[MBTI General] Why NFs think that they understand NTs ?

[PeaceBaby]

But... but I only assumed you were assigning it that value, because you having that value was the only reason I could think of for making the comment you did. I don't actually have that value. I just thought you did.

Hence the assumptions that were made.

Well, if they're not my values, and they're not your values, whose are they? Great, I guess we both read incorrect motivations into one another. The NTs are right. We're all stupid.

Don't over-analyze it; everyone has values even if they claim not to or that they are purely objective in every situation!

And no, we're not all "stupid" - my heavens, why would you say that? Why does everyone assign NT with some kind of premium logical capability, or dare I say, premium intelligence?

At any rate, I am moving on - hope this thread gets tired soon and heads to la-la land.

Hugs to you all!

 

[jenocyde]

I'm sorry, Jeno, I'm going to use you as an example here

This was an answer to me explaining how things work for me. She concluded that therefore, since she was not the same way, it therefore was potentially wrong in my eyes. Granted, afterwards, she said she was just curious. She did however reason/deduct from my statement that it was possible that therefore she according to me maybe couldn't connect with others. Which was hardly what I meant.

No, it was a question. How you got from me exploring a concept to me making a statement is beyond me. And the "granted" part seems as if you are making a little deduction of your own... Is it because I put myself in the question? I did that because I was trying on your position from my own point of view. I'm still very amazed that you came to the conclusion that I came to any conclusion. You know what? no more questions. Game over - I've learned my lesson.

That's a really bad example, if you are trying to make a point. She asked you a question and thereby gave you the means of providing clarification.

 

[Amargith]

No, it was a question. How you got from me exploring a concept to me making a statement is beyond me. And the "granted" part seems as if you are making a little deduction of your own... Is it because I put myself in the question? I did that because I was trying on your position from my own point of view. I'm still very amazed that you came to the conclusion that I came to any conclusion. You know what? no more questions. Game over - I've learned my lesson.

Jeno, I realized at the time that this was actually put in a question form, and was probably meant as such. I was merely referring to the style in which the questions were poured. Maybe I should've picked another example, I dunno. I'll see if I can dig up another, more clear example of what I meant, coz clearly, somehow something gets lost in communication. I've had the same happen the other way around though, where I ask the person if this is what they're feeling, and if so, if it could be because of this and this and this, and they automatically assume that I'm assigning them feelings they then apparenlty not have. And that was in fact my entire point. Could perhaps the format in which we put things or something else still, be triggering the defensive response on both sides?

 

[BlackCat]

The way I've avoided assuming is to go figure that people mean what they say unless it's very obvious that they don't. This prevents a lot of confusion. If you over analyze something and there isn't anything more there, then you will cause problems for yourself. I can't count how many times something has been taken out of context that I post or say, and someone jumps to a conclusion that doesn't exist.

 

[Amargith]

+1

 

[Moiety]

Of course that may be true. No one is saying that MBTI is the be all and end all of personality crap, so I didn't bother to add the disclaimer. But if we didn't buy into at least some parts of it, then why are we all here?

But MBTI doesn't say anything about NT/NF conflict per se. In fact, depending on your source, NFs and NTs are considered "perfect matches" for each other.

I do buy into the "some people use more logic, some people use more feeling". I do not, however, buy into this rivalry myth that seems to be preached every now and then, always between the lines, around here.

I'm being vague I guess but yeah, just saying that some of it seems too forced. I can understand AO being an extreme T case. But most aren't. There's nothing complicated about T + F, people just like to justify their inability to understand the other side sometimes it seems.

This comment isn't aimed at you btw. Just throwing it out there.

It could be safe to say that we are a lot more honest here than irl. People may be just grinning and bearing it. Others, like me, may not be aware of how they are coming off to more sensitive people. Discussions like this may seem pointless, accusatory or redundant to those who have seen them before, but for people who are new to this, it could be helpful. It was for me, at least.

That's just it. As someone who always speaks his mind, I can't relate to that part at all. And that's where I was getting at with my initial comment (and again not aimed at your posts in particular) - it seems people think most Fs have something against Ts and that most Ts have something against Fs, deep down inside...or something...

I don't, so this kind of topic and this insistence on F/T rivalry makes no real sense to me.


Hope I made some sense.

 

[Salomé]

it seems people think most Fs have something against Ts and that most Ts have something against Fs, deep down inside...or something...

Hope I made some sense.

Not reallly, no.

I didn't realize just how prevalent the making assumptions thing was until this thread. Now I'm seeing it everywhere....

Thanks, AO. I think this was useful, even if others didn't.

 

[Aerithria]

Okay, I just sifted through all 29 pages of this thread, and honestly, this is what I keep seeing:

NF: (gives opinion to question stated in the OP)
NT: Hey, look, you're doing it right there! Point proved.
NF: Actually, I was merely attempting to answer the question. You're the one who's making a big deal out of things.
NT: Actually, I was making a refutation based on logic. It's so NF of you to assume I was getting emotionally involved.
NF: Okay, no. While I usually never assume anything of the sort, you were definitely getting emotionally involved there.
NT: Oh my god, you're doing it again.
NF: No, you're the one who's still assigning meaning to it.
NT: No, you are!
NF: No, you are!
NT: No, you are!
NF: No, you are!

 

[Lauren Ashley]

[...]

+infinity

 

[Salomé]

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

Saying it three times doesn't make it any truer.

 

[Moiety]

Not reallly, no.

I didn't realize just how prevalent the making assumptions thing was until this thread. Now I'm seeing it everywhere....

Thanks, AO. I think this was useful, even if others didn't.

Oh shit...did I just shoot my own foot there?Whatever will I do!!

And to think leaving it deliberately vague would save me from the "assumptions" labels...


If it makes you feel better though, I didn't read the thread all that much. Just expressing my frustration at the need to over-think these things in such an unproductive manner. And boohoo too

 

[Salomé]

Okay, I just sifted through all 29 pages of this thread, and honestly, this is what I keep seeing:

NF: (gives opinion to question stated in the OP)
NT: Hey, look, you're doing it right there! Point proved.
NF: Actually, I was merely attempting to answer the question. You're the one who's making a big deal out of things.
NT: Actually, I was making a refutation based on logic. It's so NF of you to assume I was getting emotionally involved.
NF: Okay, no. While I usually never assume anything of the sort, you were definitely getting emotionally involved there.
NT: Oh my god, you're doing it again.
NF: No, you're the one who's still assigning meaning to it.
NT: No, you are!
NF: No, you are!
NT: No, you are!
NF: No, you are!

LOL! Ain't it grand? We love each other really, we just don't understand each other.

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, I just sifted through all 29 pages of this thread, and honestly, this is what I keep seeing:

NF: (gives opinion to question stated in the OP)
NT: Hey, look, you're doing it right there! Point proved.
NF: Actually, I was merely attempting to answer the question. You're the one who's making a big deal out of things.
NT: Actually, I was making a refutation based on logic. It's so NF of you to assume I was getting emotionally involved.
NF: Okay, no. While I usually never assume anything of the sort, you were definitely getting emotionally involved there.
NT: Oh my god, you're doing it again.
NF: No, you're the one who's still assigning meaning to it.
NT: No, you are!
NF: No, you are!
NT: No, you are!
NF: No, you are!

And don't forget my similar little exchange with PeaceBaby.

NFP: (points out possibility that OP is farming for material)
NFJ: You're making us look stupid by looking at everything in terms of purity!
NFP: No, those are your values. You interpreted my comment as being within that moral framework, so it must be your own.
NFJ: Those aren't my values, it's just that you having those values was just the only reason I could think of you would say that. So if neither of us has those values, then we've both misconstrued each other. Great, we're both idiots. The NTs are right about us.
NFP: No, we're not. Everyone reads motivations into things. NTs aren't as smart as people think, anyway.

So, it doesn't just happen between NF and NT...

 

[PeaceBaby]

Dear A200,

Since the OP is about NT / NF communication, and not NF / NF, your little exchange proves ... nothing. Nothing at all.

Thanks,
PeaceBaby

(And you edited your post above again - you didn't have the "So, it doesn't happen just between NF and NT..." sentence a minute ago! Stop doing that LOL!)

 

[BlackCat]

That's just what happens when people assume. It's like going off on a tangent in your head, then feeling that it's totally right, and then typing it out.

 

[Athenian200]

Dear A200,

Since the OP is about NT / NF communication, and not NF / NF, your little exchange proves ... nothing. Nothing at all.

Thanks,
PeaceBaby

Well, it's not about the OP, true. And it doesn't prove anything. I just come up with theories, I don't try to prove them. Only NTs need to prove things, I freely admit my perceptions are subjective.

I just thought it was interesting that the same or a similar type of communication breakdown could occur within the same temperament that was occurring between temperaments. It means that that particular kind of communication breakdown probably isn't rooted in a conflict between NT and NF mental processing.

 

[PeaceBaby]

That's just what happens when people assume. It's like going off on a tangent in your head, then feeling that it's totally right, and then typing it out.

Indeed - some NT's believe their because their assumptions are based on logic, they are no longer assumptions somehow; they have evolved into factual statements.

And some NF's believe that because their assumptions are based on feelings this makes them accurate without the added lens of objectivity and more extensive fact-finding.

If I was ENTP, and posted as I did saying that AS-one was farming for book material in this thread instead of sincere fact-finding, all the other NT's would have laughed instead of assuming I had assigned a moral judgement to this. Heck, I watched the thread grow with amusement before posting in page 23 (or close to that!)

Athenian200 too is way off base by assuming that I was assuming and then assumed again that I has assigned values to my initial statement.

Honestly, I think very few even take the time to read and digest before replying. Does anyone not re-read the posts and reply with reflection?

 

[PeaceBaby]

And with that, I am going out to the garden for a bit - you all have a fun day!

P.S. And I have changed my MBTI type to LOVE - 'cause that's what makes the world go 'round baby!

 

[Athenian200]

Athenian200 too is way off base by assuming that I was assuming and then assumed again that I has assigned values to my initial statement.

Honestly, I think very few even take the time to read and digest before replying. Does anyone not re-read the posts and reply with reflection?

I suppose I might have been mistaken.

I try to reply with reflection, but I genuinely struggle to understand your perspective. You seem like you have a point, but it's like we're never on the same wavelength. You know what I mean?

 

[Salomé]

And don't forget my similar little exchange with PeaceBaby.

NFP: (points out possibility that OP is farming for material)= 1st assumption
NFJ: You're making us look stupid by looking at everything in terms of purity!=2nd assumption
NFP: No, those are your values. You interpreted my comment as being within that moral framework, so it must be your own.
NFJ: Those aren't my values, it's just that you having those values was just the only reason I could think of you would say that. So if neither of us has those values, then we've both misconstrued each other. Great, we're both idiots. The NTs are right about us.
NFP: No, we're not. Everyone reads motivations into things. NTs aren't as smart as people think, anyway.

So, it doesn't just happen between NF and NT...

That's just what happens when people assume. It's like going off on a tangent in your head, then feeling that it's totally right, and then typing it out.

This is the point. Everyone does make assumptions. It's the moral conviction which will not listen to reason that can be hard to swallow.

When NTs make assumptions, they tend to a) state them and b) don't feel personally invested in them. They are willing to sacrifice those assumptions as more information becomes available.

If I was ENTP, and posted as I did saying that AS-one was farming for book material in this thread instead of sincere fact-finding, all the other NT's would have laughed instead of assuming I had assigned a moral judgement to this.

My, my! Would that be, hold on, an assumption, you just made there? And I don't think any NTs said anything about assigning moral judgments. What was that you were saying about reading more carefully?