[Psychosmurf]

Lately, I've noticed that most INTPs (if not most NTs) think that emotions are, in some way, a form of manipulation/deception. Dominant Fe users will "program" themselves to feel what they think is socially appropriate for them to feel in a given situation. This strikes me as disgusting and dishonest to the core.

However, I think it might be the case that other types view reasoning with a similar sort of suspicion. What do you think?

:mellow:​

 

[Unicorntopia]

Oh yes, most definitely. I have been aware of this for a long time and can see it clearly from both sides. It makes it really hard for me to act. Both sides are 100% valid from their own point of view. I uslually have to way the pros and cons in depth based on the predictions of how things will play out if I do this or that. If there are too many likely predictions that have conflicting required actions to get the preferred outcome, I will get nervous and not know what to do. In that case I will pick something to socially experiment with that I have never seen or have seen the least, in order to get new info for future use, or pick the shiniest option. :happy:

My head is way to complicated.

 

[Lucretius]

I don't see anything inherently manipulative or deceptive about emotion.

 

[wafflecake]

Eh, for me it is pretty easy to persuade people (I don't want to say manipulate, what with the negative connotations). I don't do it often though, and when I do, it's never for my benefit, it's for the other person.

 

[honestfi]

In the same way that F can be used to sway opinion (e.g. emotional blackmail), for sure T can be used in the same way. An example of this could be in the film Good Will Hunting. Will has absorbed everything that he has read, but does not necessarily believe what he reads, or he can see holes in any argument expressed in such works. He uses this to manipulate the people he comes into contact with, from the bar bully to the shrinks.

But you see it in real life too, with corporate management passing change to middle and lower management. Some may have to use their T strategies to get people round to the way that the board think, even though they may not believe it themselves.

However - just because F can be used for manipulation, as can T, doesn't mean it is always so IMO. Opinion is often based on life priorities, and they can be very different with an F and a T. Therefore, both will believe what they are saying is the correct opinion/choice, whether it be right or wrong.

 

[honestfi]

Oh as a PS, there seems to be a fine line between what people can class as manipulation and persuasion.

The latter, in my view, is often where you find the common ground with T and F.

 

[thehigher]

I think both can be just as manipulative. It's just harder to argue with logic.... because..... it's logic...... you can't TELL someone how they feel. Only they know if they are not being true to their feelings. But if they are using logic to say how they should feel .... but not how they actually feel.... then that's manipulation too.

 

[Unicorntopia]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what Psychosmurf is trying to say is if both parties, the manipulator and the manipulatee, both use the same judgment function, manipulation will become more difficult. Reason being, the manipulatee (using T for this example) will end up simply taking in what manipulator says as info and will easily be able to spot any errors & fill in any gaps. This will result in manipulatee not being able to be manipulated very easily.

However, if manipulatee were an F type it is likely that they are not as well versed in logic since they have not spent as much time focusing on it in their lives. Therefore, the F person might not understand how the logic fits into the situation and will either have to get stubborn & ignore what the T person says, or take their word for it. If T person can predict which reaction to logic F person will choose , than T person has the upper hand and will be able to manipulate F person.

I also think Psychosmrf may be getting at the fact that Ts do not have to try to manipulate Fs in order to influence and ultimately change what Fs would have done had Ts not been there. The simple act of using logical reasoning that is over someone elses head or even out of their normal interaction zone is enough to have the effect that manipulation would have had. The problem is that F person has no way of knowing whether or not T person is trying to manipulate them. So, F has to make a choice:

1. trust T person
2. have nothing to do with T person
3. learn logic better
4. figure out how T people work & learn how to spot their intentions

Visa versa when T & F persons switch roles but instead of logic being the tool, emotional display will be the manipulating tool.

 

[Psychosmurf]

I was working on a little theory on why differing personality types exist and what it is that we are when we remove all cognitive preferences, i.e. the self without the personality. (I've also incorporated a few things from the philosophy of mind)

What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of. Our true self is hidden from consciousness. It lies in the unconscious part of the mind. Think of it this way. When you "think" you are never in a position to choose what thought you will think next, you simple become aware of your current thoughts. All other functions seem to me to work the same way. The thought emerges from the unconscious and into the contents of the consciousness.

The main idea I want to get across is that "true knowledge" is usually NOT available to consciousness in explicit form. Instead it lies in the unconscious, and a personality type is simply the manner in which the contents of the unconscious become available to consciousness. In that sense, using F has just as much validity in revealing this knowledge as using T. :mellow:

 

[darksoul]

I was working on a little theory on why differing personality types exist and what it is that we are when we remove all cognitive preferences, i.e. the self without the personality. (I've also incorporated a few things from the philosophy of mind)

What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of. Our true self is hidden from consciousness. It lies in the unconscious part of the mind. Think of it this way. When you "think" you are never in a position to choose what thought you will think next, you simple become aware of your current thoughts. All other functions seem to me to work the same way. The thought emerges from the unconscious and into the contents of the consciousness.

The main idea I want to get across is that "true knowledge" is usually NOT available to consciousness in explicit form. Instead it lies in the unconscious, and a personality type is simply the manner in which the contents of the unconscious become available to consciousness. In that sense, using F has just as much validity in revealing this knowledge as using T. :mellow:

I'm inclined to agree with you. I also believe that dreams tap into our conscious wold, thus offering us a glimpse of our true self :wink:

 

[Psychosmurf]

If I may draw a picture:

 

[Psychosmurf]

On further thought, I think it might actually be like this for INTPs. This version could possibly also explain Dom-Tertiary loops.

 

[Unicorntopia]

I was working on a little theory on why differing personality types exist and what it is that we are when we remove all cognitive preferences, i.e. the self without the personality. (I've also incorporated a few things from the philosophy of mind)

What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of. Our true self is hidden from consciousness. It lies in the unconscious part of the mind. Think of it this way. When you "think" you are never in a position to choose what thought you will think next, you simple become aware of your current thoughts. All other functions seem to me to work the same way. The thought emerges from the unconscious and into the contents of the consciousness.

The main idea I want to get across is that "true knowledge" is usually NOT available to consciousness in explicit form. Instead it lies in the unconscious, and a personality type is simply the manner in which the contents of the unconscious become available to consciousness. In that sense, using F has just as much validity in revealing this knowledge as using T. :mellow:

OMG! I LOVE thinking about this! You are diving into what I have been diving into for about the past 2 years.

What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of. Our true self is hidden from consciousness. It lies in the unconscious part of the mind. Think of it this way. When you "think" you are never in a position to choose what thought you will think next, you simple become aware of your current thoughts. All other functions seem to me to work the same way. The thought emerges from the unconscious and into the contents of the consciousness.

So, are you saying that our wills are not completely free? Are you saying it is like we are caged pets only aloud to play and manipulate our surroundings within the cage?


I agree with everything you are saying except:

What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of.

I think it may go on something like a loop of sorts (recently I have been preferring to view it as figure 8) that enables us to eventually be able to see the truth located in the unconscious.

I think the cage thing is true to a certain degree. As we go through time we end up with an accumulation of experiences from the F and T side. We should then be able to see the truth. I think the tricky part is mind sets. You have to be in T mind set to use T and F mind set to use F. The goal is to be able to remember mind sets fully. Can we remember a mind set fully without switching over to that mind set? I think so, but it requires one to be able to view themselves as hypocrites. Most people will not allow themselves to be that humble and end up ignoring the truth of the last mind set.

INFJ is the only type I have heard to be able to switch mind sets consciously with relative ease. This is most likely due to Ni being the main conscious function and Fe (other peoples values/feelings) being the main decision making function. This is the only thing that keeps me from changing my type all the time or settling with unknown personality.

Some of my thoughts on this are laid out in these two links:

What I Think - PersonalityCafe

http://personalitycafe.com/critical...itively-know-something-weak-3.html#post526879

 

[Just_Some_Guy]

The only thing manipulative about emotion is that INTPs feel threatened and manipulated by it.

The way I see it, when we (INTPs) sense an emotion, we immediately step in with our bifurcating logic to split up all of the elements of the experience. We quickly see why we feel the way we do, but because of our logic, we are one step removed from the actual emotional experience, thus the Fe shadow. Notice how much better you feel when you don't think about it and just laugh, like when out with friends, or perhaps after a few (dozen) cocktails.

Emotions are a way to harmoniously and irrationally resonate with others. This is a beautiful thing that we (INTPs) definitely need to learn how to reincorporate into our lives.

Here's some homework for all y'all. Watch how you mind responds to emotions. Watch subtle feelings pop up in your body and watch how your mind spins out of control with each feeling. Or, watch how your thoughts trace back to feelings. In general look at the relationship between your F and T functions. All of the information is there; you just need to observe it.

 

[Just_Some_Guy]

I was working on a little theory on why differing personality types exist and what it is that we are when we remove all cognitive preferences, i.e. the self without the personality. (I've also incorporated a few things from the philosophy of mind)

What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of. Our true self is hidden from consciousness. It lies in the unconscious part of the mind. Think of it this way. When you "think" you are never in a position to choose what thought you will think next, you simple become aware of your current thoughts. All other functions seem to me to work the same way. The thought emerges from the unconscious and into the contents of the consciousness.

The main idea I want to get across is that "true knowledge" is usually NOT available to consciousness in explicit form. Instead it lies in the unconscious, and a personality type is simply the manner in which the contents of the unconscious become available to consciousness. In that sense, using F has just as much validity in revealing this knowledge as using T. :mellow:

This is the heart of what Zen will call non-thinking, or a state of "thoughts without a thinker." A mind free of "I" no longer picks sides and a vast sea of information floods experience. If you can manage to cultivate such a state without freaking out and retreating to the pleasantness of your inculcated dualistic worldview, some would call you "awakened."

True knowledge is indeed not available to the personality as the personality only sees half of the story while the other side remains in darkness.

 

[Just_Some_Guy]

On further thought, I think it might actually be like this for INTPs. This version could possibly also explain Dom-Tertiary loops.

I like where you're going with the drawings, but I would look at how your borders are drawn here and the role played by the unconscious. Also, S/N & T/F are correlatively bound. Can you think of a way to symbolically express such a relationship?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

You can also twist emotion with logic to fool entire societies. It's synthesis that results in abomination and we're all hypnotized.
Look up "emotional" fact.

 

[Psychosmurf]

So, are you saying that our wills are not completely free? Are you saying it is like we are caged pets only aloud to play and manipulate our surroundings within the cage?

If I may elaborate more on the idea, I think that free will exists for the subject when taken as a whole, even though consciousness alone or unconsciousness alone are not.

This is why: I think that the unconscious part of the mind is able to spontaneously generate new ordered information from raw data. In other words, it is the source of novelty. However, this process is not entirely free, and, indeed, it may even seem mindless and automatic. For example, Australopithecines never intended to invent language, but they did. Cro-Magnon did not intend to create the first civilizations, but they did. And no one in Greece actually intended to create philosophy, but they did. The role of consciousness is intention. Intentionality is fundamentally different from causality since it operates from a future perspective, and is therefore more "free". However intention alone does not imply free will. Many people might have intended to discover the secrets of the universe, but didn't. Newton, on the other hand, intended to do so, and also had the imagination to do so. And so he did. Therefore, it seems that only the combination of the two parts (i.e. the subject) can be free. :mellow:

 

[Psychosmurf]

"I agree with everything you are saying except:

Quote:
What I think is that what we really are is something we can never be aware of."

This is just sloppy language on my part. It simply contradicts everything else I was saying. We can know the contents of the unconscious. If I am to say that all knowledge ultimately arises from it, then it must be the case that its contents are revealed to us at some point, even if it only happens in small bits. I think what I was trying to say was that the "deep structure" of thoughts ( I use thoughts to mean any content of consciousness) is unavailable to our conscious introspection. For example, when you are saying a sentence, the whole idea behind the sentence is present all at once at a preconscious level even though the sentence emerges only one part at a time in language or in thought. Another example is language. When we form sentences, we all feel almost absolutely certain that we are forming them correctly even though the explicit rules of grammar are completely hidden from us. If you want to say something, you just say it. You do not think "Ok, subject comes before predicate... verbs have to go in such and such tense..." , it's just something that "happens". In all of these examples, while you can know that there is some process occurring, conscious introspection cannot be used to examine it. :mellow:

 

[Psychosmurf]

INFJ is the only type I have heard to be able to switch mind sets consciously with relative ease. This is most likely due to Ni being the main conscious function and Fe (other peoples values/feelings) being the main decision making function. This is the only thing that keeps me from changing my type all the time or settling with unknown personality.

:shocked: WHAT? Can you explain how this works? How do you tell the difference between being in Ni and Fe? I've been trying to use my Fe more, but I just can't tell if I'm doing it right, or even if there is a right way to do it. Help would be appreciated. roud: