Why do people care about truth so much?

[Athenian200]

I mean, it seems like most people have a devotion to their version of it, and value this whole thing about being "honest," regardless of whether anyone is interested in what they have to say. Generally speaking, I find people who overtly value "truth" to be pointlessly tactless and crude. They can also be rather thick, unable to discern subtlety, and unwilling to present themselves in a positive light in order to help them succeed.

It can be rather frustrating to have to put up with a bunch of blunt, self-assured "truth-tellers" who don't have the least bit of respect for my willingness to accommodate others, and think I'm worthless because I don't go around trying to inflict my views on everyone I meet.

What I have to question, though, is whether "truth" is really as desirable as people make it out to be. I mean, in some cases, couldn't it be detrimental to our well-being, comfort, ability to function day-to-day, or relationships with other people? It seems to me that people today often put truth ahead of people's humanity, and believe that the truth speaks for itself, and justifies itself, unable to consider the idea that truth isn't warranted in every context of human affairs.

 

[Skyward]

With Ni, we INFJs can see multiple truths easily. Not all people have that natural ability and then are stuck with one. They defend it like crazy because without it they would feel like they have nothing. No one likes to feel like that, that's what spawned consumerism.

 

[The Grand Chameleon]

Maybe those you are speaking of confuse personal truth with universal fact.

Remaining on a civil level with peers, then, is a matter of tact.

lol.

 

[Athenian200]

Maybe those you are speaking of confuse personal truth with universal fact.

Remaining on a civil level with peers, then, is a matter of tact.

lol.

Yeah, that's what I mean. If someone were go around saying that 2+2=5, that a blue pen is red, or something like that, sure, you should tell them that's not true.

But if they insist on telling other people their personal truths and accusing anyone who disagrees of being dishonest or deluded, it's frustrating.

 

[01011010]

Truth gets to the point. For some, it's really tedious and unnatural to sugarcoat. Like a real strain and effort. Literally draining. On a personal level, telling the truth can help a loved one out if it's in their power to change. Would you enable or coddle someone you cared about, just to spare their feelings?

Every truth isn't necessary to tell. Say a husband finds a coworker hot and fantasizes about that person while having intercourse with his wife. Some wives might be into it, but it's a safe bet to think many women wouldn't want to know. If the husband isn't ever going to cheat, should he tell his wife? Not really.

Do you think even the hardcore truth tellers are always honest? I believe 99% of humans lie at one point or another. I also don't think your way of handling things is wrong. Just different.

 

[Kalach]

Why do people care about underwear?

It's there. A lot of times it's useful.

Wearing it on the outside is not always so fashionable.

But if you do it right, you're superman.

 

[ajblaise]

I mean, it seems like most people have a devotion to their version of it, and value this whole thing about being "honest," regardless of whether anyone is interested in what they have to say. Generally speaking, I find people who overtly value "truth" to be pointlessly tactless and crude. They can also be rather thick, unable to discern subtlety, and unwilling to present themselves in a positive light in order to help them succeed.

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with truth; some people just like to be blunt. And sometimes those people are the most deceptive. I like bluntness mostly as a time-saving measure.

But aside from that, the reason we should value truth, or fact, is because it's reality.

 

[entropie]

There is no spoon, look into my eyes... Nooo spooon

 

[Athenian200]

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with truth; some people just like to be blunt. And sometimes those people are the most deceptive. I like bluntness mostly as a time-saving measure.

Well, that makes sense. Although in some cases, it seems like the kind of logic you see in a person who uses an electric chainsaw to butter toast and fell timber.

But aside from that, the reason we should value truth, or fact, is because it's reality.

I'm curious about something... are you familiar with circular reasoning, by any chance?

 

[krunchtime]

I can see where you're coming from. But I think you're confusing Truth for rudeness or incivility. It is not pleasant for truth tellers to just slap the truth into people's faces, neither is it pleasant when you're confronted with a bunch of truth tellers who assume that they are telling the truth when they might not be.

Personally, I try to be as civil as possible but it is possible for me to get impatient and I become fanatic when I think I'm telling the truth, but I'm actually the confused one during discussion. It happens. So the one way I know when I'm being illogical or unobjective is to check my own emotional state. If I'm all fired up, then it is possible that I'm being illogical.

As for considering different versions of the Truth, I understand that it can be a matter of perspective. If you hold a scientific experiment in front of 10 different people and ask them to write their own intepretations, you're bound to get 10 different versions, each equally valid from their individual perspectives. Yet there will be a common thread running throughout the 10 intepretations. It is possible for truth to be equated to a set of universal facts or an underlying principle which explains how things work.

To use a really basic example, it is the truth that the world is round, but years ago truth used to be that the world was flat. Each is equally valid if you put it within the context of time and space. However, our current version is justified by a set of verifiable facts, while in the past it wasn't so. Using another quirky example of the Matrix, it was the truth that humans lived and breathed within a structured illusion, but this truth can be subjugated to creature comforts. This is a theoretical and extreme example, but I hope it helps to explain why sometimes we need a Truth rather than just accepting everything as equally valid.

 

[ajblaise]

I'm curious about something... are you familiar with circular reasoning, by any chance?

I'm just equating truth with reality. Whether you accept reality or not is up to you.

 

[krunchtime]

With Ni, we INFJs can see multiple truths easily. Not all people have that natural ability and then are stuck with one. They defend it like crazy because without it they would feel like they have nothing. No one likes to feel like that, that's what spawned consumerism.

I think you are right about their psychological state, but I don't think this is a completely fair intepretation. There are some people who live for the Truth, but others don't because they live by different value systems, either social, moral, personal values or for some other things - their loved ones, people around them, personal goals and ambitions & etc. Different people have different priorities. This is why some people - but only a small portion, gets emotionally attached to finding out the Truth, if it exists.

 

[Litvyak]

I think there is a difference between the ability to discern and weigh multiple "truths", being brave enough to accept a possible turth AND to force your opinion on others. It's unnecessary and unwise to always tell the truth, but accepting what you consider to be "the truth" even if it's "detrimental to our well-being" - this a valuable virtue and strength, not to be confused with being dogmatic. It is your choice to be delusional for the sake of guarding your own comfort (cf. religion), but I think of this as a weakness.

Generally speaking, I find people who overtly value "truth" to be pointlessly tactless and crude.

Huge exaggeration, valuing truth doesn't make you "crude".

People care about "truth" because seeking it is part of being human, you can deduce it to evolutional/civilizational reasons (chasing a possibly non-existent "ultimate truth" was profitable, and made us who we are today) despite of our many setbacks and disappointments.

 

[Synapse]

Trusting your integrity leads to truth, lack of integrity trusting leads to untruths. Authentic expression is such that truth decrypts the realities that are encrypted into data blocks. hahaha. only if you enjoy a sixth sense of humour.

 

[Jaguar]

Truth gets to the point. For some, it's really tedious and unnatural to sugarcoat. Like a real strain and effort. Literally draining.

That's true.

 

[Wonkavision]

Regarding the O.P. :

I think there is a simple explanation for this.

When people have different ways of thinking/feeling/operating--it can often seem like the other person is flawed.


For example:

You prefer Fe, which is ultimately concerned with the community, its values and its interests, rather than the individual's values and interests.

Anyone who does not share your preference for Fe might seem too self-centered, self-absorbed, or self-assertive to you.

I believe that having an instinctive discomfort with preferences foreign to your own is natural, so I'm not taking issue with that.

I would like to know, however, whether you realize that it is more of a difference in preference, rather than a flaw in these people you are describing.

Mostly, I'm interested in the the way that NFs (myself included) communicate, and the ways in which the NF style of communication often leads to misunderstandings.

Namely, that there seems to be a divide, sometimes, between the NFs actual (rational, thought-out) opinion and their (more spontaneous) raw feelings--and that people sometimes have a hard time distinguishing the two.

I think people sometimes confuse the strong feeling of the NF with some kind of hard headed firmness of thinking.

Projection, maybe?

I don't know.

But, in the hope of shedding some light on this....

Do you think it's inherently, objectively superior to think/feel/operate the way you do, or are you just expressing how you feel?

In the O.P., are you expressing your actual opinion, or are you just expressing your raw feelings?

Or both? Or neither?

 

[Wonkavision]

I'd also like to point out a Socionics dichotomy, which may help to explain the Blunt vs. Tactful issue.

From Carefree and farsighted - Wikisocion:

Carefree types

Go by "wait and see" strategy, do not overplan ahead, and rely on their own ability to be successful in tactics. Have very sensitive senses and things like a dentist appointment are perceived with dread. They are always frank and direct, stating conclusions or making a point forcefully at the very start and then, if necessary, explaining their positioning. They have keen eye for detail and are better at noticing small things than larger counterparts.

Farsighted types

Try to always foresee how things might develop and try to take all the possible precautionary measures to prevent or, alternatively, channel things in the right direction. Very often make long introductions with speech before conveying the main point or bringing the person talked to to a point of agreement, etc. Can tolerate physical discomfort for significant amounts of time and can be oblivious to low threshholds of pain, sound, size of details, etc.

The conclusion I draw from this is that some people are frank and direct, or even forceful with their opinion at first, and that this is just as legitimate as being more cautious and deliberate before stating an opinion.

To value your own preference over another is totally natural, but to actually believe that your preference is objectively superior to another's is a whole other story.

I think that taking a look at these dichotomies is helpful in explaining why two different perspectives/preferences/ways of operating can both be legitimate.

What do you guys think/feel about the Carefree/Farsighted dichotomy, and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to the O.P.?

 

[BlackCat]

Generally speaking, I find people who overtly value "truth" to be pointlessly tactless and crude.

Yeah, it's impossible to tell the truth AND be nice about it.

They can also be rather thick, unable to discern subtlety, and unwilling to present themselves in a positive light in order to help them succeed.

Bold- Where's your proof? This seems unrelated to telling the truth a lot.

As for the rest of the quote, learning how to sugarcoat is integral for someone like myself who values being honest and telling the truth. You WILL have to bullshit in life, and it's all contextual as to whether the truth is more important than sugar coating something. For me I only do that if I see that there negative results of not sugar coating something. But otherwise, yep, I'm honest.

It can be rather frustrating to have to put up with a bunch of blunt, self-assured "truth-tellers" who don't have the least bit of respect for my willingness to accommodate others, and think I'm worthless because I don't go around trying to inflict my views on everyone I meet.

You seem to be thinking of something else other than a truth teller. This is an arrogant asshole who thinks that they are the center of the world, I only say this because they apparently inflict their views on everyone else.

I answered your question in the second paragraph after the second quote I quoted. But other than that, you seem to be seeing an extreme. This person just seems to be self centered and arrogant, who just happens to be honest, and you are associating that with all honest people.

 

[BlackCat]

I think that taking a look at these dichotomies is helpful in explaining why two different perspectives/preferences/ways of operating can both be legitimate.

They are both legitimate, but legitimacy is only in the eye of the beholder. This is why bias happens, and stuff like the OP.

Oh yeah, and socionics is voodoo, and for that reason people won't agree with you.










I agree though, this dichotomy has something to do with it.

 

[Skyward]

I think you are right about their psychological state, but I don't think this is a completely fair intepretation. There are some people who live for the Truth, but others don't because they live by different value systems, either social, moral, personal values or for some other things - their loved ones, people around them, personal goals and ambitions & etc. Different people have different priorities. This is why some people - but only a small portion, gets emotionally attached to finding out the Truth, if it exists.

I understand where youre coming from. For me, I think I mistook the word 'truth' for the word 'perspective.' Or maybe 'Possible truths.' But even then I guess it's still unfair.

But if life's not fair why should I be?