The Opposite of Truth

[MacGuffin]

Are you actually going to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread or are you just going to keep indirectly dissing me? 'Cos you're a bit late to that party.

I wasn't just talking about you, egoist! /Fe fail

 

[Salomé]

I wasn't just talking about you, egoist! /Fe fail

No. You were talking about your favourite subject: failing.

You weren't talking about the OP anyway.

 

[MacGuffin]

No. You were talking about your favourite subject: failing.

You weren't talking about the OP anyway.

That thread was actually a great example of Ti vs. Fe. The Ti-doms got offended that "truth above all" wasn't being upheld as a moral principle, so they went on the attack in an irrational manner with their inferior Fe use.

 

[Salomé]

That thread was actually a great example of Ti vs. Fe. The Ti-doms got offended that "truth above all" wasn't being upheld as a moral principle, so they went on the attack in an irrational manner with their inferior Fe use.

Untrue. It was a 9 (Peace at any price) vs. 5 (Truth at any cost) showdown.

5 won, naturally.

 

[MacGuffin]

Untrue. It was a 9 (Peace at any price) vs. 5 (Truth at any cost) showdown.

5 won, naturally.

No, that's not what it was at all. Doesn't surprise me you'd think that though.

 

[Salomé]

No, that's not what it was at all. Doesn't surprise me you'd think that though.

That's exactly what it was.
And no one got offended or attacked anyone. It was a debate about principle. I played devil's advocate. You gave up under cross-examination.
Basically.

Let's not rehash it here though, eh?

 

[William K]

LOL

Loch=Lake

Heh, reminds me of all the times I lol at the Hwang Ho River or Iwo Jima Island.

Anyway, can we go back to the important question? Is it black or white or a different colour today?

 

[redacted]

That's the first interesting thing you've said in this thread. Well done.

We are starting to refine a hypothesis. I think the motivation for lying comes from Fe. The execution is something else, perhaps?

Can the motivation come from a function other than Fe?

Conscious motivation for anything comes from Feeling (either Fe or Fi).
Unconscious motivation for anything comes from Intuition (either Ne or Ni).

Fi could easily make the conscious decision to lie. It all depends on the narrative the user has.

An Fi narrative would be "telling the truth compromises my personal values".
An Fe narrative would be "telling the truth is inappropriate".

The person's idea of personal values or appropriateness is dependent on so many factors that you can't really make much of a valid point blaming one Feeling function more than another.

I guess I got so argumentative because it's absurdly presumptuous to think the use of one feeling function over the other (which all people use both of anyway) is "responsible" for a large-scale societal view. The functions have nothing to do with this.

You're saying that some assholes are consciously motivated by Fe. I agree with that. Some assholes are consciously motivated by Fi, too, though.

It's not like people that use Ti are somehow less susceptible to being assholes, either.

I'd rather talk about certain archetypes of assholes than MBTI here. You're just setting this simplified framework on top of an issue that'd be much more clearly described with normal words. (Edit: the consequence of doing this is losing a significant amount of information and making sweeping conclusions about groups based on the actions of very few.)

MBTI really just doesn't do it for this discussion.

 

[Wonkavision]

Wow. This thread is riddled with absurd ideas.

Yes, I'm an Ne dom. No, I'm not narrow-minded, but some ideas are just too stupid to consider.


In case you missed it or thought you were seeing things, Morgan Le Fay ACTUALLY SAID:

I think the motivation for lying comes from Fe.

At this point, I see no point in asking Morgan Le Fay for an explanation. This idea is so unreasonable, it only deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.


And Evan ACTUALLY SAID:

Conscious motivation for anything comes from Feeling (either Fe or Fi).
Unconscious motivation for anything comes from Intuition (either Ne or Ni).

Evan---I'm making a conscious effort not to laugh heartily at this statement.

I can't imagine where you're getting this from.

Please explain it, if you can.




Incidentally, it sometimes takes non-NTs to reign in the insanity of what I call "hyper-logic".

Consider this:

I would say that each function has its own truth and blind-spot, which is why in reality none of them are expressed in isolation of each other, and why we weigh pros and cons based on our own cognitive vantage points.

Agreed.

 

[Moiety]

You're just inclined to agree with most magnanimous statements. As much as I might not agree with a "crazy" idea, nothing irks me more than the unwillingness of people to explore taboo topics or topics that in theory would marginalize or set apart certain types or functions. So much for open-mindedness. It's not like we are ruling the world and dictating its rules, its dos and do nots from this here forum.

I don't get your implication with

Yes, I'm an Ne dom. No, I'm not narrow-minded, but some ideas are just too stupid to consider.

. How is Ne related to open-mindedness?

 

[Wonkavision]

How is Ne related to open-mindedness?

Sytpg---it's very simple.

I don't personally believe that being Ne-dom makes you more open-minded than others.
It's just that every time I reject an idea someone says, "Dude, I thought you were an Ne-dom. I thought you were supposed to be open-minded."

In fact, I might be mistaken, but I think you were one of the people who said that to me.


I was anticipating a comment and addressing it preemptively.

The way I said it implied as much, but if you missed it, no big deal.

I was going to delete that part because it was unnecessarily defensive, but I guess you beat me to it.


but BACK ON TOPIC......

I just have a HUGE problem with people characterizing Fe as "fake" and an even BIGGER problem with people characterizing it as the source of all lying!!!!!

It's simply ridiculous and UNTRUE.

But then again, since I'm not a Ti-dom, I can't possibly know what's true or untrue---unless I'm temporarily using Ti --right???? :rolli:

(THAT WAS SARCASM, and it's in reference to some of the comments in this thread, in case you missed THAT too.)


The suggestion in this thread (indirect as it may be, though it seems pretty direct to me) is that Fe users are highly prone to fakeness and lying.

If you don't have a problem with that, fine.

 

[Moiety]

Disagreeing with something preposterous doesn't mean you can't think about it. I will say I am partial to the idea that Fe is more prone to white lies at the very least. I don't think it's the source of all lying no. And I don't think Ne is source of all open-mindedness but I think it helps by definition, yes.

I just have a real hard time with people preemptively boycotting debate of outlandish ideas, and I find it more and more recurring in this forum so I had to say my piece. Anyway, carry on.

 

[redacted]

Wow. This thread is riddled with absurd ideas.

Yes, I'm an Ne dom. No, I'm not narrow-minded, but some ideas are just too stupid to consider.

...

Evan ACTUALLY SAID:

Conscious motivation for anything comes from Feeling (either Fe or Fi).
Unconscious motivation for anything comes from Intuition (either Ne or Ni).

Evan---I'm making a conscious effort not to laugh heartily at this statement.

I can't imagine where you're getting this from.

Please explain it, if you can.

If you think this is "too stupid to consider", you're probably missing the fact that there was no value-judgment in what I said whatsoever.

Imagine your conscious mind (jung equates this with judging). Now imagine you have to divide it into two parts, labeling some stuff "value-based" and other stuff "not value based". The "value based" stuff is F. It is all of F. There is no F anywhere not in this part you've labeled. That is F's definition. Same logic for T (with the "not value based" part).

So it's not much of a stretch to say conscious motivation is F. Motivation deals with personal importance, therefore it's value based. (Motivation in a framework where "personal importance" has no meaning must also have no meaning.)

As for the unconscious (jung equates this to perceiving), the concrete stuff is S, and the abstract stuff is N. So if you're motivated by something subconsciously, It's either S or N at work. I guess I might have made too bold of a claim because concrete stuff can be motivating, too. But I guess I was thinking of motivation as a more abstract psychological term, so I said it was N (because if anything is unconscious and abstract, it is N).

This is very simple stuff.

 

[Wonkavision]

If you think this is "too stupid to consider", you're probably missing the fact that there was no value-judgment in what I said whatsoever.

Imagine your conscious mind (jung equates this with judging). Now imagine you have to divide it into two parts, labeling some stuff "value-based" and other stuff "not value based". The "value based" stuff is F. It is all of F. There is no F anywhere not in this part you've labeled. That is F's definition. Same logic for T (with the "not value based" part).

So it's not much of a stretch to say conscious motivation is F. Motivation deals with personal importance, therefore it's value based. (Motivation in a framework where "personal importance" has no meaning must also have no meaning.)

As for the unconscious (jung equates this to perceiving), the concrete stuff is S, and the abstract stuff is N. So if you're motivated by something subconsciously, It's either S or N at work. I guess I might have made too bold of a claim because concrete stuff can be motivating, too. But I guess I was thinking of motivation as a more abstract psychological term, so I said it was N (because if anything is unconscious and abstract, it is N).

This is very simple stuff.

No, when I said that some ideas are too stupid to consider I was not including your idea about motivation, Feeling, Intuition, etc.

Though I found it kind of laughable, I thought it was worth considering, which is why I asked for an explanation.

However, I still disagree (And still find it laughable).

It seems obvious to me that you're making too bold of a claim when you say:

Conscious motivation for anything comes from Feeling (either Fe or Fi).
Unconscious motivation for anything comes from Intuition (either Ne or Ni).

You even recognized that in the case of your statement about Intuition. But for some reason, you're unable to see it in regard to your statement about Feeling.



*****

EDIT: I'd also like to add that it's surprising how literal you seem to be taking the functions.

You see things with your eyeballs, not with Sensing functions, right?

Similarly, you are personally motivated to do things because you're a person, not because you use Feeling.

If this is already extremely obvious to you, please disregard it. But it seems necessary to point out, given what you've said about motivation and the functions.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I'm glad this thread went somewhere.

 

[Jaguar]

 

[redacted]

No, when I said that some ideas are too stupid to consider I was not including your idea about motivation, Feeling, Intuition, etc.

Though I found it kind of laughable, I thought it was worth considering, which is why I asked for an explanation.

However, I still disagree (And still find it laughable).

It seems obvious to me that you're making too bold of a claim when you say:


You even recognized that in the case of your statement about Intuition. But for some reason, you're unable to see it in regard to your statement about Feeling.



*****

EDIT: I'd also like to add that it's surprising how literal you seem to be taking the functions.

You see things with your eyeballs, not with Sensing functions, right?

Your eyeballs are like a camera. A person doesn't see things with them. They convert the two-dimensional images on the retinas into complex three-dimensional representations (which takes a ridiculous amount of computation).

The conversion process is an instance of the function Sensing.

Similarly, you are personally motivated to do things because you're a person, not because you use Feeling.

You are a person and you use feeling are not in contradiction whatsoever.

The point of the functions is they DIVIDE cognition into mutually exclusive sub-categories. When you divide cognition into four, that means if you add the four back together, you get all of cognition.

There is nothing in cognition that isn't an instance of a function. That's the point of the functions in the first place!

95% of the people on this forum define functions by a list of surface level characteristics for some reason. I define them by how cognition can be divided.

It goes like this:
If it's conscious, it's T or F.
If it's unconscious, it's S or N.
If it's conscious and value-oriented, it's F.
If it's conscious and not value-oriented, it's T.
If it's unconscious and concrete, it's S (for example, the computation in the occipital lobe to convert 2-dimensional information into 3-dimensional representations).
If it's unconscious and not concrete, it's N (for example, integrating the 3-dimensional representations into a metaphorical framework).

Just because most of the people you get information from say one thing doesn't mean they're right.

 

[Wonkavision]

Oh man, I thought there was hope, but you're lost in a Ti maze, Evan.

So long and good luck.

 

[redacted]

Oh man, I thought there was hope, but you're lost in a Ti maze, Evan.

So long and good luck.

You mean you're uncomfortable analyzing counter-frameworks to the one you've confirmation biased yourself into believing?

Lost in a Ti maze is a bullshit way to dismiss my explanation. It's simpler than yours and accounts for more than yours can, so by occam's razor, mine is better.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

In a way Ti being compared to a maze is ironic. Seeing as the function is used half of the time to form logical frame works.