Pretentious Fi

[simulatedworld]

And that feeling is a gut that we cannot ignore.

No, feeling is a gut that you cannot ignore. Thinkers, by their very nature, make a point of using Thinking for most of their decision-making. That's what makes them T types. Your position reduces to, "Well Feeling factors so heavily into all of my decisions, gosh, I just can't see how it wouldn't be the same for others!"

Thinkers do have feelings, but we're much better at consciously choosing to leave them out of decision-making than you, and it's insulting and obnoxious when you insist that you have some magical power to understand our decision-making process better than we do.

 

[teslashock]

Tesla, realize that your general way of formulating things is a very ENTP way of doing it which rubs Fi-users the wrong way. Remember when I said that you want things to making logical sense and you figure the information is in our brains and you need it? You automatically process it and find the logical inconsistencies?

Yeah, that translates to us as you questionning us, and accusing us of things that you've interpreted...wrongly in our opinion. Where we're nonchalant in formulating precise words to specify details when it comes to intellectual data, which gets us in trouble with NTPs who like precision there, you lack precision when it comes to formulating things with precise emotional content....Your observations led you to believe that Fi comes off as pretentious. The way you formulated it though was pretty NTP...make a hypothesis and ask for people to contest it. To me, that automatically registers as a judgement. You're already believing this. And now its my job to disprove something that to me you have no business judging anyway as you clearly don't understand it?

It really is not supposed to be regarded as an unwavering judgment though. I work largely off of induction. That results in me trying to generalize and categorize my experiences into something more meaningful than the experience itself. When I make a hypothesis or what you see as a "judgment", I'm not trying to say "I'm right about this. Go ahead and prove me wrong. I dare you." I'm trying to say "Am I right about this? If not, prove me wrong. If so, convince me that I'm right."

Again though, I really really appreciate the posts you've put on this thread. They've been really helpful in characterizing the Ti/Fi clashes that occur, and they really help me to more clearly see things from the Fi perspective. Thanks.

 

[Amargith]

Just as it is annoying that you seem to think that you understand what it is we're trying to say when you clearly don't and then tell us that it's wrong and illogical coz you actually cannot make sense of it

Same game, different field. Get over it. Stick to NFJs if we annoy you so.

 

[Amargith]

Tesla, I'm happy to do it. I love NTPs and I do wanna get on with them as well, but this is somethign I haven't been able ot crack either.

I *know* by now that you don't mean to say 'this is right'. But it doesn't change the automatic response I get to it. Just as you get an automatic response to someone asking you about your feelings. So..I'm hoping you will from now on *know' that NFPs are not trying. And it has to make logical emo-sense to them. Meaning, they will fill in the gaps, wrongly maybe, if you don't.

 

[simulatedworld]

Just as it is annoying that you seem to think that you understand what it is we're trying to say when you clearly don't and then tell us that it's wrong and illogical coz you actually cannot make sense of it

Same game, different field. Get over it. Stick to NFJs if we annoy you so.

Well, when we say you're being illogical, we're probably right. Our mistake is in expecting you to behave logically in the first place, knowing that you naturally operate more on feelings than on impersonal logic. Since that's in your nature, it's not really fair for us to hold you to Thinking standards or insist that you use Thinking more often. Our mistake is in implicitly declaring that Thinking>Feeling.

I don't really see Thinkers running around insisting that Feelers are operating on Thinking when they're not, though. Mostly Thinkers just marginalize the value of Feeling and insist that it doesn't have any use in any situation, which is admittedly wrong of us.

 

[teslashock]

Well, when we say you're being illogical, we're probably right. Our mistake is in expecting you to behave logically in the first place, knowing that you naturally operate more on feelings than on impersonal logic. Since that's in your nature, it's not really fair for us to hold you to Thinking standards or insist that you use Thinking more often. Our mistake is in implicitly declaring that Thinking>Feeling.

I don't really see Thinkers running around insisting that Feelers are operating on Thinking when they're not, though. Mostly Thinkers just marginalize the value of Feeling and insist that it doesn't have any use in any situation, which is admittedly wrong of us.

QFT. I kind of touched upon this earlier in the thread.

 

[Orangey]

I spent several posts responding to OrangeAppled who was blatantly disagreeing with everything I said. I also responded to Seymour and sciski who disagreed with me. Yes, I did respond to those who agreed, but I also ignored some who agreed too. I can't give a lengthy response to every single post though. You're being silly.

Okay, now you're just repeating yourself, and not comprehending what I'm saying. Clearly you did not look at my breakdown of the first four pages of this thread in which you were responding, but not at all to disagreeing comments, except to call OrangeAppled out on taking things too personally, and repeating the triviality that you want to have other opinions.

 

[teslashock]

Okay, now you're just repeating yourself, and not comprehending what I'm saying. Clearly you did not look at my breakdown of the first four pages of this thread in which you were responding, but not at all to disagreeing comments, except to call OrangeAppled out on taking things too personally, and repeating the triviality that you want to have other opinions.

I comprehend what you're saying. It's just not really applicable or worth dignifying with a lengthy and detailed response. Your "breakdown" includes 4 pages of this thread. Guess what, genius? This thread is 11 pages long now. Go tally up the percentages of my posts that are responses to agreements and responses to disagreements, and when you have those numbers, maybe then we can keep talking. You're being ridiculous.

 

[simulatedworld]

OHHHH SNAP IT'S ON NOW

 

[Orangey]

I comprehend what you're saying. It's just not really applicable or worth dignifying with a lengthy and detailed response. Your "breakdown" includes 4 pages of this thread. Guess what, genius? This thread is 11 pages long now. Go tally up the percentages of my posts that are responses to agreements and responses to disagreements, and when you have those numbers, maybe then we can keep talking. You're being ridiculous.

Yeah, many (if not most) of which are you and I, and a bunch of other people, arguing about this, which do not need to be included.

 

[Qre:us]

Tesla, realize that your general way of formulating things is a very ENTP way of doing it which rubs Fi-users the wrong way. Remember when I said that you want things to making logical sense and you figure the information is in our brains and you need it? You automatically process it and find the logical inconsistencies?

Yeah, that translates to us as you questionning us, and accusing us of things that you've interpreted...wrongly in our opinion. Where we're nonchalant in formulating precise words to specify details when it comes to intellectual data, which gets us in trouble with NTPs who like precision there, you lack precision when it comes to formulating things with precise emotional content....Your observations led you to believe that Fi comes off as pretentious. The way you formulated it though was pretty NTP...make a hypothesis and ask for people to contest it. To me, that automatically registers as a judgement. You're already believing this. And now its my job to disprove something that to me you have no business judging anyway as you clearly don't understand it?

I *realize* that you're asking this *becoz* you wanna know. But that's only coz I have the same battle scars as SW
I gave him some of his for that matter
But realize we're the same. We *state* what we think you feel. And that feeling is a gut that we cannot ignore. Usually the gut is right, but the interpretation gets screwed along the way. As yours, no offense, imo, has gotten in this matter. Doesn't mean your observations are faulty though
Same with us. We observe you're angry and frustrated. But since feelings are our bread and butter and it is not a pleasant emotion, we're trying to get to the bottom of why and wanna fix it. Hence we address the issue, not realizing that to you this is not relevant. In fact, to us, you're like a big emotionally poluting grease factory next door. And we don't get how you can ignore that stench, no offense. That's interpretation, not the reading that goes wrong. It takes experience and background knowledge about the person to get that right. Just as you require to know us a bit, and have to have experience with feelers to get what is important to us, and to understand how our brain works

Nicely said.

Lesson: Acknowledge Fi-users' Fi, give its value a place, if we expect them to do the same to Ti.

If it's not about the person but the thought, then, discussing the thought with a non-Fi user would be the easiest scenario. But, if we Tis are choosing to engage in a conversation, not only for the topic of conversation but the person we're conversing with [most likely, IRL], then, acknowledging where they're coming from and trying to understand how that is relevant to what they're saying seems like a fair bargain.

Otherwise, don't be suprised to find conflict, ad nauseum.

 

[teslashock]

Yeah, many (if not most) of which are you and I, and a bunch of other people, arguing about this, which do not need to be included.

I editted my last post to include the following, but I'll just put it here:

I'll admit that I didn't offer responses to many of the posts from Fi doms that were like "Well, I'm not really like this. Blah blah blah." I did read those posts though, and they are noted in my mental database of Ne connections. I mean what am I supposed to say to those, "Oh ok wow you're not like that, you're an INFP, so my perceptions must be flawed! Gee thanks!" I guess next time I should take the time to quote those kinds of responses and tack on a "Thanks." or "duly noted" or some silly emoticon or something.

But seriously, the thread received a lot of immediate responses in a short timeframe, so I responded to the posts that were somewhat provocative or explicitly asked questions for me to answer.

I'm done arguing with you about this. I have spent a good bit of time on this thread responding to those who identify with my experiences as well as those that disagree with my perceptions. I've also spent a good bit of time on this thread clarifying my original intentions in the OP and responding to your relatively pointless input. I'm done with this argument with you now. If you want to talk more about Fi here, then cool. Otherwise let's drop the stupid argument regarding how many of my posts were acknowledging agreements and how many were acknowledging disagreements. That's a pointless analysis to make.

 

[simulatedworld]

Personally, I love conversating most when I'm able to obnoxiously make fun of bad grammar.

 

[Qre:us]

Personally, I love conversating most when I'm able to obnoxiously make fun of bad grammar.

Thanks for the heads-up! Fixed.

PS- when did you turn INTP?

 

[simulatedworld]

Thanks for the heads-up! Fixed.

PS- when did you turn INTP?

Why, right after I turned ENFJ, of course.

Which was after I turned ESTP.

Which was after I turned ISTP.

Which was after I turned ENTJ.

Which was after I turned ESFJ.

Which was after I turned ENFP.

Which was after I turned ESFP.

Just ask this forum full of brilliant type readers. :yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[BlueSprout]

I did solicit other POVs. I never explicitly said in the OP: "NFPs, how do you guys feel about this?" I don't know where your above claim is orginating from.

My last post showed that your OP equated Fi use specifically with xNFPs (versus INTJs, ISFPs, etc). In the case that it was an example, this distinction was not made clearly enough to avoid the conflation of the two. The connection was only progressively reinforced as time went on.

Furthermore, if you reference my first post in the thread, I pointed out that you specifically asked "you Fi users" to explain their 'pretentious' and 'annoying' behavior or to tell you whether it was something you simply "made up in (your) head." Because Fi users were both specifically called on for their input and associated most directly with xNFPs in your OP, it should not be surprising that so many xNFPs responded.

I never claimed that you excluded other opinions in your explicit request, just that you focused too much on your frustration at the perceived number of Fis replying. You didn't need to focus on the bias that their input caused (I think Orangey addressed this better than I could), discouraging Fi users from continuing to respond. You could have engaged Orangey or Ajblais or encouraged non Fi users to be more active in the thread instead of being dismissive of Fi input at a certain point because you felt it was skewing the data.

I was trying to keep the OP as simple as possible. I didn't want to offer too much detailed analysis and personal theories because I wanted others to respond with their own first.

Understood, but you could have been concise and clearer. Instead, you overwhelmed the OP with redundant questions (first asking if your observation was accurate, then asking the Fi users to answer, then rephrasing the question again), an aside about the perceived danger of Fi attacks on Ti, and multiple explanations of how "out of control", inaccurate, and pushy Fi use can be without being very specific. You could probably have said more with less while clarifying both your reasons and intent.

I have read the OP over and over and over, and I am still having a really hard time seeing why people seem to be taking such offense to it. I don't really see how it was "venting" or as unbalanced as you are making it out to be.

There isn't much I can add that I or others in this thread haven't already pointed out about the way you organized and phrased your OP. I pointed out the ways in which you could have neutralized your language and improved your approach to reflect its purpose. That's all I have to say at this point. I hope you find more answers to the question you asked and that you can develop a more comprehensive understanding of Fi from there. Good luck.

 

[Qre:us]

Why, right after I turned ENFJ, of course.
Which was after I turned ESTP.

Which was after I turned ISTP.

Which was after I turned ENTJ.

Which was after I turned ESFJ.

Which was after I turned ENFP.

Which was after I turned ESFP.
Just ask this forum full of brilliant type readers. :yim_rolling_on_the_

Bolded. Hours of entertainment if you were that type, and some folks 'round these here parts, saw.

 

[simulatedworld]

Bolded. Hours of entertainment if you were that type, and some folks 'round these here parts, saw.

I think I've gotten read as ENTJ just because I'm so obnoxious and forward. (Apparently nobody remembers Nocap.)

But Ti is just as irritated by logical inconsistency as Te is by inefficient application of it!

 

[teslashock]

Alright guys I am done arguing about what my orginal intentions of this thread were. My original intentions certainly were not to argue about what my original intentions were though. Holy fucking crap!

My original intentions, whether or not this was clear (I'm clarifying now, for like the gazillionth time), were to have my perceptions about this so-called "pretentious Fi" critiqued by anybody and everybody. Critiques could be backed by anecdotes, personal opinions, abstract function theories, or your favorite Van Gogh painting for all I care. I'm just interested in hearing them.

Can we stop arguing about what the original purpose of this thread was now? Sure, I could have worded the OP better so as not to yield such inflammatory responses, but I thought the Fi users could handle it. Apparently not though. Sorry about that. Aaaaaand moving on...

 

[Orangey]

I editted my last post to include the following, but I'll just put it here:

I'll admit that I didn't offer responses to many of the posts from Fi doms that were like "Well, I'm not really like this. Blah blah blah." I did read those posts though, and they are noted in my mental database of Ne connections. I mean what am I supposed to say to those, "Oh ok wow you're not like that, you're an INFP, so my perceptions must be flawed! Gee thanks!" I guess next time I should take the time to quote those kinds of responses and tack on a "Thanks." or "duly noted" or some silly emoticon or something.

But seriously, the thread received a lot of immediate responses in a short timeframe, so I responded to the posts that were somewhat provocative or explicitly asked questions for me to answer.

I'm done arguing with you about this. I have spent a good bit of time on this thread responding to those who identify with my experiences as well as those that disagree with my perceptions. I've also spent a good bit of time on this thread clarifying my original intentions in the OP and responding to your relatively pointless input. I'm done with this argument with you now. If you want to talk more about Fi here, then cool. Otherwise let's drop the stupid argument regarding how many of my posts were acknowledging agreements and how many were acknowledging disagreements. That's a pointless analysis to make.

Okay, well I'm done as well, though I still don't think you've understood my point (which is why you think an analysis of the number of disagreements you addressed is pointless), which was that your failure to address them gave the impression that you were not hearing them. And there were several disagreeing posts that did not come from personal experience, and did not come from Fi users, that you did not respond to (but that you keep conveniently ignoring anyway.) One was from Poki, if I remember correctly, who made a good argument that, in theory, extraverted judgment functions would be more prone to this type of "pretentiousness." I also gave an argument, which you ignored, saying that the principle of INFP conflict avoidance and passivity conflicts with this idea of obnoxiously imposing one's impressions or opinions on others.

Also, the fact that you had no idea how to respond to INFP expressions of personal disagreement based on their perceptions of themselves just points further to the fact that you did not count their statements for much. If I had asked the same question that you did, and people who used Fi said that they did not do that, then I would have tried to find a way either to explain better why I thought they did, or concede that maybe it is another function or set of functions responsible. All you did was respond positively to people who agreed so that you could continue to complain about how much it sucked when Fi people did that to you, and contemplate ways for them (and you) to overcome that problem in the future.

But yeah, I'll let you get back to your obnoxiously trivial discussion about how Fi users are not rational, but Ti users should not expect them to be, and blah blah blah. Have fun.