Pretentious Fi

[Orangey]

Unfortunately, a lot of posts in this thread confirmed some of the observations about NFPs taking things the wrong way---which kind of makes me wonder if Tesla's secondary motive was to be a smart-ass and demonstrate how NFPs take things the wrong way!!!! (ime, this seems to be a typical secondary motive of ENTPs!!!! )

If that's the case, then some of you should have used your intuition and avoided falling into the trap!

Ahhhhhhhhhh..........

Damn you ENTPs!

I think you give him (or her, I don't know) too much credit. The heatedness of his responses afterward indicate that he either (1) did not expect that reaction and took offense, or (2) DID expect that reaction, but not so much to demonstrate anything about NFs, but rather to be able to fend off disagreement from the subjects themselves by deploying the "waaah, NF personal values are muddling my extremely intellectual arguments again!!!" device.

There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING at all intellectual, in any sense, about the OP. Not that this is a bad thing- most of the threads on this board involve discussions involving matters of daily-living and relationships. But don't call it "intellectual" when it is not. I see no arguments here whatsoever.

Dude, go talk to SimulatedWorld, he bears the battle scars, although, he asked for it, with his style of inquiry, like ya do....

Hmmm, here we go again with this language of detached inquiry (and this is not aimed at you, Qre:us, I'm just using your post as an illustration for my interpretation of what is going on here.) There is nothing different about the OP's question than any other question (save the "can you help me with..." questions and some of the sillier philosophical "inquiries") that gets asked on this board by any other member, NT or not. But it seems like the fact that he has ENTP under his name means that we must automatically assume that he is "detached" and engaging in some sort of scientific inquiry. Yet, nothing about the form, content, or tone of the OP indicates anything remotely inquiry-like, in the scientific sense. Therefore, it should not be granted special privileges (i.e., be given leeway with language use and free from questions of personal motivation) simply because the person asking is an NT.

That's like saying that we should not question the motivations of scientists simply because they are scientists (and therefore always engage in detached, unbiased inquiry.)

 

[ajblaise]

Uh oh, this thread just got a Ti beat down. :1377:

 

[onemoretime]

I think you give him (or her, I don't know) too much credit. The heatedness of his responses afterward indicate that he either (1) did not expect that reaction and took offense, or (2) DID expect that reaction, and so was eager to assign the "waaah, NF personal values are muddling my extremely intellectual arguments again!!!" device.

There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING at all intellectual, in any sense, about the OP. Not that this is a bad thing- most of the threads on this board involve discussions involving matters of daily-living and relationships. But don't call it "intellectual" when it is not. I see no arguments here whatsoever.

Sure there is. "Why do people act the way they do" is an inherently intellectual question. That this question seemingly arose out of frustration doesn't take away from its validity.

 

[Orangey]

Sure there is. "Why do people act the way they do" is an inherently intellectual question. That this question seemingly arose out of frustration doesn't take away from its validity.

Validity is a property of an argument, not an inquiry. But I take it you mean validity in the common meaning. Even so, I never said he didn't have a right to ask the question, or that it was a bad one. All I'm saying is that you cannot disqualify the input of others on the basis that their information is anecdotal (which, if you take the implication further, means that it is not scientifically valid evidence) and personal when the question being asked was anecdotal and personal, and not some sort of scientific inquiry. I just found that people are defending him against the onslaught of Fi detractors on the basis that he was simply detachedly inquiring (for no other reason than that he has an NT under his avatar), and they therefore should not introduce their unscientific, personal mess to the discussion because it is not pertinent (when it very clearly is.)

And I think your definition of intellectual is too inclusive.

 

[Qre:us]

Hmmm, here we go again with this language of detached inquiry (and this is not aimed at you, Qre:us, I'm just using your post as an illustration for my interpretation of what is going on here.) There is nothing different about the OP's question than any other question (save the "can you help me with..." questions) that gets asked on this board by any other member, NT or not. But it seems like the fact that he has ENTP under his name means that we must automatically assume that he is "detached" and engaging in some sort of scientific inquiry. Yet, nothing about the form, content, or tone of the OP indicates anything remotely inquiry-like, in the scientific sense. Therefore, it should not be granted special privileges (i.e., be given leeway with language use and free from questions of personal motivation) simply because the person asking is an NT.

That's like saying that we should not question the motivations of scientists simply because they are scientists (and therefore always engage in detached, unbiased inquiry.)

I'd go as far as to say that any question about personality quirks that causes interpersonal conflict cannot be purely detached or scientific, by default, as an inquiry. Thus, it shouldn't ever be expected to be, either.

So any attempt at clarifying whether someone is really detached or failed to be detached (but others think they are cuz of their type, etc) is irrelevant. As detached as can be...perhaps. That's also subjective.

The real question is: is the aim of such OPs to offend more than it is to understand? (again, oh, so subjective)

Point is, whether it's an ENTP or an ISFJ asking the question, by the very nature of the question, the point of evaluating the merit of detachment is moot. See title of thread - usage of adjective to define Fi.

The topic of inquiry itself is not a detached inquiry...so, picking hairs about whether the OP achieved/did not achieve/aimed to be/did not aim to be.... detached, scientific, etc...is kinda like chasing one's own tail (if one had a tail, of course ).

 

[ajblaise]

Sure there is. "Why do people act the way they do" is an inherently intellectual question. That this question seemingly arose out of frustration doesn't take away from its validity.

4-year-olds also ask "why do people act the way they do", but it's not quite intellectualism.

 

[onemoretime]

Validity is a property of an argument, not an inquiry. But I take it you mean validity in the common meaning. Even so, I never said he didn't have a right to ask the question, or that it was a bad one. All I'm saying is that you cannot disqualify the input of others on the basis that their information is anecdotal (which, if you take the implication further, means that it is not scientifically valid evidence) and personal when the question being asked was anecdotal and personal, and not some sort of scientific inquiry. I just found that people are defending him against the onslaught of Fi detractors on the basis that he was simply detachedly inquiring, and they therefore should not introduce their unscientific, personal mess to the discussion because it is not pertinent (when it very clearly is.)

Those are some fine hairs you're splitting there.

He wants to go from the specific to the general. We're not talking deductive analysis here, we're talking inductive theorizing. They're not using their anecdotes to build upon the theory, as much as browbeat him for even asking the question in the first place. An example of the former would be "you know, that's not been my experience. (inject anecdote). Maybe this is more of an issue of Y instead of X?"

What would be your more refined qualification of a question as "intellectual"?

 

[onemoretime]

4-year-olds also ask "why do people act the way they do", but it's not quite intellectualism.

Are you implying that four-year-olds aren't particularly quick-witted? They seem to learn languages a hell of a lot better than I can.

 

[Orangey]

I'd go as far as to say that any question about personality quirks that causes interpersonal conflict cannot be purely detached or scientific, by default, as an inquiry. Thus, it shouldn't ever be expected to be, either.

So any attempt at clarifying whether someone is really detached or failed to be detached (but others think they are cuz of their type, etc) is irrelevant. As detached as can be...perhaps. That's also subjective.

The real question is: is the aim of such OPs to offend more than it is to understand? (again, oh, so subjective)

Point is, whether it's an ENTP or an ISFJ asking the question, by the very nature of the question, the point of evaluating the merit of detachment is moot. See title of thread - usage of adjective to define Fi.

The inquiry itself is not a detached inquiry...so, picking hairs about whether the OP achieved/did not achieve/aimed to be/did not aim to be.... detached, scientific, etc...is kinda like chasing one's own tail (if one had a tail, of course ).

I agree. I'm not trying to argue that the OP's question was not scientific. I simply declared that it wasn't, for obvious reasons. The point I was trying to make was that the input of Fi users cannot be discounted (like he wants to) on the basis of their personal motivation and the anecdotal quality of their evidence, when the "inquiry" being undertaken is not scientific or intellectual (meaning, presenting an intellectual argument) in any sense.

 

[Wonkavision]

Just a little note to whoever it applies to:

Giving the benefit of the doubt is not the same as being naive or making assumptions.

Often, it involves a very rational calculation of probabilities.

 

[ajblaise]

Are you implying that four-year-olds aren't particularly quick-witted? They seem to learn languages a hell of a lot better than I can.

It's hard-wired in them at that age to learn language.

 

[Qre:us]

I agree. I'm not trying to argue that the OP's question was not scientific. I simply declared that it wasn't, for obvious reasons. The point I was trying to make was that the input of Fi users cannot be discounted (like he wants to) on the basis of their personal motivation and the anecdotal quality of their evidence, when the "inquiry" being undertaken is not scientific or intellectual (meaning, presenting an intellectual argument) in any sense.

Maybe I'm reading a whole different motivation in the OP than you are, but, I couldn't see where the OP was trying to discount Fi users' input on the basis of their personal motivation or anecdotes [she asked that more than a certain type of Fi users {INFP} give input]....

And I appreciate your insight. A few INFPs' opinions on Fi are not going to be very convincing arguments though. I'm not implying that you are wrong about yourself. It'd be nice to hear insights, personal, anecdotal, or theoretical, that analyze my speculations about Fi. Not just Fi users' opinions about Fi. Regardless of how much I appreciate the INFP insight, it's a pretty biased sampling pool, if you ask me.

The OP can correct me, but, I felt as if the question was asking if the OP's perception of Fi as pretentious is off, and if so why.......

....not whether Fi is pretentious or not.

Meh.

 

[Orangey]

Those are some fine hairs you're splitting there.

He wants to go from the specific to the general. We're not talking deductive analysis here, we're talking inductive theorizing. They're not using their anecdotes to build upon the theory, as much as browbeat him for even asking the question in the first place. An example of the former would be "you know, that's not been my experience. (inject anecdote). Maybe this is more of an issue of Y instead of X?"

What would be your more refined qualification of a question as "intellectual"?

Ooookay, the inductive/deductive distinction is irrelevant to our discussion. I am not critiquing the form of his arguments (mostly because there ARE NO ARGUMENTS), I'm saying that evidence which is anecdotal cannot be dismissed because it is anecdotal when there is no structured inquiry going on. And the distinction you are making between browbeating and relevant anecdotal evidence is based upon language use, not the content of the information they are presenting. And if language use counts as legitimate criteria for dismissing information, then that gives the Fi-people every right to dismiss the question because of the way in which it was asked (and the meanings that can be derived from the language that was used).

 

[onemoretime]

It's hard-wired in them at that age to learn language.

So it's hard-wired in them to take abstract concepts and rearrange them into something with meaning that other people recognize. Seems pretty intellectual to me.

 

[teslashock]

So, I'm curious, do you get this experience with TJs as well as FPs? Because you're talking about the function Fi, which applies to them as well.

Yeah, sure it's possible to experience this with other Fi users. I personally find it most in NFPs, and it just so happens that this forum has a lot of NFPs, so they are the ones that responded most promptly to this thread.

However, Fi does apply to other types aside from NFPs. I actually didn't even gear the OP at NFPs. I said "Fi users." IxFPs have dominant Fi, so their insight is of course wanted, and I think Fi influences them the most, so it's safe to say that the kinds of consequences that I referenced in the OP may be most seen in IxFPs. However, that's not to say that other types with Fi wouldn't exhibit actions that may appear emotionally "pretentious" as well.

 

[teslashock]

Maybe I'm reading a whole different motivation in the OP than you are, but, I couldn't see where the OP was trying to discount Fi users' input on the basis of their personal motivation or anecdotes [she asked that more than a certain type of Fi users {INFP} give input]....



The OP can correct me, but, I felt as if the question was asking if the OP's perception of Fi as pretentious is off, and if so why.......

....not whether Fi is pretentious or not.

Meh.

Yes, thank you for that. Your interpretation of the OP is spot-on. I just wish the Fi users coulds see that.

 

[Orangey]

Maybe I'm reading a whole different motivation in the OP than you are, but, I couldn't see where the OP was trying to discount Fi users' input on the basis of their personal motivation or anecdotes [she asked that more than a certain type of Fi users {INFP} give input]....

The OP can correct me, but, I felt as if the question was asking if the OP's perception of Fi as pretentious is off, and if so why.......

....not whether Fi is pretentious or not.

Meh.

And I appreciate your insight. A few INFPs' opinions on Fi are not going to be very convincing arguments though. I'm not implying that you are wrong about yourself. It'd be nice to hear insights, personal, anecdotal, or theoretical, that analyze my speculations about Fi. Not just Fi users' opinions about Fi. Regardless of how much I appreciate the INFP insight, it's a pretty biased sampling pool, if you ask me.

I'm not asking YOU to admit to anything. I'm not asking Fi users to admit to anything either. I'm asking for my perceptions to be critiqued.

Well that's good then, and thank you for your help. But you do not represent all Fi users or all theories about Fi simply because you are an INFP.

Well I thought he was asking whether his perception of Fi as pretentious could be generalizable beyond his own experiences. And then when Fi users declared that they were not in fact pretentious, and that he was simply seeing what he wanted to see (or whatever personal motivation they ascribed to him), he retorted by saying that he wasn't going to take very seriously the claims of Fi users because they are "biased."

 

[onemoretime]

Ooookay, the inductive/deductive distinction is irrelevant to our discussion. I am not critiquing the form of his arguments (mostly because there ARE NO ARGUMENTS), I'm saying that evidence which is anecdotal cannot be dismissed because it is anecdotal when there is no structured inquiry going on. And the distinction you are making between browbeating and relevant anecdotal evidence is based upon language use, not the content of the information they are presenting. And if language use counts as legitimate criteria for dismissing information, then that gives the Fi-people every right to dismiss the question because of the way in which it was asked (and the meanings that can be derived from the language that was used).

Nice and logical, but you're missing the big picture - first of all, he wasn't formally arguing a position, just like you said. Second, the likelihood of the other person accepting anecdotal information does not simply rely on the formality of the discussion; if anything, by laying out his grievances he has already stated that he will not accept any of that line of reasoning as persuasive. So the burden of persuasion is on the other person to demonstrate the rationale of the discussed actions collaterally. Finally, even if what you say about language is logically sound, disagreeing in such a fashion does nothing but confirm the other person's perceptions, undermining one's entire argument.

 

[Qre:us]

Well I thought he was asking whether his perception of Fi as pretentious could be generalizable beyond his own experiences. And then when Fi users declared that they were not in fact pretentious, and that he was simply seeing what he wanted to see (or whatever personal motivation they ascribed to him), he retorted by saying that he wasn't going to take very seriously the claims of Fi users because they are "biased."

The biased comment, I think, was referring to, a 'general biased sampling pool' doh: at the scientific lingo) of describing perception(s) of Fi, because it's mostly one type, INFP, responding (hence, the bias, rather than a representative sample of Fi-users)...not that Fi users are biased because they're Fi.

Regardless of how much I appreciate the INFP insight, it's a pretty biased sampling pool, if you ask me.


I'm not asking YOU to admit to anything. I'm not asking Fi users to admit to anything either. I'm asking for my perceptions to be critiqued.


Well that's good then, and thank you for your help. But you do not represent all Fi users or all theories about Fi simply because you are an INFP.

But, I must say, I think it was onemoretime [or proteanmix] (??) who brought up the point, that the nature of such topics ('negative' slant) are naturally going to raise defensiveness, so any kind of honest inquiry...I don't see it happening.

 

[Thalassa]

Teslashock is not a him.