functions, weak though they may be. But in another light, it's really an essential and good thing that we don't become the epitome of our top two functions. Someone approaching life with just their top two functions would seem pretty crazy and undeveloped. I can't even picture what it would be like if a person could only access their top two functions. How scary would that be?

In a sense, even in our top four functions we all have an innate dichotomy, or "rift." An INFP's top two functions are Fi and Ne, followed DIRECTLY by the exact OPPOSITE of those two functions, Si and Te. Not only is there sensing, but it is directed inward, in the opposite direction of intuition. The thinking is also directed in the opposite direction of feeling. Fascinating, really. We're all paradoxes! Good paradoxes.

 

[Athenian200]

I think that what Spock best represents is the NT claim to being creatures of logic alone and them struggling internally to suppress the emotions which they claim not to have.

Yes, that was what I was thought.

But remember, I only meant it as a metaphor. It was more to show how a person can strive for one thing, but is always resisting it's opposite to some extent to do so.

My first thought was that Data was more NT-like and Spock was more NF-like. They could both be very extreme examples of an NT and an NF who wanted to master what they were not very good at. In essence, the T did not feel complete or happy without developing his F, and the NF did not feel complete or happy without developing his T. However, both are taking it to an extreme and behaving in an unhealthy way, because instead of looking to simply balance their dominant functions with their weaker functions, they're looking to completely transform themselves, permanently.

Really? I never thought of it that way.

Fascinating, really. We're all paradoxes! Good paradoxes.

Yeah. I think so too.

 

[FallsPioneer]

Exactly.
A touch of irony.

I've had enough of irony these days.

When you're around enough people who aren't like you, don't like you, or don't receive enough validation for who you are, you're going to think something is wrong with yourself. No one human being is that strong, unless cold.

 

[disregard]

By the use of "some" in the thread title, I am going to assume that you mean certain types, not a random sampling of NFs and NTs.

And conversely, could our weaker functions represent our limitations in pursuit of that? Like Spock's being half-human and Data's being an android?

The reason I thought this was interesting was because I think it gives a picture of how our less conscious functions have as much influence over us as our more conscious ones.

Very true, but only for a healthy individual, who is seeking a well-rounded approach to life. For the rest, their inferior functions have far too little influence on their being.

Data may or may not be an NF, but it seemed to me that there's something NF-like in the idea of a "quest to be more human." I think on some level, we must seek meaning because we don't have the innate sense of purpose that many other types seem to have intrinsically. Not to the extent an android doesn't, but a similar quality may be there in some way.

Perhaps this is true of the INFJ--that an innate sense of purpose and humanness is absent.. or at least for you, but it most certainly is not the case for the INFP. INFPs are purpose-driven (by values) and are almost human to a fault. INTPs do, however wish to be freed from their emotions, possibly because they do not understand them, and therefore must reject them.

I speak only of these types because they are the only ones I have first-hand knowledge of.

 

[wildcat]

I've had enough of irony these days.

When you're around enough people who aren't like you, don't like you, or don't receive enough validation for who you are, you're going to think something is wrong with yourself. No one human being is that strong, unless cold.

The bourgeoisie do not feel guilt for being the bourgeoisie.
They want you to admit guilt.
Do not give them that satisfaction.

 

[Apollonian]

I sympathize better with Spock's father... obviously.

If Sarek isn't an INTJ, then I give up. Bendai syndrome = suppressed introverted feeling... anyone?

Data always struck me as either untypable or INTP. Spock seems more like an NF than Data, but independently, I'd have to say Spock was an NT.

Interesting thoughts. I will have to think more later.