Fe Fakeness

[Zarathustra]

Wow, you people believe a bunch of nonsense.

Objective? Not subjective? you sure about that?

Yes.

Objective.

If I am right, then it is objective.

And I am right.

It's not just a matter of opinion.

It is a matter of fact.

That you don't like the way I've treated you and the others by way of my presentation does not make it any less true.

You once again seem to be mistaking your negative emotional response to what I said with whether or not what I said is in fact true.

Can you quantify what anyone said as "flabby relativism"?

Flabby relativism is a quality, not a a quantity.

So, no, it cannot be "quantified".

Is that an objective judgment?

Yes.

In the sense that I was pointing to something factually accurate, based on what had been written above.

For example, "objectivity is nothing but an illusion".

And the "+1" that (objectively) flabbily relativistic comment received.

Can you prove to me how it's objective?

Axiom 1: Flabby relativism is a position one takes that sacrifices the notion of objective truth for the sake of a wishy-washy, half-baked relativism.

Axiom 2: "Objectivity is nothing but an illusion" is a comment that sacrifices the notion of objective truth for the sake of a wishy-washy, half-baked relativism.

Conclusion: Therefore, to say "objectivity is nothing but an illusion" is flabby relativism.

There are plenty more where that came from; but as Nicodemus' signature says, "A horse laugh is worth 10,000 syllogisms".

I'm sorry you don't like when I horse laugh at you.

Your above example is odd... I think you're picking a rather more straightforward instance than any of the below.

Yes, it's called simplification.

It's used to provide a clear and obvious example.

Using it, the original argument argument is shown to be false.

By extension, the other arguments can also be shown to be false.

If you want to talk about objective objectivity, by all means confine yourself to discussions about whether the number 4 is the number 4.

Reread above.

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?

Yes.

Yes.

Because it is accurate.

How is objective?

Is "" a truth claim?

No.

It's added flair.

Please, show how "" makes my argument any less true.

I see very little objectivity here.

That seems to be because you're not equating "objectivity" with "accuracy".

Either that, or you don't understand why what I'm saying is accurate.

Furthermore, you almost seem to be equating objectivity with whether I'm being polite or not, and, as I already said, that is not "objectivity".

Objectivity = accuracy.

Please elaborate on your reasoning.

I already have.

Please respond to the above.

 

[Zarathustra]

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

Who ever said I believed astrology?

Once again, as I told you while chatting earlier, you jump too quickly to conclusions.

I'm not quite sure how many times you must do so falsely before you learn to hold the horses and rethink the matter.

And secondly what was with the nauseating amount of emoticons etc. Where you just pretending?

I was making an impression.

And trust me, it worked.

I beginning to seriously doubt you as an INTJ.

If you knew the impression I was making, you would not.

And, as I told you before, I could really give a shit what type you think I am.

***

Also, Jennifer is right in her argument with you with regards to your post about "Fi = objective" "Fe=subjective".

That formulation is retarded.

Fi is as subjective as a function gets.

Furthermore, Jennifer is also right in her argument with you about the use of the word "objectivity": as I said to you before, using objectivity in the various ways that we use it here is appropriate, because it's a technical term, that can be used in various ways, when talking about typology. The common definition means something else (although the two can overlap every once in awhile).

Since you seem to be having some difficulty understanding this, I recommend you read this post (LINK).

 

[five]

Who ever said I believed astrology?

Ok explain to me as an "INTJ", why you wouldn't Te the fuck out of astrology and dismiss it and move on.

I'd love to hear. It's not jumping to conclusions. You studied bullshit. I was quoting your very own words.

Explain why you studied astrology?

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok explain to me as an "INTJ", why you wouldn't Te the fuck out of astrology and dismiss it and move on.

I already had.

I'd love to hear. It's not jumping to conclusions... I was quoting your very own words.

It is jumping to conclusions, because if you go re-read those words, I never said "I believe in astrology", but that's what you (implicitly) claimed I did.

You studied bullshit.

Let me ask you this: Have you ever studied astrology? Do you really know much about astrology at all? Or have you just written it off without really knowing very much about it?

Explain why you studied astrology?

Because I used to think the exact same thing you did, and then an interesting experience happened to me.

That happened to coincide with my then-girlfriend's (INFP) friend having given me a book on astrology that I previously was not interested in reading.

You could've read all about this in an argument between me and an astrology-skeptic ENTP that used to contribute heavily on here in a very coherent thread about astrology, but, unfortunately, one of our moderators decided to cut 240+ posts out of that thread and place them elsewhere for no good reason other than the fact that she had not really read the thread in any detail and didn't really understand the discussion taking place.

[MENTION=1009]CzeCze[/MENTION] [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION]

 

[Ginkgo]

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.

At Dairy Queen they use the left over pseudo ice cream mixture that spills down the drain for more shakes at the end of the day.

 

[SilkRoad]

But surely the objective, accurate truth is that astrology is BS? Isn't any other opinion retarded?

I know that's the case, because if it's right it's objective, and I'm right. We're talking about a matter of fact here.

 

[five]

Because I used to think the exact same thing you did, and then an interesting experience happened to me.

That happened to coincide with my then-girlfriend's friend having given me a book on astrology that I previously was not interested in reading.

Ok so if someone gave you the Quran you'd read it just to know whether its BS or not? I wouldn't, I know 100% it BS, based on fundamentals. There is no evidence of God.

You have lack of Te in your approach. You not INTJ by a long shot. Go back to delusion world.

You HAVE to be Te dismissive to accomplish things. I suggest you read this principle and start practicing it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Let me explain it simply, by reading that book of bullshit (the astrology one), you have reduced your capacity to learn about some truth. You have filled your time with untruth.

We are allocated a set number of life seconds on this earth. We continually operate under the delusion that we have infinite time. By reading something by even uttering a single word, or thinking a single thought it necessarily means there are some other words or thoughts etc that can't be thought anymore.

So actually you are dismissing things indirectly by not being dismissive.

Most NTP's never come to terms with that. I don't expect you will.

 

[Thalassa]

LOL IS HE REALLY TRYING TO ARGUE THAT ITS "OBJECTIVE" TO CALL SOMETHING RETARDED (WHICH MEANS "slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development")...AND TYPICALLY APPLIES TO PEOPLE WITH AN IQ OF BELOW 70?

ITS OBJECTIVE FOR YOU TO SAY SOMEONE HAS AN IQ BELOW 70 BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM?

I've used the word retarded to express annoyance, disagreement, or contempt, but going as far as to call your "shorthand" "objective" is beyond absurd.

This is that disease that some INTJs have where they become so convinced of their objectivity that they could say "I hate chocolate ice cream" and claim it's objective that chocolate ice cream sucks.

 

[Nicodemus]

I enjoy five quite a bit. I hope we can keep him for a while.

 

[Zarathustra]

...

...

Neither one of you answered my questions.

One of you cherry-picked, and the other did not include anything at all.

Poor form...

 

[Zarathustra]

I hope we can keep him for a while.

About five hours or so ago, I said to myself, "I doubt it."

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok so if someone gave you the Quran you'd read it just to know whether its BS or not?

I own a Quran, so nobody would need to give me one.

Whether or not it's representationally true, reading it could provide great value to one's life.

I wouldn't, I know 100% it BS, based on fundamentals.

Depends on what you mean by BS.

And what in hell do you mean by fundamentals?

There is no evidence of God.

You have lack of Te in your approach.

No, I just use it differently than you do.

You reason like I did when I was in high school.

(Just being honest. Not an insult.)

You not INTJ by a long shot.

My favorite part about this is how you sounded like a caveman while saying it.

Go back to delusion world.

Sure thing, dude.



Could you show me the directions?

Cuz apparently you know the road well...

You HAVE to be Te dismissive to accomplish things. I suggest you read this principle and start practicing it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Let me explain it simply...

One of my degrees is in economics.

I really don't need you to.

...by reading that book of bullshit (the astrology one), you have reduced your capacity to learn about some truth. You have filled your time with untruth.

You have no idea what it is that I learned from it.

Nor do you know how much time I spent reading it.

Nor do you know how it fits into my personal utility function (Fi).

All you're showing is that you, as I said before, have Pi tunnel vision, use a crude and simplistic form of Te pragmatism, and jump to your conclusions without gathering enough data (inferior Se).

**

Coincidentally, I happened to show this when I skinned you alive in one of your first posts on here (LINK).

If I hadn't realized that was you earlier today, I wouldn't be considering it a possibility that this is all some form of pathetic revenge fantasy you're trying to live out.

"Yes, I'll prove that he's not an INTJ cuz he doesn't think just like me!!! THAT'LL DO THE TRICK!"

We are allocated a set number of life seconds on this earth.

This is true.

We continually operate under the delusion that we have infinite time.

This is not.

Well, perhaps you do.

I don't.

By reading something by even uttering a single word, or thinking a single thought it necessarily means there are some other words or thoughts etc that can't be thought anymore.

This is sorta true.

There are a lot of caveats as to why it needn't necessarily be true.

So actually you are dismissing things indirectly by not being dismissive.

In the sense that there are opportunity costs to things, and thus "no free lunch", yes, this is true.

Most NTP's never come to terms with that. I don't expect you will.

:yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[Zarathustra]

Gotta run to yoga.

Have fun with our new friend five everybody!

 

[five]

I own a Quran, so nobody would need to give me one.

Whether or not it's representationally true, reading it could provide great value to one's life.

Weasel arguments. Cut. You don't give a straight answer on things. Would you read the Quran or wouldn't you? Yes or No

Anyway you've revealed yourself Mr InTheShadows, an academic with PHD's. Say no more, sitting around on forums all day.

All you've done is prove how un-utilitarian you are. What have you accomplished?

Here is my thinking:

• Existing is better than non-existing. (Axiomatic)
• I want to exist
• I need resources to exist (money, influence etc).
• Therefore I must get these things
• Therefore I start businesses as this is the most secure way for an INTJ
• I will be investing in longevity research and life extension simultaneously
• Long life, means I exist longer

I'm goal driven. I'm worth $10m+ as of today all self made from scratch (no handouts). Ok so still modest by some standards, I agree. I want, and need, a lot more to accomplish my goals. And I work towards them every single day.

You think a Te approach is "juvenile", you are arrogant and deluded and just a crackpot theorist hiding behind PHD's. Yes, I too have a degree, a Bsc in Computer Science, I don't ever use it, complete waste of time, nor do I ever speak about it. Why would I need to try impress people? What have you accomplished with your great intelligence, please enlighten us.

I mean honestly who writes this:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24382&p=925139&viewfull=1#post925139

I was always genuinely proud of my intelligence and philosophia. If some ingrate had a problem with me or one of my friends and thought they could start something over it : I was ready to knock their dumbass to the ground . An alpha male nerd, one might say...

Are you that out of touch? The nerdy white guy "gunna kill u bro" trying to be "gangsta". It's pathetic. You told me you are 27. Grow the fuck up.

Furthermore, your argument is essentially "I'm really smart and I have all these PHD's so I've got to be smart hey?" Talk about insecurities.

You remind me of this fellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0

A purported IQ of 195 and yet he believes intelligent design. Go figure. Just a completely out of touch person who is puffed up and "proud" about how intelligent he is.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

First, apologies to Gingko for participating in the derailment of his Fe = fake op. I was just going to respond to PB separately, but since this is now way off track I’ll go ahead and post here. (I don't even know if you were seriously trying to go somewhere with it- but if you were, sorry.)

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 ...

The point I was trying to get at is that I don’t think this is as much about ‘Fe rules’ as it’s being played out to be. Or at least, if you want to include ‘compensating for Ti unconscious priorities’ (borrowing term from Kalach, assuming I understand his meaning), then I suppose it could be called Fe/Ti rules. Some of the negative reaction may indeed be because it’s rude, or whatever- but speaking only for myself, the most difficult part of communication with TJs is that some of their assertions consistently run contrary to my unconscious priorities by telling me what to think. It sets off silent but deafening internal alarms- just, as I’m sure, having Fe tell Fi’ers what to believe sets of distracting alarms. This isn’t about being polite, the silent alarms aren’t going off because the person is “rude” (I mean, I’m someone who inadvertently offends others quite often myself- blame it on least so variant, I suspect), the silent alarms are going off because the information doesn’t add up, it doesn’t make sense- it’s an unconscious priority that Te doesn’t share.

If a Fe’er wants to explain why their values are best (and/or the reasons for them) to a Fi’er- they better be damn sure they make it completely available for the Fi’er to disagree…..am I right? There are rules to effective communication- not because of arbitrary social convention (showing politeness), but because that’s just how it is- communication isn’t effective unless you pay attention to how the other person is receiving you. It isn’t available to MAKE someone take in the meaning you want them to take in- it’s only available to try to communicate it and see if it takes/if they agree. And this argument that ‘Fe rules’ are interfering with the ‘transference of objective truth’ sounds a lot like “By expecting us to pay any attention to how our end of the discussion is being perceived- you’re oppressing us with Fe! Waaaanh! We’re entitled to decide ‘objective truth’ for everyone!” If the goal is anti-dialogical ranting, then mission accomplished. But if the goal is communication- it’s pointless to show up and simply demand one’s Je solutions are the best to a respective Ji audience. There are enough Fi rants around here to prove this goes BOTH ways.

So I think you’re right about something being invisible, but I think it’s far more about the Ti unconscious priorities being invisible (plus, often, about their own Fi unconscious priorities being invisible as well) than it is about Fe rules- especially since Fe doms are the last ones to get into these snits.

OMG I can’t believe I used the shitting baby emoticon.

I'll just say it: I think a lot of you people can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk. If you could walk the walk, you wouldn't resort to attempts at intellectual quantifying that don't exist, or to name-calling, or saying that you're not going to discuss this with me because I'm incapable of objectivity/Te because I'm an INFJ - or whatever it is.

Exactly. If something doesn’t add up and I see flaws in whatever is being presented to me, the only thing that will convince me of its “truth” is to have those flaws addressed- to have those logistical nuances ironed out. There’s no value in the ‘insult then reiterate initial opinion, repeat as needed’ approach. This isn’t about Fe and the fact that it’s not nice to insult, this is about effective/ineffective communication. I see no value in ineffective communication with someone who wants to just repeat their own opinions over and over again, it’s a waste of my time. There must be some commonality that Te/Fi (or Fi/Te) seeks in communicating the things they do, some ironing out of Fi nuances in their exchanges- but because I don’t share the same unconscious priority, it escapes me. I just know that when things don’t sufficiently ‘make sense’- I need to amend that before going further or my thoughts just start to bottleneck and I can’t get past it.

And it’s likely this is the same thing that happens for Fi’ers- something triggers the bottlenecking of thoughts and they need to iron out it out before moving forward. There’s something extra going on with TJs, though, because I rarely start ‘bottlenecking’ to the point where I write off even trying to discuss something with FPs.

 

[five]

I enjoy five quite a bit. I hope we can keep him for a while.

Thanks (I think). I am moving on soon. Was mostly just doing a bit of research between businesses.

I was looking for a fellow INTJ also but I don't think you going to find real ones on forums much, maybe a few posts and they move on, just like you don't get ESFJ's here. INTJ's god is utility.

People forget that.

Our Te means we build systems in the real world. We not happy just to theorize.

I know real INTJ's and all I do is pickup a book by the founder of Zappos, Tony Hsieh and everything just makes sense, or read Charlie Munger's Almanack and I'm thinking this guy is identical to how I think.

I don't get that here.

 

[INTP]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]

How accurate must something be in order to be objective? 100%? how can anyone be 100% sure about anything? i mean nothing can be proven, because you can even prove to yourself that tou dont live in matrix. so since you cant be 100% sure about anything, you can make assumptions that you dont live in matrix due to rationalization of your own subjective experiences.

Now if we take the scientific method. guess why they call the deductions made from the measure a theory? thats simply because even the scientific method has an error marginal and the problem with this is that you cant be sure whats the exact error marginal. this is why the scientific research uses P value to estimate the error marginal. P value is the value given to the possibility of wrong test results from the measurement. P value is calculated as %, because there is always a chance of error marginal being bigger than expected. so there must be a value of after the test results being wrong, usually its .05 or .01 and sometimes much lower, depending on the field of science. like with P value of 0.01, the % of error is 1%. most the time when the possibility of error is under 1%, the results are seen as reliable enough to be published.

So whats the limit that you people place to objectivity? 5%? 1%? 0.1% 0.01%?

Scientific research producing objective(100% truth) data is a common myth. try wikipedia if you have hard time accepting this.

Now ofc there is always the possibility of hallucinating the number 5 in the card, so its invalid to claim this to be the objective truth because you perceived it.

And please dont give idiotic arguments like "i am right about this and because its the truth, i am objective"

 

[Nicodemus]

Thanks (I think). I am moving on soon. Was mostly just doing a bit of research between businesses.

I was looking for a fellow INTJ also but I don't think you going to find real ones on forums much, maybe a few posts and they move on, just like you don't get ESFJ's here. INTJ's god is utility.

People forget that.

Our Te means we build systems in the real world. We not happy just to theorize.

Not that I would recommend it to someone as busy as you, but have you ever read Jung's description of Ni dominants?

I know real INTJ's and all I do is pickup a book by the founder of Zappos, Tony Hsieh and everything just makes sense, or read Charlie Munger's Almanack and I'm thinking this guy is identical to how I think.

I don't get that here.

You may find a friend in DiscoBiscuit.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

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

I think Fe doms and auxes have their own version of this too. It's like, they'll know some precept makes sense to them- therefore IT MAKES SENSE AND EVERYONE SHOULD ADHERE.

ps EJCC, re rep I just left: nvrmd, I did have a quick response.

 

[Glycerine]

^strong Ni emphasis: I thought all the possibilities out thoroughly so I know what's the best for people. I can be guilty of this when I start to get annoyed with people and the 5ness doesn't do any favors for me. LOL I go into a "you people are stupid for not seeing the obvious" train of thought.

Strong Si emphasis: this has been a tried and true method so I know what's the best for people.

Talking about Fe doms but this could be applicable to Fe aux too (and TJs in a way).

There is a definite shortsidedness to all of this though. lol