NFs vs. The Point

[Madrigal]

When reading NF posts on INTPc, do you ever get the feeling they have trouble distinguishing the main point of contention in a debate? Like they seem to put different side-issues on the same level as the core issue, or focus on a totally obvious side of the equation that nobody is even arguing against or gives a shit about.

Why do they do this?

Are they trying to make their posts seem "balanced" for the entire audience, so they decide to put everything on the same level of importance, only dilluting any point they might have? Is this also why they ramble like they do? Do they bring up obvious facets of the issue because they want everyone to agree on something? Would that be "good" while dividing opinion is "bad"? Even if the only thing we're agreeing on (lucid NF discovery) has the unifying value of a carebear stare at a gun fight?

What's up with this? Everytime people complain about NFs it's always some drivel about emoticons. I wish that was the problem with NFs.

[lpethe]

i can't say i've noticed it too much in the forum, but have in regular life. (actually, the most annoying thing is all the unnecessary side paths and background info before they make a point not necessarily in a discussion that already has a topic)

the only thing i could figure is that for the few i know the act of discussing is more important that what it is they are discussing.

[joft]

This is what I think is really happening:

NFs tend to have different interests than NTs.

People who are interested in different things tend to spend time thinking about different things.

In a conversation where one person has spent a lot of time thinking about the topic and the other hasn't, the one who has will have better judgment about what constitutes "the point" of the topic. The one who hasn't spent as much time thinking about the issue will still be in an exploratory phase.

[Madrigal]

i can't say i've noticed it too much in the forum, but have in regular life. (actually, the most annoying thing is all the unnecessary side paths and background info before they make a point not necessarily in a discussion that already has a topic)
Oh yeah, there is some kind of pedagogical approach whereby they go into an extensive (more breadth than depth) justification for a conclusion.

There is also an effort to integrate everything and everyone and I think the core issue gets dilluted in it all too often. I just wonder: do they realize they are watering down the whole issue? Are we even playing the same game? Maybe they just have different goals, and the point isn't really a priority for them?


the only thing i could figure is that for the few i know the act of discussing is more important that what it is they are discussing.
I guess my last sentence kind of leads to this hypothesis too.


This is what I think is really happening:

NFs tend to have different interests than NTs.

People who are interested in different things tend to spend time thinking about different things.

In a conversation where one person has spent a lot of time thinking about the topic and the other hasn't, the one who has will have better judgment about what constitutes "the point" of the topic. The one who hasn't spent as much time thinking about the issue will still be in an exploratory phase.
This sounds very reasonable as an explanation, if the hypothesis is true. It's one of the first ideas I learnt and unlearnt here; that we just have different interests as NFs and NTs. I don't really believe that anymore, or at least I'm much less convinced about it. :/

To the NFs blowing their nose on my rep page (not all of you, just the ones blowing their nose): Cut it out with the guilt trips! You know I'm a sucker for shit like that. :smooch: Geeez guys, totally missing the point here.

[1104]

subjective vs. objective. value is dependent on the person evaluating it. therefore, what they feel is important, is important.

[Eye-In-TiPi]

I've had a lot of experience with this. I pretty much had to give up on the dream of having a rational discussion with my wife years ago. Usually, the point makes a brief appearance at the beginning of the discussion, but if my wife doesn't want to discuss it or disagrees with my stance, I can forget about ever getting to the point I originally intended to discuss. I'm quickly redirected to other topics, tangents from the original topic and tangents of the tangents. Attempts to get back on topic are generally discouraged. If I'm stubborn about getting back on topic it usually only results in her screaming and/or crying. Most of the time, a guilt trip about one or more of my past wrongdoings is thrown in for good measure. I figured out that if I want my wife to get mad at me, I only have to tell her she's wrong. If I want her to claw my eyes out, I need only prove her wrong. It's all way too frustrating to endure. I have a lot of things I'd like to discuss with my wife, but probably never will. At least she's good in bed.

[pangolin]

Curiously, I am unsure what the point of your poll is. I mean, what would voting for one thing of the other indicate?

[Madrigal]

I've had a lot of experience with this. I pretty much had to give up on the dream of having a rational discussion with my wife years ago. Usually, the point makes a brief appearance at the beginning of the discussion, but if my wife doesn't want to discuss it or disagrees with my stance, I can forget about ever getting to the point I originally intended to discuss. I'm quickly redirected to other topics, tangents from the original topic and tangents of the tangents. Attempts to get back on topic are generally discouraged. If I'm stubborn about getting back on topic it usually only results in her screaming and/or crying. Most of the time, a guilt trip about one or more of my past wrongdoings is thrown in for good measure. I figured out that if I want my wife to get mad at me, I only have to tell her she's wrong. If I want her to claw my eyes out, I need only prove her wrong. It's all way too frustrating to endure. I have a lot of things I'd like to discuss with my wife, but probably never will. At least she's good in bed.
While hilarious, I'm not sure this is as much about being NF as it is about being crazy. But I'm open to justification.


Curiously, I am unsure what the point of your poll is. I mean, what would voting for one thing of the other indicate?

It's either in jest, or it's a binding referendum to purge NFs from the boards forever, and maybe even from the world too.

[Eye-In-TiPi]

While hilarious, I'm not sure this is as much about being NF as it is about being crazy. But I'm open to justification.

I never know what to blame on the crazy and what to blame on her NFedness. I also meant no offense to NFs in general. I find them generally likeable. I'm no expert on MBTI, of course. I assumed that her tendency to see any disagreement as a rejection of her as a person might be an NF trait. Why would I assume that? I probably heard someone say something like that somewhere sometime, but maybe I didn't.

Back to the OP, she does tend to ramble about things. I once told her she can make a short story long. I shouldn't have, probably, but it's true.

[s0978]

When reading NF posts on INTPc,

I try not to.


Why do they do this?

I'm sure there are several factors, but I think it usually boils down to lack of intellectual rigor or even just basic ability to comprehend The Point. The sharpest NFs (no one here, ones I know IRL) know not to digress or babble irrelevantly, because they are able to distinguish between what is germane and just tangential.


Are they trying to make their posts seem "balanced" for the entire audience, so they decide to put everything on the same level of importance, only dilluting any point they might have? Is this also why they ramble like they do? Do they bring up obvious facets of the issue because they want everyone to agree on something? Would that be "good" while dividing opinion is "bad"? Even if the only thing we're agreeing on (lucid NF discovery) has the unifying value of a carebear stare at a gun fight?

It's true that they appear incapable of comprehending that conflict and differences of opinion can be interesting, productive, entertaining or even ultimately uniting. (So why they are thought to be so emotionally intelligent I have no idea.) But I think more often it's more basic than that, and it's just that they are dumb. At least in some manner.


the only thing i could figure is that for the few i know the act of discussing is more important that what it is they are discussing.
This sent shivers up my spine.

[Avengardh]

Wait, what IS the question? I read your initial post but I am still so lost!

Oh wait, here's an emoticon :chook:.

I'm totally not an nf too :D

[SolitaryWalker]

Quite briefly, I'd like to define an NF.

An NF is a set of solidified unconscious habits of thought and a person who has this type by his or her very nature tends to focus more on emotive valuations than structure in ideas or reasoning. When you have such a temperament, dispassionate contemplation is often tiresome and difficult. Hence, many NFs find learning how to think critically to be too arduous of a task to attempt. As a result, many of them simply don't have the skill of seeing the point.

After all, to see the point of a discussion, especially if it is complex, you need to analyze it, you can't just got with your emotive impulses. If you can't do it, you will miss the point almost every time. In that regard NFs that Madrigal had in mind aren't different from our typical mythologians, yellow journalists and media figures who completely misrepresent the story and blow it out of proportion.

So, one reason why NFs have this problem is a simple lack of critical thinking skills. The second reason is a lack of discipline of mind. If your temperament is such that you find it easier to just go with your emotive valuations than dispassionate contemplation, its hard for you to motivation to think dispassionately. So, whatever critical thinking skills an NF may have, he or she on average will be much less motivated to utilize them than an NT would.

To summarize, altogether an NF's cognitive tendencies are such that learning to think critically tends to be uninspiring and unrewarding for them as well as the same could be said with regard to the activity of applying critical thinking skills. As a result, in an ordinary discussion, they usually either miss the point altogether or have no interest in addressing as they would much rather talk about their fancies than about an idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some points of clarification.

1. I don't think that all NFs can't think critically, its just that their tendencies do not predispose them to enjoy thinking in such a manner or learning to do so.
2. An NF can learn to think critically enough to see the point of a conversation and can also learn the sufficient discipline of mind to address the main point of the discussion rather than their fancies.
3. Most people find it unpleasant to do what is contrary to their natural tendencies or their temperament, so most NFs don't bother learning to think critically or to discipline themselves to respond in relevance to the discussion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra thought experiment.

The problems with NFs that I have cited here is that they are undisciplined and poor at critical thinking. In some sense this could be attributed to the quality of 'F' rather than NF. Are NFs any more likely to develop such personality traits? I would say so. SFs tend to have a much narrower perspective. As Sensors, they have a tendency to focus on what is immediately taking place at the discussion. NFs, as intuitors, however, do have a tendency to wonder off into their dream-land more which makes creating irrelevant remarks easier.

So, altogether, I would conjecture that the undisciplined mind-state coupled with an Intuitive preference can easily lead a person to a point where reality harldly matters and what does matter is whatever a person fancies. Unlike an SF who often tends to be quite focused on the immediate environment, an NF tends to be able to fancy a great deal; his or her undisciplined mind-state can indiscriminantly justified many of their fancies.

[Helios]

My life is mostly impacted by one NF. My yougest bro (INFP). He is the classic, no iconic NF. He can see and read the very souls of everyone with the same ease that you read this font. He will understand the intentions, drives, hopes, fears, and dreams of everyone he meets. It is a stunning (and wasted) power.

Otherwise he is totally useless!! And often maddening to boot!

Few things are more taxing to me that a critical convo with him. I refuse to even try and ever have text exchange, it would go on for eons. I don't believe succinct is a word in his dimension. So when pressed, I'll just call and only with the most rigorous, to the point of being rude, convo managment will we get anywhere. What just amazes me is he ALWAYS will go down every conceivable detour and tangent you could imagine (and many you wouldn't). To the point that I would swear to God he was purposely dodgeing The Point to annoy me, if I didn't fully believe in his absurd benevolence, that would never permit such. Some how this behavior is organic and natural for him! In the meantime I am about to have an aneurysm.


I really have tried to understand him. We connect on the 'N' level. (for example he reads people, then can seemlessly relay the info to me, cause he puts in an 'Ne format'. Then I can 'see' it myself, so I know he is legit, and I am alway amazed by what he noticed, that escaped me....when needed, this data is then transfered to the ESTJ sibling to destory people when the circumstance calls for such :D )

But I just can't. I love him, he is my brother, and I know he has abilities that I not only lack, but don't ever understand. Still he makes me wanna scream and jump out a window most of the time.

[Hustler]

Quite briefly, I'd like to define an NF.

An NF is a set of solidified unconscious habits of thought and a person who has this type by his or her very nature tends to focus more on emotive valuations than structure in ideas or reasoning. When you have such a temperament, dispassionate contemplation is often tiresome and difficult. Hence, many NFs find learning how to think critically to be too arduous of a task to attempt. As a result, many of them simply don't have the skill of seeing the point.

After all, to see the point of a discussion, especially if it is complex, you need to analyze it, you can't just got with your emotive impulses. If you can't do it, you will miss the point almost every time. In that regard NFs that Madrigal had in mind aren't different from our typical mythologians, yellow journalists and media figures who completely misrepresent the story and blow it out of proportion.

So, one reason why NFs have this problem is a simple lack of critical thinking skills. The second reason is a lack of discipline of mind. If your temperament is such that you find it easier to just go with your emotive valuations than dispassionate contemplation, its hard for you to motivation to think dispassionately. So, whatever critical thinking skills an NF may have, he or she on average will be much less motivated to utilize them than an NT would.

To summarize, altogether an NF's cognitive tendencies are such that learning to think critically tends to be uninspiring and rewarding for them as well as the same could be said with regard to the activity of applying critical thinking skills. As a result, in an ordinary discussion, they usually either miss the point altogether or have no interest in addressing as they would much rather talk about their fancies than about an idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some points of clarification.

1. I don't think that all NFs can't think critically, its just that their tendencies do not predispose them to enjoy thinking in such a manner or learning to do so.
2. An NF can learn to think critically enough to see the point of a conversation and can also learn the sufficient discipline of mind to address the main point of the discussion rather than their fancies.
3. Most people find it unpleasant to do what is contrary to their natural tendencies or their temperament, so most NFs don't bother learning to think critically or to discipline themselves to respond in relevance to the discussion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra thought experiment.

The problems with NFs that I have cited here is that they are undisciplined and poor at critical thinking. In some sense this could be attributed to the quality of 'F' rather than NF. Are NFs any more likely to develop such personality traits? I would say so. SFs tend to have a much narrower perspective. As Sensors, they have a tendency to focus on what is immediately taking place at the discussion. NFs, as intuitors, however, do have a tendency to wonder off into their dream-land more which makes creating irrelevant remarks easier.

So, altogether, I would conjecture that the undisciplined mind-state coupled with an Intuitive preference can easily lead a person to a point where reality harldly matters and what does matter is whatever a person fancies. Unlike an SF who often tends to be quite focused on the immediate environment, an NF tends to be able to fancy a great deal; his or her undisciplined mind-state can indiscriminantly justified many of their fancies.

LOL. tl;dr.

[fripping]

from my experiences with nfs, the point just isn't an issue with them. it's not relevant. luckily i'm only involved with them as friends so there usually doesn't even have to be a point, which can be liberating. if they were co-workers, relatives or a s/o the story might be different.

[Hustler]

Why do they do this?

NFs are dumber than INTPs. Thus it should come as no surprise that they struggle to engage us on a level up to our intellectual preferences.

[Madrigal]

I'm sure there are several factors, but I think it usually boils down to lack of intellectual rigor or even just basic ability to comprehend The Point.


I don't believe succinct is a word in his dimension. So when pressed, I'll just call and only with the most rigorous, to the point of being rude, convo managment will we get anywhere. What just amazes me is he ALWAYS will go down every conceivable detour and tangent you could imagine (and many you wouldn't). To the point that I would swear to God he was purposely dodgeing The Point to annoy me, if I didn't fully believe in his absurd benevolence, that would never permit such. Some how this behavior is organic and natural for him! In the meantime I am about to have an aneurysm.


from my experiences with nfs, the point just isn't an issue with them.


NFs are dumber than INTPs. Thus it should come as no surprise that they struggle to engage us on a level up to our intellectual preferences.
I'm gathering from these opinions that they are typically unable to understand The Point at all.

Not only that, but as I attempted to read "NTs vs. Understanding", I realized it was a textbook example of this hypothesis, and breathed a long sigh of relief that NFs can't post here.

Can't there be another reason besides NFs being "dumber", as stated here? Is there anything to get to the bottom of, or have we really started this thread off at its logical conclusion?

[SolitaryWalker]

LOL. tl;dr.

The second sector summarizes the entire post in three sentences.



I try not to.



I'm sure there are several factors, but I think it usually boils down to lack of intellectual rigor or even just basic ability to comprehend The Point. The sharpest NFs (no one here, ones I know IRL) know not to digress or babble irrelevantly, because they are able to distinguish between what is germane and just tangential.



It's true that they appear incapable of comprehending that conflict and differences of opinion can be interesting, productive, entertaining or even ultimately uniting. (So why they are thought to be so emotionally intelligent I have no idea.) But I think more often it's more basic than that, and it's just that they are dumb. At least in some manner.


This sent shivers up my spine.


This is what I think is really happening:

NFs tend to have different interests than NTs.

People who are interested in different things tend to spend time thinking about different things.

In a conversation where one person has spent a lot of time thinking about the topic and the other hasn't, the one who has will have better judgment about what constitutes "the point" of the topic. The one who hasn't spent as much time thinking about the issue will still be in an exploratory phase.


Oh yeah, there is some kind of pedagogical approach whereby they go into an extensive (more breadth than depth) justification for a conclusion.

There is also an effort to integrate everything and everyone and I think the core issue gets dilluted in it all too often. I just wonder: do they realize they are watering down the whole issue? Are we even playing the same game? Maybe they just have different goals, and the point isn't really a priority for them?


I guess my last sentence kind of leads to this hypothesis too.


This sounds very reasonable as an explanation, if the hypothesis is true. It's one of the first ideas I learnt and unlearnt here; that we just have different interests as NFs and NTs. I don't really believe that anymore, or at least I'm much less convinced about it. :/

To the NFs blowing their nose on my rep page (not all of you, just the ones blowing their nose): Cut it out with the guilt trips! You know I'm a sucker for shit like that. :smooch: Geeez guys, totally missing the point here.


subjective vs. objective. value is dependent on the person evaluating it. therefore, what they feel is important, is important.





My post is in agreement with almost everything that has been brought up in this thread. I have only minor corrections regarding the theoretical justifications of the conclusions, but the conclusions themselves are all plausible.