Te vs Fe perspectives: "the truth"

[Joy]

The "truth" has to do with the way one views reality, and to Alpha/Beta, Fe is more important than Te. Te "truth" as Gamma/Delta knows it is, from a Fe perspective, ignoring what's important, which may interpreted as hiding the truth.

I've learned this to some extent dealing with an INFp. She'll say that something happened when it didn't, and I've come to see that from her perspective, she's telling "the truth" as she knows it. To her, adding details or fabricating events isn't a big deal if it helps communicate what she wants to communicate. When I give her the objective facts but don't allow my feelings to show in what I'm saying, to her I am the one who's being deceitful. To me, my emotions are not important to the discussion and I see no reason why I should be expected to express them.

I realize that this is most likely a biased view. Feel welcome to offer feedback on my perspective of this subject and describe your own perspectives. (Let the bitching commence... )

disclaimer: I'm not saying that all Fe types blatantly lie.

[FDG]

Truth is just what happens and what is.

Then there are qualifiers and adjectives and feelings, that are personal. But lying about events, of course it's not the truth.

[Joy]

Hiding one's emotions may be considered untruthful though, too. This isn't mean to draw a clear line. It's more about tendencies, leaning one way or another in terms of what's important to be "truthful" about.

[Logos]

Hiding one's emotions may be considered untruthful though, too. This isn't mean to draw a clear line. It's more about tendencies, leaning one way or another in terms of what's important to be "truthful" about.

types are able to read a truth of interrelations which types are unable to see. And since , while observable, is unmeasurable, this -reading and types in general are seen as somewhat shallow or superficial, because it is perceived as a truth of nothingness.

[Creepy-bg]

neither is more "truth" or whatnot... their just different aspects of truth. I can accept them as equals even if I personally prefer to express myself with . What bugs me is when a person tried to put over . (that's right it doesn't bother me when people do the reverse... but then what do you expect coming from a person who values . I can understand intellectually that it's the same as the other case, but feeling wise, I think putting before on the "truth" scale is funny, cute, amusing... not so when is put before In those cases I feel threatened, indignant, frustrated etc.)

[Gilly]

Joy, we already know you think Fe types are stupid and pointless and don't focus on reality. Let it go. All you're doing here is giving an embarassingly off-the-mark definition of Fe and Te. This is nothing new.

[Joy]

I guess it's about which things people find it more offensive/wrong to omit or alter in some way.

[Slacker]

I always figured people would consider either Ti or Te to be "the truth".

[Joy]

Joy, we already know you think Fe types are stupid and pointless

incorrect

and don't focus on reality.

Fe is just as valid a perspective of reality as Te. Some people value Fe, some people value Te.

Let it go.

Are you suggesting that we stop talking about Socionics?

All you're doing here is giving an embarassingly off-the-mark definition of Fe and Te.

This isn't intended to be a definition of anything. Just a personal observation.

[Logos]

I always figured people would consider either Ti or Te to be "the truth".

While there is certainly the element of "the truth" in Ti and Te arguments, in this case it is more on the observable truths as defined by the Extroverted Rational functions.

[Gilly]

This isn't going to go anywhere. Not taking it any further.

[Joy]

This isn't going to go anywhere. Not taking it any further.

thank you



As far as Introverted vs. Extroverted rational IM elements, I think Fi and Ti are generally recognized by most as personal understandings or truths (though some still try to push these onto others).

[Gilly]

They aren't personal, they are contextual.

[Joy]

They aren't personal, they are contextual.

Yes, in terms of Socionics, but I was more referring to the average person's understanding of their own Ti or Fi beliefs.

i find both of these functions pretty harmless. while i've been associated with Te around here recently, it's completely alien to me, this stuff Joy and some other Serious types say against Fe "superficiality" and what not. i'm not sure which function this is, but i remember a lot of objective information about the people and places around me. and i think a lot about what that information might mean for my relationship with those people. so i can usually gauge pretty well, if it's in someone's nature/interest to like me or not, if their Fe towards me is being superficial/polite/patronizing or sincere. likewise if IFp's make up little Te-bungled stories, i'm not threatened by their embellishment because i can usually guess the real story anyway.

I didn't mean to imply that Fe is superficial. Fe and Te are both "objective" from a Socionics standpoint.

[Gilly]

A person's functional preference don't necessarily have anything to do with the way he forms his beliefs, so that's a bit of a non sequitor.

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

oh i need to clarrify this..

I didn't mean to imply that Fe is superficial. Fe and Te are both "objective" from a Socionics standpoint.

i meant superficial in comparison to Fi.

Gilly's Fe vs. Te gripe reminded me of those other discussions about Fe vs. Fi which reminded me that i don't really identify with most Serious posters' sentiments on Fe overall. but i don't think i'm quite as pro-Fe as say bionicgoat though, is another thing about this thread that got me thinking. there are types which aren't so strongly confident or unconfident in Fe or Te, instead having bases and POLRs that are EP or IJ functions.

and since recent days have been "ifmd is Te" days i figured i'd pitch that idea FWIW. not that i have anything against being a Te type if that's what fits best. but with the way i'm derailing this thread right now, it seems to be fitting worse yet!

Could you please point to other opinions on 'serious' posters opinions on other than Joy's? I am quite sure I am an INTp, but I don't treat as though its my mortal enemy. I don't think other types on this forum seriously treat in a similar light either, although I could be wrong since I have not looked through some of the more informative / vs. / threads.. Its simple enough to say that is an area I pay little attention to and that I don't really value its use, although to say that its an irrelevant part of my life is an oversimplification. How does derailing a thread suggest evidence for being a type? I think derailing topics into related subjects is actually something INTp's tend to do a lot.


As for the main subject of this topic- the "Truth" is 'simply too complex' of an issue to be based around a serious vs. merry dichotomy. People have other functions in their psyche, y'know.

[Joy]

lol

[aka-kitsune]

The "truth" has to do with the way one views reality, and to Alpha/Beta, Fe is more important than Te. Te "truth" as Gamma/Delta knows it is, from a Fe perspective, ignoring what's important, which may interpreted as hiding the truth.

I've learned this to some extent dealing with an INFp. She'll say that something happened when it didn't, and I've come to see that from her perspective, she's telling "the truth" as she knows it. To her, adding details or fabricating events isn't a big deal if it helps communicate what she wants to communicate. When I give her the objective facts but don't allow my feelings to show in what I'm saying, to her I am the one who's being deceitful. To me, my emotions are not important to the discussion and I see no reason why I should be expected to express them.

I realize that this is most likely a biased view. Feel welcome to offer feedback on my perspective of this subject and describe your own perspectives. (Let the bitching commence... )

disclaimer: I'm not saying that all Fe types blatantly lie.

I don't think this is type related. I think this is individual. Personally, I don't "fabricate". I actually find that I recall pretty fact pretty accurately, and I don't insist unless I'm 99.9% sure I'm correct FACTUALLY. I don't see a point in blurring the lines or embellishing events; although I may leave things out to be more delicate or sensitive to aspects that may aggravate a situation. If anything, I pride myself on total recall, especially fine details.

And what do you know? I'm INFp.

Emotions are important to Fe I think, because it's the primary way of gathering info about the person and situation directly in front of them. I wouldn't say you're being deceitful, because no one says you HAVE to express emotion. Only that you're depriving an Fe of vital info that they need to process situations. And you're deliberately withholding that info. That's frustrating. Sounds like you really don't like this person, otherwise you'd try to meet them somewhere in the middle.

[Park]

edit

[Transigent]

The "truth" has to do with the way one views reality, and to Alpha/Beta, Fe is more important than Te. Te "truth" as Gamma/Delta knows it is, from a Fe perspective, ignoring what's important, which may interpreted as hiding the truth.

I've learned this to some extent dealing with an INFp. She'll say that something happened when it didn't, and I've come to see that from her perspective, she's telling "the truth" as she knows it. To her, adding details or fabricating events isn't a big deal if it helps communicate what she wants to communicate. When I give her the objective facts but don't allow my feelings to show in what I'm saying, to her I am the one who's being deceitful. To me, my emotions are not important to the discussion and I see no reason why I should be expected to express them.

I realize that this is most likely a biased view. Feel welcome to offer feedback on my perspective of this subject and describe your own perspectives. (Let the bitching commence... )

disclaimer: I'm not saying that all Fe types blatantly lie.

Yeah, INFp's CAN be quite active in fabricating non-existent realities (weird that I am going through some of this same BS also with some INFp), but I think that this really happens to be E vs. I functions, whatever "function" it may be. It's kinda the way that they communicate...so arguing that it happened/didn't happen, isn't as important I guess as just regognizing the feeling or whatever that they are trying to get across?

[Park]

and while he's entitled to his opinion, and entitled to edit it out, i'd just like to point out that i think what Winterpark originally wrote (if anyone else saw it) goes to show that my impression wasn't entirely BS. again, i'm not particularly bothered by this tendency among many Serious types, but i don't think i'm particularly out of left field for suggesting it exists, either.

I found it and I am re-posting it for you :wink:
You know I love you! (<- Fe truth, lol)

To me Fe often comes of as a fake expression of feelings which hides the "true feelings' or the "truth". Like when someone I barely know is showing me compassion, telling me how much they like me, how much they care about me, how much they want to help me etc. when I know they don't have a reason to do so. I often wish to answer (but I usually hold myself back) and say "fuck you! I don't need no compassion from you! You just care for yourself and don't worry about me, I'll be fine you piece of hypocritical shit!"

edit: This is probably also somehow correlated to Fi. Hmm...

[Park]

I wish I could write like you. My post is bullocks compared to yours in terms of intelligence, conciseness, and intuition. But what 's important is to get your message/point across, one way or another.

solid. i don't know if i'd have the straightforwardness to do that myself if the tables were turned. i tip my hat to you sir and will even bother using an emoticon for once:

Thank you. My Fi is pleased.

[Park]

...although to your credit, you know what they say about actions speaking louder than words.

But what actions could I possibly take? I can not give you my cock in a virtual forum.

[FDG]

Hiding one's emotions may be considered untruthful though, too.

Depends, if we're asked how we feel, and we hide it - yes. If not asked, though, not really.

[force my hand]

I've learned this to some extent dealing with an INFp. She'll say that something happened when it didn't, and I've come to see that from her perspective, she's telling "the truth" as she knows it. To her, adding details or fabricating events isn't a big deal if it helps communicate what she wants to communicate. When I give her the objective facts but don't allow my feelings to show in what I'm saying, to her I am the one who's being deceitful. To me, my emotions are not important to the discussion and I see no reason why I should be expected to express them.

I experience the same kind of thing with my sister, who is a possible INFp. Things that are fundamentally not true are treated as if they are because to do so conveniently supports the idea/feeling/mood she is trying to express. I have a ton of examples if anyone is interested.

[krieger]

I'm on the side of the truth-benders. If I can avert an emotional crisis by constructing a lie I'll do it instinctively and without thinking. I see a worded assertation more as a report of interpretation than as one of actual fact.

Here's another perspective on the matter though: empowering functions are generally more free and unchained than their limiting counterparts... accepting Ti and creating Fe are both empowering functions.

You won't hear me claiming that accepting Fi (which is also empowering) is likely to be caught at lying, though.

[FDG]

I'm thinking of times when I bluff, I don't know which are the functions involved:

- Somtimes I bluff at knowing what will happen in the future, and invent facts to support it. Almost all the time, everything I've predicted comes true, and this ability is used only in very dangerous situations. Example: lost in the woods; an examination where nobody knows what the professor's going to put; the time of arrival of a friend.
- I also bluff when I don't want the other party to know how much effort I have placed in something, so that they don't worry: ex. when I've trained too much, stayed up too late to finish an assignment, drove many kms just to bring a friend home etc

I also think that only the second can be categorized as lying. Since the first involves future happenings, and they are not truth yet, it's fair to assume the truthfulness of the prediction until proven otherwise.

[Park]

lol no i think you misunderstood! i am not BulletsAndDoves you know? what i'm saying is: you reposting your edit means a lot more than any of my endless prattling!

Oh, I see. Sorry.

[marooned]

Frankly I'm confused about the T/F distinction. I usually feel torn between T and F. I have sometimes said things in conversations that aren't "true" or quite true to make sure the emotional "truth" is clear. If someone doesn't understand a view I have on something (that comes out of my feelings) then I will rearrange or reinvent the "facts" trying to make the emotional meaning more clear. When I think they understand my point of view, I'll stop. Then I'll usually kind of apologetically back track, and let them take over the conversation, or maybe even admit that I was "exaggerating" a bit. I want to feel like the other person and I understand each other.

But other times I feel like people are reinventing the "truth," as in an important truth, to allow for their feelings... as though one can deny the truth of something because they simply don't like it. In which case I usually feel I have to point out that whether we like it or not, it isn't any less true. When I'm on one of my objective kicks, it seems others may start trying to take sides on something, when I'm just trying to look at it objectively and allow for all perspectives. This generally frustrates me. But it might be that it frustrates me because I feel it's dangerous to lose sight of perspectives that differ from ones own, or to believe that ones own perspective is the only "right" one. I often feel torn between expressing my personal opinion about something (which usually is based on my feelings) and not expressing any personal opinion I hold trying to make sure all perspectives are recognized. But then others might assume things about my perspective, or that I'm trying to defend things that are "wrong." But to me all of this is terribly subjective... what is right or wrong, true or false is *all* a matter of individual perspective to some extent.

I used to be a lot more judgmental. I had a strong idea of what I thought was right and wrong, and felt comfortable in all situations to know what the right thing is. But now I seem to have lost sight of this, as though it isn't so simple anymore. The "right" thing has become elusive. In allowing for other perspectives, and not judging any of them, right and wrong become a matter of perspective... and there isn't an ethical center anymore. But if I decide to go with a single moral perspective on it (my perspective) than it's like I'm judging others on their perspectives sometimes, and that isn't right either. I've been in this paradox for many months now. It really kind of seems like insanity. I think the seeds for this were kind of planted when I was in a relationship where I discovered I'd been very subtly manipulative (I didn't usually even know how manipulative I was being), and I started to question all of my "morals" and began to doubt my ability to do the right thing. Then I kind of got into this limbo where it isn't clear anymore.

I think there are many kinds of truths... and no truth... at the same time.

I've experienced both kinds of frustrations... I've been in conversations where I'm just trying to talk about the way something is and the other person keeps bringing their feelings into it, or bring in value judgments, when that's "beside the point." And I've been in conversations where I'm trying to convey that I don't care what way something is (because it isn't "right" in a moral sense), and the other person keeps trying to turn it into something "factual" or "logical." I guess not all logical truths are morally equal; and not all ethical truths are logically equal. I think I'll stop before I confuse myself even more.

[Kristiina]

depending on the situation, the percieved emotional truth can be more true than "the real truth". Usually insults are nothing more than factual remarks, and so are compliments. "Is that a new dress?" is just a factual question, right? Sometimes it's outright sorry to see when a person can't understand the underlying meaning at all. People with weak Fe are very likely to make subtle insults without realizing it. People with strong Fe make those insults on purpose. Not easy to spot the difference. So... The first post of the thread - is it really just an intellectual conversation about Fe vs Te, when there's only writing of Fe seeing "truth" falsely.