Fe Fakeness

[Ginkgo]

 

[Glycerine]

Practicing the art of trolling?

Fe= Fake

and Fi= the special snowflake.

How that?










Joking of course.

 

[Eric B]

Fe might go long with the cultural norm, while Fi could the one one to recognize universal values and stand against it.
So either functional attitude could support or oppose racism.

I'm finally putting the work in and reading 'Psychological Types'.

I have not grabbed ahold of that particular primordial image yet.

Yeh; it can be hard to grasp and separate out key points like that in Jung's writing.
Thanks to INTP/Naama for highlighting this one.

 

[Kalach]

There's two different definitions of objective at play in this thread, one that means "without the distortion of emotion" and another that means "stipulates according to cues in the environment". The first is, for want of a better expression, a value, and is associated with introverted thinking. The second is (pretty much) the whole of the technical content of the claim that extroverted judgment is objective. (Looks outside to the objects, not inside to the subject.) That first definition is a value for Ti because--and here I'll launch into a possibly novel claim about the nature of cognition--there is no such thing as Ti without Fe.

I mean to say that, literally, there is no cognition "Ti" without there being cognition "Fe". The two cannot exist alone. You cannot embark upon evaluation of environmental affect without some inner anchor of judgment that isn't tied to the environment. And I don't know how this is true just yet, nor exactly how to express it, particularly when it comes to trying to spell out "Fe" in real words that actually describe what kind of cognition happens (as opposed to say describing behavior). For the present I'll make do with evaluation, environment, stipulate, and so on. But in any case, this is not a requirement that you be conscious of both kinds of judgment. It's just the suggestion that one cannot occur without containing some aspect of the other.

And this is great, right? Extroverted feeling, doing what it does and being all objective, calls upon a person to alter evaluation of data to accord with (changing) environmental stipulations and introverted thinking plods along regardless, removing the taint of emotion and building independent evaluation instead. That's a pleasant and useful dynamic balance right there, one set of evaluative processes pulling one way, another set pulling the other way, both ideally adding their strengths and resulting in a complex third judgment. Holla back, consciousness.

So, in the end, to identify Fe as in general fake requires Ti as a system to tolerate untruth quite well. Does it? Naturally, there should be questions of the relative consciousness of the Fe and the Ti but, and you know what, I don't even know what this all means, it might even be something really simple.

But not something about authenticity as determined by some other judgment system. Maybe just something about, pffft, whatever, I don't know, your mom.

 

[five]

Not only is this definition vague but it hasn't been properly framed; for example, in MBTI speak, Fe is actually "objective"

Everyone should move on from that. I realize Jung used that vocabulary but its bloody confusing. This is not the 1950's

Objective as understood nowdays is as follows:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

and

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yeah, I’m sorry, but there’s nothing ‘objectively objective’ about the human thought process. The product may have ‘objective’ status once it’s screened by enough people, but a thought process can not be ‘objectively objective’ (though I’ve noticed Te’ers are the most likely to kid themselves and believe so). Fi is right there, at least in the back seat, telling Te where to go- and the less a Te’er is willing to acknowledge that, the more annoying they are to deal with. Not simply because it’s ‘rude’, but because it’s anti-dialogical (rendering discourse a moot point) and because they tend to believe they are asserting THE TRUTH AS IT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE instead of what seems true to them (however ‘clearly’ they see it).

Sorry, ZBuck, let me clear this up a bit. I can see I was a tad careless with my statement, as I am generalizing a bit and applying each to their purview of interest. I used my handy shorthand there and didn't make that clear.

When I say, Te'ers are easier to convince, it's because I can point to some effect or object in the world and say, "Look, here are concrete examples of how your argument fails." Te'ers, esp STJ's, often say, "Well, I am wrong then." Pretty clean. And I don't have to ... be careful how I tell them. I can just be as blunt as that, and they are not generally offended. And when it comes to "people / emo" stuff, they can be unaware of that dynamic, so either dismiss it as irrelevant, or are generally accepting of any shared info, unless it pertains to them personally. That's another matter I won't expand on as it's not relevant atm.

When I say Fe'ers are harder, it's within the context of their purview of interest, people. I can point to a situation, and an Fe'er will say, "You could have avoided that by doing X, Y & Z." or "Isn't it obvious what should have been done?" If I disagree, it's a much harder argument to make, because we are dealing with trying to evaluate a subjective topic in an objective way. And, an Fe'er will generally object to the kind of approach made above to the Te'er. I have to couch things in a more pleasing fashion, such as "Hmm, you are so knowledgeable about this stuff, but have you considered that your answer might be lacking enough information in order to come to this conclusion?" It seems that one must be more considerate to not offend the sense of social propriety, that there's a "right" way to talk about disagreeing.

Remember, both think they are RIGHT, and need to be proven wrong - both start from the vantage point of "I am right."

I am not saying Te'ers are necessarily inherently more truthful or objective though. Not at all. Intractability is certainly in evidence with them as much as anyone can be intractable.

It seems to me like I’m hearing an argument that INTJs ‘work with details and get frustrated at having to incorporate feeling judgment into their reasoning’, having to take Fe rules into account while looking for ‘the truth’, like that’s the crux of the problem. But honestly, I think sometimes Te likes to fool itself and believe it’s objective- as if it’s possible to think without adding some element of feeling judgment- when it’s actually largely fueled by Fi agenda. This is most obvious when the points being made look irrational to everyone but the person making them (and anyone who happens to share a similar emo-charged sentiment). It isn’t that Te’ers aren’t willing to incorporate ‘feeling judgment’ so much as they aren’t willing to incorporate others’ feeling judgment- or any judgment that doesn’t already match their own- into a working common ‘truth’ base to build mutual understanding on. It’s a potential shortcoming of all Je dom & aux (in part, also, because perception is introverted- we're not as mercurial with external input). I don’t think the entire problem here is that the Fe’ers are expecting too much ‘politeness’ so much as they get frustrated with Te ‘misdirection’ back towards it’s own opinion over and over again. They are that in love with their own opinion sometimes. Reciprocally, it seems like Te’ers get frustrated when Fe’ers (but mostly Ti’ers, since Fe doms rarely get into these discussions) try to ‘misdirect’ them away from their isolated version of ‘objective truth’ (as Kalach put it in the other thread, “personalized objective truth”).

I think it's that to them, the Fe rules are invisible to a certain extent? Even myself, someone who tries, very VERY hard not to offend, manages to do so on occasion. And I really study how not to!

Maybe part of it is that Fe'ers look more at who the info is coming from and weight more on the person than the actual words? Te'ers want the info evaluated, not themselves so much? And they can feel that people are looking more at the messenger instead of the message? So they keep repeating the message, trying to get through?

I know I've done that before, when I feel resistance, but am not sure where the resistance originates.

Thinking out loud here ...

^ +1. Anyone who thinks they're being 100% objective, and that they've freed themselves from bias and subjectivity, is seriously kidding themselves.

Agreed 100%.

Of course. Goes without saying almost.

Te does ranking, Ti does not.

But Fe does a ranking too ... uses differently weighted criteria though. My experience has shown that Fe / Ti will care more about my paper credentials, Te / Fi more whether I can do what I say I can do. For example.

EDIT: By the way, you sure you're not an ESTJ? They seem the most obsessed with rank/social class in my experience.

I'm not sure this is a fair generalization to make.

 

[King sns]

hmm... I don't know, most of the people who I've seen display extreme emotions compared to the situation were xxfp's.

 

[Totenkindly]

Everyone should move on from that. I realize Jung used that vocabulary but its bloody confusing. This is not the 1950's

Got it. When it comes to communication, you expect everyone to meet you on your turf.

Objective as understood nowdays is as follows:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Uh..... We're on a typology forum, and you are actively bringing cognitive functions into your arguments. So yes, it's ENTIRELY relevant to consider someone bringing a Jung vocab to this discussion, and you need to account for it. AND I still stand by my claim that your pithy little equation defintions were entirely inadequate and misleading.

(You know, if you don't broaden out a bit here, I might end up confusing your perspective as something far more subjective than you claim it to be.)

 

[EJCC]

Yeah, I’m sorry, but there’s nothing ‘objectively objective’ about the human thought process. The product may have ‘objective’ status once it’s screened by enough people, but a thought process can not be ‘objectively objective’ (though I’ve noticed Te’ers are the most likely to kid themselves and believe so). Fi is right there, at least in the back seat, telling Te where to go- and the less a Te’er is willing to acknowledge that, the more annoying they are to deal with. Not simply because it’s ‘rude’, but because it’s anti-dialogical (rendering discourse a moot point) and because they tend to believe they are asserting THE TRUTH AS IT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE instead of what seems true to them (however ‘clearly’ they see it).

It seems to me like I’m hearing an argument that INTJs ‘work with details and get frustrated at having to incorporate feeling judgment into their reasoning’, having to take Fe rules into account while looking for ‘the truth’, like that’s the crux of the problem. But honestly, I think sometimes Te likes to fool itself and believe it’s objective- as if it’s possible to think without adding some element of feeling judgment- when it’s actually largely fueled by Fi agenda. This is most obvious when the points being made look irrational to everyone but the person making them (and anyone who happens to share a similar emo-charged sentiment). It isn’t that Te’ers aren’t willing to incorporate ‘feeling judgment’ so much as they aren’t willing to incorporate others’ feeling judgment- or any judgment that doesn’t already match their own- into a working common ‘truth’ base to build mutual understanding on. It’s a potential shortcoming of all Je dom & aux (in part, also, because perception is introverted- we're not as mercurial with external input). I don’t think the entire problem here is that the Fe’ers are expecting too much ‘politeness’ so much as they get frustrated with Te ‘misdirection’ back towards it’s own opinion over and over again. They are that in love with their own opinion sometimes. Reciprocally, it seems like Te’ers get frustrated when Fe’ers (but mostly Ti’ers, since Fe doms rarely get into these discussions) try to ‘misdirect’ them away from their isolated version of ‘objective truth’ (as Kalach put it in the other thread, “personalized objective truth”).

This is a really, really good post. I relate to a lot of it.

With regards to the bolded: there's a detail in here that would add further depth to your point and would also be a bit more fair towards Te folks like myself. That detail is: There's pure opinion, and then there's pure belief. A lot of opinions are pretty separate from any sort of beliefs or values, and are therefore pretty objective (and by "objective" I mean "not related to your feelings at all") -- e.g. This model of X product is of a higher quality, and costs less money, and therefore if you need an X product, this model would be a better choice. If there's no emotional involvement, then Te can be really great for that sort of objectivity.

However, a lot of opinions on things go back to a belief, and it's safe to say that you're right that us Te/Fi types are in love with our beliefs. (I hadn't thought about that before but you are completely right about that!) And arguing about those opinions can be the most infuriating thing just about ever, not just for the people arguing with the Te-er but for the Te-er him/herself. The non-Te person is thinking "Why are they getting so worked up over a petty thing? Why aren't they listening to reason??" And the Te person is thinking either:
1) "I am right and they are wrong and I am objective and they are not and THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME!" <-- if, like you said, they aren't all that in touch with their Fi. Or
2) "This isn't going anywhere. In order for them to convince me they'd have to overturn one of my core values and they will do that over my dead body. Might as well bow out now." <-- if they're in touch with Fi and recognize the futility of value arguments

EDIT: By the way, you sure you're not an ESTJ? They seem the most obsessed with rank/social class in my experience.

I wouldn't say that. Most ESTJs I know don't really care about that. (I know I don't care about it -- I'm proud to be middle-middle/lower-middle class, and would be fine staying there.) I would attribute that more to enneagram, than MBTI -- mostly because the two people I know who are the most obsessed with class are an ENFP type 3 and an ENFJ type 3.

I mean, yes, ESTJs care a lot about ranking things. Whether we admit it or not, ESTJs are all about hierarchies (though usually not in the traditional sense). We are always on the lookout for what "the best" thing is, or who is "the best" at doing something, on a particular scale that we've internalized. But I wouldn't pair that with social class, necessarily. It's like what we talked about on my thread, regarding ESTJs' differing definitions of "traditional".

Objectivity is just an illusion, caused by the over rationalization of ones own subjective view.

+1

 

[Zarathustra]

Wow, you people believe a bunch of nonsense.

Refutation coming.

**

If objectivity is "just an illusion", then, according to your beliefs, if you show two people the same card with a number 5 on it and ask each of them what the number is, and one of them says the number is 4 and the other says the number is 5, then neither one of them is actually correct, as it's "just an illusion".

I see the hole of flabby relativism you all find yourselves in, but some of us were smart enough to leave that back in college.

Let me also say "surprise surprise!" that two INFJs would profess such retarded beliefs about Te.

Doesn't sound at all like a description of Beebe's trickster function for the INFJ...

Nope... not at all...

 

[five]

Got it. When it comes to communication, you expect everyone to meet you on your turf.

I can see how it looks that way. But it is in fact not the case.

My argument is this.

Me vs Community : Community norm must be respected
Community vs The World: World norms should be at least considered

We had similar discussion just now about this place being insular. This would be an example.

Having a separate set of definitions just means it will be more cut off. I wasn't making a Me vs Community argument at all. I was making Community vs English and Society at large.

 

[five]

Wow, you people believe a bunch of nonsense.

Refutation coming.

**

If objectivity is "just an illusion", then, according to your beliefs, if you show two people the same card with a number 5 on it and ask each of them what the number is, and one of them says the number is 4 and the other says the number is 5, then neither one of them is actually correct, as it's "just an illusion".

I see the hole of flabby relativism you all find yourselves in, but some of us were smart enough to leave that back in college.

Let me also say "surprise surprise!" that two INFJs would profess such retarded beliefs about Te.

Doesn't sound at all like a description of Beebe's trickster function for the INFJ...

Nope... not at all...

Haha agreed.

Listen though if you really having to convince people that objectivity exists, you've already struck the iceberg and you might as well bail, because its a losing battle.

 

[SilkRoad]

retarded beliefs

As rigorously objective as ever, I see.

 

[Zarathustra]

As rigorously objective as ever, I see.

Did you not see the "refutation coming"?

Or are you once again letting your subjective emotional response prevent you from seeing the objective facts of the matter?

Also, I see that you make a habit of conveniently leaving out the parts of your interlocutor's response that you can't really respond to.

That's a pretty uncouth habit to go around cherry-picking like that -- not befitting of a serious debate...

If you want to have a serious discussion, leaving out the shorthand ("retarded") for why your argument is wrong, I am willing.

I will not be willing if you simply go around cherry-picking, and not addressing the entirety of my message.

If what you want is a rigorous analysis as to why what I dismissed is inaccurate, just let me know.

Despite the fact that I use shorthand for efficiency's sake, the facts are all back their to support precisely what I'm saying.

 

[SilkRoad]

Did you not see the "refutation coming"?

Or are you once again letting your subjective emotional response prevent you from seeing the objective facts of the matter?

No, none of the above. I just saw something that wasn't objective at all.

Funny, you know...I left that type of thing back in college.

 

[SilkRoad]

Wow, you people believe a bunch of nonsense.

Objective? Not subjective? you sure about that?

Refutation coming.

**

If objectivity is "just an illusion", then, according to your beliefs, if you show two people the same card with a number 5 on it and ask each of them what the number is, and one of them says the number is 4 and the other says the number is 5, then neither one of them is actually correct, as it's "just an illusion".

I see the hole of flabby relativism you all find yourselves in, but some of us were smart enough to leave that back in college.

Can you quantify what anyone said as "flabby relativism"? Is that an objective judgment? Can you prove to me how it's objective?

Your above example is odd... I think you're picking a rather more straightforward instance than any of the below. If you want to talk about objective objectivity, by all means confine yourself to discussions about whether the number 4 is the number 4.

Let me also say "surprise surprise!" that two INFJs would profess such retarded beliefs about Te.

Doesn't sound at all like a description of Beebe's trickster function for the INFJ...

Nope... not at all...

Objective? Really? HOw is the above objective? How is objective? I see very little objectivity here. Please elaborate on your reasoning.

Oh, and last time I checked, "retarded" wasn't shorthand. It was a derogatory schoolyard insult. I left that back in the late 80s aged around 8.

 

[Zarathustra]

No, none of the above. I just saw something that wasn't objective at all.

Calling something retarded as shorthand for saying it is inaccurate, if it is indeed inaccurate, is not "not being objective at all".

It's actually being perfectly objective.

It's just using shorthand.

Funny, you know...I left that type of thing back in college.

What?

Your ability to see things accurately?

Yes, it appears you did.

 

[SilkRoad]

What?

Your ability to see things accurately?

Yes, it appears you did.

 

[five]

Wow, you people believe a bunch of nonsense.

Hello there, Typology CENTRAL! How are y'all doing TONIGHT?!?

Looks like y'all are doing great!! What a fine, intelligent crowd we have assembled here tonight!!!
<snip>

Beyond those two angles, I enjoy simply developing a better understanding of the types and type theory in general, and I'm most experienced in MBTI, then astrology, and then the enneagram.

I have to call you on this Zarathusthra. You can't go around accusing others of believing BS, if you believe bullshit yourself.

And secondly what was with the nauseating amount of emoticons etc. Where you just pretending? I beginning to seriously doubt you as an INTJ.

 

[Jaguar]

Calling something retarded as shorthand for saying it is inaccurate.

If someone came into my office and used the word "retarded," at any time during the interview, I'd tell him to get the fuck out of my office and go work at a Dairy Queen.