What would the world do without Fe?

[Zarathustra]

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[PeaceBaby]

Gosh, it was a JOKE. Sorry, I'll use more smiley's next time. I was alluding to the Herd Mentality Zara so eloquently pointed out. I did think about that, but I trusted that people would get it. Guess not. I thought O's reply was overwrought and didn't at all accurately portray or address the points I made but whatever.

You know, Oro made two lengthy replies to my post (which I thought were interesting), deleted both of them and left the most melodramatic, why-is-everybody-picking-on-me post for everyone to read as her grand exit.

Well played. *golf clap*

@bold: I know. I do get it. It's just that saying that after an overwrought expression appears ... well, a little ... smug? Not as funny?

Oro, what did you delete? Did you save it? I want to read it!

Probably funnier IRL, where you could conspiratorially wink and give a shoulder-nudge too ...

 

[PeaceBaby]

U R SO EMO ... change UR type to INFP already!

 

[Zarathustra]

U R SO EMO ... change UR type to INFP already!

Silly accused of me being an INFJ the other night...

 

[proteanmix]

@bold: I know. I do get it. It's just that saying that after an overwrought expression appears ... well, a little ... smug? Not as funny?

Oro, what did you delete? Did you save it? I want to read it!

Probably funnier IRL, where you could conspiratorially wink and give a shoulder-nudge too ...

In replied in kind. It was reciprocal in strength to her statement which appears...well, a little overwrought?

 

[garbage]

Gosh, it was a JOKE. Sorry, I'll use more smiley's next time. I was alluding to the Herd Mentality Zara so eloquently pointed out.

oops

In any case, I sure as hell hope PeaceBaby identifies with being a Fi-user, or whatever, because my argument in this post kind of rides on it.

Someone please point to me how these points of view are so drastically different:

No we're not. I try to understand people through psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, (not so much art and literature ) things like that. I don't use MBTI and typology as my only reference. To me it seems like you use MBTI and typology as your only references because you so often try to map things that I believe are broad human behaviors as endemic to a specific function. I used a picture before already in the thread and asked people how do you untangle that? I doesn't mean it can't be untangled and I think we're trying to untangle it in our own ways.

Just as preamble, I believe trying to ascribe behaviour to functions is like trying to un-bake a cake. All of the ingredients that make the "PB" cake are blended together to a homogeneous mixture, and then are chemically altered by the baking process. Can you see all the ingredients in isolation again? Nah, I'm a cake. Not bowlfuls of sugar, flour, butter Fe, Fi etc.

thanks again

Your pal,
bologna

 

[Zarathustra]

Just as preamble, I believe trying to ascribe behaviour to functions is like trying to un-bake a cake. All of the ingredients that make the "PB" cake are blended together to a homogeneous mixture, and then are chemically altered by the baking process. Can you see all the ingredients in isolation again? Nah, I'm a cake. Not bowlfuls of sugar, flour, butter Fe, Fi etc.

You know what the biggest continuous argument on this forum is?

How much typology can (or cannot) be used to describe our behavior...

Without. a. doubt.

As such, I will continue this longstanding TypeC tradition by pointing out that Peacebaby's simile is complete poppycock.

Yes, I said it: poppycock.

To ascribe behavior to functions is not akin to unbaking a cake.

It is, however, akin to identifying the ingredients that went into the cake.

A good chef -- just like a good typologist -- will be able to identify the various ingredients.



Thus Spake Zarathustra!

 

[garbage]

A good chef -- just like a good typologist -- will be able to identify the various ingredients.



Thus Spake Zarathustra!

"Various." As in, more than just the one.


So who's an example of a good typologist?

 

[Zarathustra]

"Various." As in, more than just the one.

Yes, as in this cake is made up of sugar, cinnamon, and poppycock.

So who's an example of a good typologist?

I've seen a number of people on this forum whom I suspect would be.

Can't really know til you've been out in the field with em...

Silly and I tend to agree the vast majority of the time when we type people.

And I think we're generally pretty accurate.

The key, though, is not just being able to type people...

It's about accurately noticing what archetypal influences are manifesting themselves at any one particular point in time.

 

[garbage]

I've seen a number of people on this forum whom I suspect would be.

Can't really know til you've been out in the field with em...

Silly and I tend to agree the vast majority of the time when we type people.

And I think we're generally pretty accurate.

The key, though, is not just being able to type people...

It's about accurately noticing what archetypal influences are manifesting themselves at any one particular point in time.

Sneaky edit

And, you've raised a good point with respect to the ingredients. I don't want to discredit that. I also think that it's good that you and she reach a consensus in your typing.

To carry the analogy further, though, I'd say that the chef who actually baked a particular cake has a clearer idea of what into it than even the most renowned expert.

We can learn to discern ingredients by different tastes, for sure. To a certain extent. But I think that we'd be better off to ask that chef if we actually want to know what went into his specific cake.

And we'd be well-served to refine our definitions of categories as new data comes in.

If an individual who identifies with a certain type doesn't identify with a certain thought or idea that one associates with a particular type, either (a) that person's type is wrong, (b) one's definitions are wrong, or (c) one's definitions are limited or biased.

 

[PeaceBaby]

You know what the biggest continuous argument on this forum is?

How much typology can (or cannot) be used to describe our behavior...

Without. a. doubt.

As such, I will continue this longstanding TypeC tradition by pointing out that Peacebaby's simile is complete poppycock.

Yes, I said it: poppycock.

To ascribe behavior to functions is not akin to unbaking a cake.

It is, however, akin to identifying the ingredients that went into the cake.

A good chef -- just like a good typologist -- will be able to identify the various ingredients.



Thus Spake Zarathustra!

Well you better rethink my metaphor then .. oh "great one" ...

 

[uumlau]

Well you better rethink my metaphor then .. oh "great one" ...

Hmm ... perhaps typing someone is like hitting them in the face with the cake, and asking them what the ingredients are?

 

[Zarathustra]

Sneaky edit

Yes. it. was.

And, you've raised a good point with respect to the ingredients. I don't want to discredit that.

Thank you.

I thought so myself.

I also think that it's good that you and she reach a consensus in your typing.

It's pretty cool when we regularly come out of conversations with new people and go, "XXXX. Jynx!"

To carry the analogy further, though, I'd say that the chef who actually baked a particular cake has a clearer idea of what into it than even the most renowned expert.

We can learn to discern ingredients by different tastes, for sure. To a certain extent. But I think that we'd be better off to ask that chef if we actually want to know what went into his specific cake.

I agree with you to an extent, but let's not forget that there are certain people who know more about baking cakes than others...

Some amateur might go about baking their cake (i.e., living their life) and not really have any idea what went into that thing or how it came to be -- they just followed their understanding of the directions on the box. I would call this lack of self-knowledge and/or lack of knowledge of the tools necessary for understanding themselves.

Others, of course, will know damn well what they put in their cake, and how it all came together. I would call this self-knowledge and/or proper knowledge of the tools necessary for understanding themselves.

Then there are those who will think they know damn well what they've put in their cake, and how it all came together, but who are actually wrong in their understanding. I would call this false self-knowledge and/or false knowledge of the tools necessary for understanding themselves.

Now, in light of these three "chefs", I would say that an expert chef, who is someone like the second example, albeit so knowledgeable that not only do they know what went into their own cake and how it came to be the way it came to be, but they can actually figure out what went into other people's cakes as well. In the case of the first (lack of knowledge) and third (false knowledge) examples, this expert chef will actually understand what went into these cakes better than these chefs; in the case of the second example, the expert chef may or may not understand what went into the cake better than this chef, depending on how knowledgable the expert chef really is, as well as how knowledgeable (both of self and of the necessary tools) the chef who made the cake is.

Now, what you were pointing to (and accurately I should add) is the fact that this second chef obviously has the benefit of perspective, as he/she actually baked the cake, so he/she needn't even necessarily have more knowledge than the expert chef in order to better understand what actually went into his/her own cake and how it came to be.

Fuck me! Who says I don't use Ti!

And we'd be well-served to refine our definitions of categories as new data comes in.

If an individual who identifies with a certain type doesn't identify with a certain thought or idea that one associates with a particular type, either (a) that person's type is wrong, (b) one's definitions are wrong, or (c) one's definitions are limited or biased.

Now that's some Ti I can believe in!

 

[Zarathustra]

Well you better rethink my metaphor then .. oh "great one" ...

Or perhaps you ought to consider my point .. oh "righteous one" ...

Hmm ... perhaps typing someone is like hitting them in the face with the cake, and asking them what the ingredients are?

 

[onemoretime]

Hmm ... perhaps typing someone is like hitting them in the face with the cake, and asking them what the ingredients are?

More like taking the cake, putting it into a blender, then a centrifuge, and then running a spectroscopic analysis on it, and then saying that it was the presence of palmitic acid that made the cake taste the way it did. Nothing about the cooking time, the consistency of the batter, the other ingredients in the cake, the temperature of the oven, etc.

 

[skylights]

why is it that all that comes to mind is "i'd like a taste of YOUR cake, baby..."

And we'd be well-served to refine our definitions of categories as new data comes in.

If an individual who identifies with a certain type doesn't identify with a certain thought or idea that one associates with a particular type, either (a) that person's type is wrong, (b) one's definitions are wrong, or (c) one's definitions are limited or biased.

it seems to me that one should come to typology with the underlying assumption that language is necessarily limited. any one of us could take millenia describing the ins and outs of our personalities and lives, so we simplify for the sake of order and communication. but, we can't forget that we are always simplifying in some way or another, or we lose sight of the infinite complexity of life and of variation between people.

Someone please point to me how these points of view are so drastically different:

No we're not. I try to understand people through psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, (not so much art and literature ) things like that. I don't use MBTI and typology as my only reference. To me it seems like you use MBTI and typology as your only references because you so often try to map things that I believe are broad human behaviors as endemic to a specific function. I used a picture before already in the thread and asked people how do you untangle that? I doesn't mean it can't be untangled and I think we're trying to untangle it in our own ways.

Just as preamble, I believe trying to ascribe behaviour to functions is like trying to un-bake a cake. All of the ingredients that make the "PB" cake are blended together to a homogeneous mixture, and then are chemically altered by the baking process. Can you see all the ingredients in isolation again? Nah, I'm a cake. Not bowlfuls of sugar, flour, butter Fe, Fi etc.

yeah, they're basically expressing the same thing.

and unless i'm terribly mistaken, i don't think that anyone really consciously believes that everything can be reduced down to type interactions alone. i think it just happens when we (i speak for myself especially, with tert Te) break things down into theory, sometimes we get carried away with analysis, and forget to step back. the intention is never to say Fe dom is ONLY this or Fi dom is NEVER this, it's to use theory to understand things. we apply limits to distinguish - if Fe and Fi always overlap, there is no sense in having either "Fe" or "Fi".

but by the sheer amount of people who have enneagram or other type-test stuff in their sigs, i'd be surprised to see any consensus on the forums, ever, that the MBTI is adequate to explain everything.

 

[garbage]

Thank you.

I thought so myself.

yeah someone please remind me to never say anything like that again

I agree with you to an extent, but let's not forget that there are certain people who know more about baking cakes than others...

I'd went into this train of thought beforehand and don't have a good definitive answer, other than one from my perspective.

I don't pretend to know anyone better than they know themselves and default more toward rectifying my understanding of them rather than trying to bend them to my understanding. I also end up thinking that the reverse is absolutely presumptuous, arrogant, and often more wrong than we realize or care to admit.

I also think that those who know more about baking cakes tend to be the ones who... well, I'll drop the analogy and get to the generalized version.

Those who have experience with a variety of tools and knowledge tend less toward thinking that every problem can be solved with one specific tool.

The difference in perception is, as you say, a matter of what role cognitive functions play. How much of our daily lives and reactions to external phenomena are actually due to these functions?

So what's the goal? If you look solely at individuals' characteristics, it's difficult to generalize. If you merely place people into categories, you lose those individual characteristics.

The issue, then, is how best to generalize in order to understand people in the best possible way.

Fuck! Who says I don't use Ti!

Well, lots of bullshit parts of many versions of the theory say that. The aspects that try to tack on to the theory by saying "wellll.. that must be a combination of Te and Se instead of Ti...." and thereby dodging the issues that the theory creates instead of addressing them. That's who.

well, the people who use those bullshit parts are the ones who say that

you get what I mean


In any case, that's part of the danger. That whole "getting taken too far" thing. After all, I wouldn't presume that you lack any sort of internal logical consistency solely based upon your type.

I wouldn't deny that cognitive functions, as we've defined them, play a role in how we perceive reality--they're pretty much comprehensive of perception and action (because they're defined that way, which is a good thing). But how they're organized and 'used' is a huge matter of debate.

but by the sheer amount of people who have enneagram or other type-test stuff in their sigs, i'd be surprised to see any consensus on the forums, ever, that the MBTI is adequate to explain everything.

I like the analogy that an individual person is some 3D shape--say, a cylinder. Some light at some angle casts a rectangular shadow; another light at another angle may cast a circular shadow.

And so on.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Allow me, as the communicator, to try to expand my metaphor in the manner I wish it to be understood.

Say the cake is me. My personality is what my cake "looks" like. My behavior is what my cake "tastes" like.

Let's imagine that the functions are the core ingredients of my cake, the cake of me. So I have a mixture of them all, in varying quantities, as does everyone else. To be complete, let's say we all possess all 8 tasty "ingredients": Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Se, Si and Ne, Ni.) They get measured in finite quantities creating a huge array of possible combinations. But that's all there is in the basic recipe. These 8 "ingredients". My appearance and flavor can thus be anticipated to a point, based on the commonalities shared from the "basic recipe".

If that's all that was in my cake, perhaps you could be so bold as to imagine you could predict what my cake really "tastes" like. But that's not all that constitutes the cake of "me" at any point in time.

There are other ingredients that are added to the "basic recipe" and thus get mixed into and then baked into my cake, ingredients that you may have no awareness of. My life experience, the kind of parenting I received, my values, relationships, the cultures I participate in, my physiological constitution, my gender, intelligence, other genetic variables etc etc ... arguably these are all factors that mix into the basic recipe to create my "cake." The homogeneous batter that comprises the sum of all of my raw ingredients differs now from the basic recipe, but still we know much of what is "in" the cake, so could still even imagine what it might "taste" like.

But what's important here, what I want to emphasize, is the baking. The process of baking creates new chemical structures, changing the essential nature of the cake. The infinite number of extra ingredients mixed to the batter interact with the basic ones in unpredictable ways, create something new each and every time. Even the time of day, altitude, humidity levels affect the baking, external factors completely unrelated to me, to my "ingredients" and influence the final product.

Thus I become more than just the sum of ingredients; I metamorphosize into something completely unique. What I "taste" like is the totality of a process one cannot fully account for or control. And to un-bake it is impossible; you cannot reverse what is, essentially, a compositional change. You can "look" at the cake and try to guess what it will taste like, or you can "taste" the cake and try to discern the various flavors on your palate, be it a refined or ignorant one. This multivariate expression of creation combines ad-infinitum beyond anyone's grasp.

It's presumptuous to think you could truly predict behaviour based solely on functions. There's so much more to it than that.


By changing my metaphor you changed the whole point of it, the whole essence of what I was trying to say.

-----

And yes, protean and I are saying essentially the same thing; that's quite transparent, is it not?