• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

J/P difference, long-range/short-range thinking?

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off

Well, okay.

I know we're not ever going to agree on this. Te wants ideas to apply near-universally in virtually any context before committing itself to accepting them, and once an idea passes this test and is accepted it becomes part of the ENTJ's sense of self. So, Te reasons, we should be very very careful about accepting or showing support for an idea until we have seen clear evidence that it is universally applicable and very unlikely to change.

Te asks: How could we ever accept an idea without carefully testing it to ensure that it will apply in all contexts?

And Fi asks: How can we pretend to support an idea without really believing it? To do so would reveal a total lack of substance and integrity!

And Te again: If we have not yet determined that the idea is objectively and universally applicable, we should not make the mistake of showing support for it or appearing to commit ourselves to it--because (and here comes Fi again) this would force us to admit that we had hastily accepted an idea without giving it due consideration, which would threaten our integrity.


The NeTi approach to ideas is much more fluid than that. The way we decide whether or not to accept an idea is by presuming that it's true long enough to test out how well that works, and then discarding it if it turns out not to hold up. We build a model based on one idea, and if it turns out that idea was wrong, oh well--we quickly and easily discard it and build a new one.

But again, we don't know if it holds up until we try it out for ourselves, and Ti doesn't feel that it's given the idea a fair chance without at least trying to make a case for it.

To me, refusing to try out an idea or make the best argument I can for it feels like I'm giving up integrity because I haven't tried every possible angle for that idea yet.

I hope this makes some sense?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
You like potato and I like potahto,

Aww you guys. Don't fight over me now. No one wants you to get hurt. You're going to have to compete in my mandatory triathlon first by doing 10 grams of crack...

crack-15.jpg


before scaling this mountain

camelback-mountain.jpg


and finally swimming in a tank loaded with goblin sharks

goblin_shark.1740.jpg



The victor likes me more.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Well, okay.

I know we're not ever going to agree on this. Te wants ideas to apply near-universally in virtually any context before committing itself to accepting them, and once an idea passes this test and is accepted it becomes part of the ENTJ's sense of self. So, Fi reasons, we should be very very careful about accepting or showing support for an idea until we have seen clear evidence that it is universally applicable and very unlikely to change.

Te asks: How could we ever accept an idea without carefully testing it to ensure that it will apply in all contexts?

And Fi asks: How can we pretend to support an idea without really believing it? To do so would reveal a total lack of substance and integrity!

And Te again: If we have not yet determined that the idea is objectively and universally applicable, we should not make the mistake of showing support for it or appearing to commit ourselves to it--because (and here comes Fi again) this would force us to admit that we had hastily accepted an idea without giving it due consideration, which would threaten our integrity.


The NeTi approach to ideas is much more fluid than that. The way we decide whether or not to accept an idea is by presuming that it's true long enough to test out how well that works, and then discarding it if it turns out not to hold up.

But again, we don't know if it holds up until we try it out for ourselves, and Ti doesn't feel that it's given the idea a fair chance without at least trying to make a case for it.

To me, refusing to try out an idea or make the best argument I can for it feels like I'm giving up integrity because I haven't tried every possible angle for that idea yet.

I hope this makes some sense?

Do you enjoy complicating something simple?
I just want you to stop being a flake.

I'm off to bed.
Work on making concise posts. ;)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Do you enjoy complicating something simple?
I just want you to stop being a flake.

I'm off to bed.
Work on making concise posts. ;)

I'm trying to break down the value system differences between ENTJs and ENTPs that give you the impression that I have no substance or integrity.

Many Js frequently find many Ps flaky: Why is this, and what can we learn about our perceptual biases from it? How can we use it to foster more effective communication?

I am trying to explain the way I approach evaluation of ideas so that hopefully we can understand each other a little better.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In short, FiTe believes internal value judgments should be made according to personal ethical values, while TiFe believes they should be made according to impersonal logic.

To FiTe, the idea of changing your feelings according to external standards is insincere and offensive. FiTe doesn't see how impersonal judgments can be made internally without external influence.

TiFe believes the same thing about changing your ideas regarding impersonal reasoning according to external standards, and doesn't see how ethical value judgments can be made without external influence.

This is the best explanation I have seen:

I will try to be as clear as possible. You did not answer my question.

I asked specifically how Fi and Ti do not work together, and you gave me some vague stuff about FiTe and FeTi, and referred me to Uumlau's response.

Let me rephrase: How do you perceive Fi and Ti work? Can you define them for me, giving me specifics? Let's just assume we are talking about them in the dom and tert positions.

And since you brought in Uumlau's quote, I will respond to it with my opinion, addressing sim but anyone, of course, feel free to respond (the more the merrier):

Fi is selfish, but what people often don't realize is that Ti is just as selfish. For shorthand, let us call the entities that Fi processes "feelings" and the entities that Ti processes "ideas."

Yes. They are very very focused functions. I see you (sim) get caught up in Ti all the time, defining something and nitpicking definitions, so much so that we can't even dialogue. But that is just Ti. I think it's the most focused cognitive function of all.

Fi users predominantly use Te, and Ti users predominantly use Fe. So Fi is selfish about feelings, but unselfish about ideas. Ti is selfish about ideas, but not selfish about feelings.

Having bought into this ideology for a while now, I am leaning the other way on the orientation of the tert function, for numerous reasons, so I don't buy into this personally anymore.

For Fi users, it's about what I feel, what I feel, what I feel. For Ti users, it's all about what I think, what I think, what I think.

Okay.

Fe/Ti tries to communicate with Fi, but can get stuck on this selfishness crosstalk. Fe's feelings are shared: feelings are precisely how you connect with other people. If you're not sharing your feelings, if you do not adjust your feelings to accomodate others, you're being selfish. But remember, this is all because Fe is a primary communication tool: by hiding one's own feelings, by not adjusting one's own feelings in response to others, of course it looks selfish to Fe.

As an Fe-er, I know I don't really use Ti, like it's been purported that INFJs do. As a Ti-er you shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing with me, I'd think. I suck at Ti. Since I live with one (Ti dom) I should know. I think our problems communicating (you and me) are in large part due to my sucky Ti and your slavery to it. I think it looks like Ti, because I am thinking hard in an introverted way when I appear to be using it. After much contemplation, I realize it's really my Ni, my intuition, telling me how Te data I've gathered from the environment generally works, and whether that info is worthy of being catalogued in my databanks. Because my intuition rocks :) I hit close most of the time, like I'm really good as guestimation and knowing what works best, but it's not Ti that has given me that, it is Ni/Te, not unlike an intj, I'd suppose, albeit a very fuzzy version of one, due to the tert Te.

However, the same thing is true between Te and Ti. When I talk with someone using Te, there is a free flow of ideas. The ideas change and alter on the fly, we work together to develop new ideas, to share ideas. We connect and communicate via ideas. Enter the Ti user, who alternately seems like a brick wall, black hole, or source of technically correct and accurate but useless and noncommunicative information (think Microsoft Technical Support). With Te, I can't tell a Ti user a damn thing. I present ideas to the Ti user, who only procedes to pick them apart, accuse me of being inconsistant or incomplete or shallow. In the meantime, I hardly get any clue what the Ti user thinks. I get no "hooks" with which to show him where he might have some bad assumptions. He rejects my ideas based on his bad assumptions, and keeps on saying things like, "I don't understand how that could be true," and leaving me without a clue on which stupid idea he has in his head that makes him possibly think it couldn't be true. Why? Because he has to figure it all out for himself, selfish bastard. He can't trust even for a moment that I might be correct.

Absolutely agree here. That is my experience as well. With INTJs I seem to have that free flow thing, but with Ti-ers there are gaps and pauses and misunderstandings.

Thing is, though, that's just my impression. What really goes on is that he is self-doubting. He is unsure. But it's Ti, so he doesn't express it. He's Ti, so he has a lot of trouble expressing his confusion. If his ideas are wrong, then there is something seriously wrong with him, and he's going to take a long time to refigure them out.

Well, are we talking Ti dom here? I wouldn't think so. Ti doms are very sure of themselves. They feed S and N perceptions to Ti dom and they are balls to the wall sure of themselves, and are usually right. Ti aux, like yourself? Perhaps. But the flip side is that, while you might not be as raucous with Ti as a Ti dom, you are as an Ne or Se dom, able to accomodate that easily, without spending too much time on it, I'd wager. Ne will just kick in and say, "That thing won't work like I thought, so maybe this will" and find a new path to follow. So I agree on everything but perhaps the part about having it take a long time......I think the problem can enter in when a Ti aux doesn't let Ne or Se dom do its work; when he/she tries to stick to a faulty Ti definition when he/she should really just let Ne or Se do its thang.

Now, reverse that, and that's how Fe/Ti views us. Their feelings aren't shallow, they just feel that way to us. They share and develop feelings together, with other people as a means of connecting, and Fi users refuse that connection, which hurts them. We reject their feelings (because we feel they're "forcing them on us"), and that hurts them. We wish them happiness and all sorts of abstract positive things, but we don't respond to their particular feelings, which hurts them.

If we view you as rejecting our feelings, how you come off to us F types, will depend somewhat on if you extravert or intravert feeling; Fi can be harsher than Fe, but not always; and also gender dependent (women vs men). As far as F in the quaternary position: I just don't think T doms need a lot of F activity to be happy; and if they do it's in the moment, not as a large part of their lives. As far as INTJ go, you guys use Fe (in my opinion, not Fi) and I see this irl all the time. So, no, I never perceive INTJs as lacking in consideration of my feelings, they are very cognizant of societal mores and expected behavior, but I can view them as dogmatically tied to facts, and feel the cold edge of that when they are not in top form, because F is their tert function, so if they are not up to par, an Fe-er will indeed feel that. But this is true with most NTs. :smile:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I will try to be as clear as possible. You did not answer my question.

I asked specifically how Fi and Ti do not work together, and you gave me some vague stuff about FiTe and FeTi, and referred me to Uumlau's response.

That's because Fi doesn't really operate in isolation from Te, and Ti doesn't operate in isolation from Fe. FiTe and TiFe are fluid processes that make up the basis of judgment.

Let me rephrase: How do you perceive Fi and Ti work? Can you define them for me, giving me specifics? Let's just assume we are talking about them in the dom and tert positions.

Fi leads us to make value judgments in terms of how they affect our personal, subjective feelings. It rejects the idea that it should ever have to compromise its values or change its feelings in response to anyone else's, and holds that personal, subjective values are the only way to maintain integrity when it comes to ethical decisions. The idea that true ethics could come from any external standard seems absurd to Fi. Fi will ignore logical consistency in favor of maintaining its values.

Ti leads us to make value judgments in terms of impersonal, natural logic. It rejects the idea that it should ever accept or go along with any idea which seems to contradict its own principles or appears inconsistent from a strictly impersonal standpoint. It rigidly refuses to change its ideas about the nature of logic and consistency because it holds that the only true source of guidance for such decisions is an immovable, internal sense of natural logic. The idea that true logic could come from any external standard seems absurd to Ti. Ti will ignore emotional interference in favor of maintaining its idea of consistency.

Both Fi and Ti are subjective because they ignore external influence entirely, and in fact tend to resent any external attempts to change them or force them into something they judge to be unreasonable.

And since you brought in Uumlau's quote, I will respond to it with my opinion, addressing sim but anyone, of course, feel free to respond (the more the merrier):



Yes. They are very very focused functions. I see you (sim) get caught up in Ti all the time, defining something and nitpicking definitions, so much so that we can't even dialogue. But that is just Ti. I think it's the most focused cognitive function of all.

The dialogue is meaningless if you don't understand the terms and their definitions well enough to use the model effectively. Hang out with some INTPs for a while. If you pay attention, you'll discover that their "nitpicking" is usually because they understand the significance of the distinctions in question better than you do. It may look to you like pointless nitpicking, but that is usually because you lack the depth of understanding of the topic at hand to recognize why it's so important in the context of the system in question.

I'll use a game theory example: Jane is teaching Dick to play poker. Dick shows Jane a hand where he raised with Ace-Nine because he remembers seeing Jane raise Ace-Nine. She tells him that he made a mistake by playing that hand from an early seat and that it only works in later position.

"What is all this nitpicking about 'position'?" asks Dick. "Either it's a good hand to open with or it isn't. I don't want to hear your nitpicking about which seat I'm in when I play it."

Dick doesn't yet possess the understanding of poker to recognize the multitude of mistakes he's opening himself up to by presuming that Jane's distinction between Ace-Nine in an early seat and Ace-Nine in a late seat is "trivial nitpicking." It may seem that way now, but it won't when he improves his understanding of the specifics of this subject.

When NTPs "nitpick" you, it's usually because they understand the topic better than you and are more aware of the implications of subtle mistakes.

If you want to discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective, that's cool with me. It's your inaccurate use of Jungian terms that I'm taking issue with, not your desire to interpret cognition differently.

Having bought into this ideology for a while now, I am leaning the other way on the orientation of the tert function, for numerous reasons, so I don't buy into this personally anymore.

k

As an Fe-er, I know I don't really use Ti, like it's been purported that INFJs do. As a Ti-er you shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing with me, I'd think. I suck at Ti. Since I live with one (Ti dom) I should know. I think our problems communicating (you and me) are in large part due to my sucky Ti and your slavery to it. I think it looks like Ti, because I am thinking hard in an introverted way when I appear to be using it. After much contemplation, I realize it's really my Ni, my intuition, telling me how Te data I've gathered from the environment generally works, and whether that info is worthy of being catalogued in my databanks. Because my intuition rocks :) I hit close most of the time, like I'm really good as guestimation and knowing what works best, but it's not Ti that has given me that, it is Ni/Te, not unlike an intj, I'd suppose.

Well, I kind of suck at Fe but it still has an influence on me. That's the nature of tert/inferior functions.

What makes the data you have gathered from the environment "Te data"? I don't recall you making any comments that sounded very Te at all.

Deciding whether information you've perceived is worthy of being catalogued in your databanks is something everyone does regardless of functional makeup. Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are (in practice) orientations that describe the way you derive your sources of ethics and logic.

What values/tendencies/thought patterns on your part do you think are indicative of a Te perspective?



Absolutely agree here. That is my experience as well. With INTJs I seem to have that free flow thing, but with Ti-ers there are gaps and pauses and misunderstandings.

Probably Ni communicating well with Ni.

Well, are we talking Ti dom here? I wouldn't think so. Ti doms are very sure of themselves. They feed S and N perceptions to Ti dom and they are balls to the wall sure of themselves, and are usually right. Ti aux, like yourself? Perhaps. But the flip side is that, while you might not be as raucous with Ti as a Ti dom, you are as an Ne or Se dom, able to accomodate that easily, without spending too much time on it, I'd wager. Ne will just kick in and say, "That thing won't work like I thought, so maybe this will" and find a new path to follow. So I agree on everything but perhaps the part about having it take a long time......I think the problem can enter in when a Ti aux doesn't let Ne or Se dom do its work; when he/she tries to stick to a faulty Ti definition when he/she should really just let Ne or Se do its thang.

That's far, far, far more likely to happen to a Ti dominant. It's very rare that the dominant gets neglected in favor of the auxiliary--but the opposite problem is quite common.

Ne likes inventing a lot of different patterns and approaches based on the building blocks Ti has defined. If you're not using the same blocks we are, we can't build new patterns with you because we're speaking different languages. Any meaningful patterns would be lost in translation.

This is why NTPs "nitpick" you when you ask them about topics they've put a lot of study into. They recognize how quickly meaningful communication will break down if some common terminology isn't clearly defined, and that if you're routinely misinterpreting the meaning of the terms, you won't be able to articulate your ideas in a way that makes sense in the framework of the model.

If we view you as rejecting our feelings, it's because I don't believe that types with F in the tert position need a lot of F activity to be happy; and if they do it's in the moment, not as a large part of their lives. How they come off to us F types, will depend somewhat on if they extravert or intravert feeling; Fi can be harsher than Fe, but not always, especially considering gender (women vs men) As far as INTJ go, you guys use Fe (in my opinion, not Fi) and I see this irl all the time. So, no, I never perceive INTJs as lacking in consideration of my feelings, they are very cognizant of societal mores and expected behavior, but I can view them as dogmatically tied to facts, and feel the cold edge of that when they are not in top form, because F is their tert function, so if they are not up to par, an Fe-er will indeed feel that. But this is true with most NTs. :smile:

INTJs tend to utterly ignore Fe and are frequently insulted by the suggestion that they should have to change their personal feelings in order to align with prevailing social or cultural standards. They place high value on, as Zarathustra put it, "a rugged sense of individuality." The Fe-driven need for the emotional/social/ethical validation from community groups is practically nonexistent with them. (In fact, as Z explained it to me, it's one of the things that annoys INTJs most about ENTPs.)

If they're accommodating such standards, it's usually because Te has a specific purpose in mind and considers "avoid offending these people" as one of the necessary steps toward completing its private goals. A natural Fe perspective would place inherent value on adapting to the Feeling standards of the groups to which it feels it belongs--not just pretend to go along with them in order to achieve some unrelated end.

Please explain what you see INTJs doing frequently that you think is representative of Fe. Your model suggests that every type prefers two judgment functions oriented in the same direction rather than one in each direction, and this seems pretty counterintuitive to me, given the way Fe naturally compliments Ti, and the way Te naturally compliments Fi.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I am freely admitting that my 4-function model was wrong.

I have never heard about this. Do you mind sharing a link to explain how the 4-function model doesn't work? I've always thought shadow functions were used subconsciously but never really in their proper form of functionality.

I think the point is that you stubbornly and emotionally argue some ridiculous unfounded idea and then change your mind afterward without a) taking any responsibility for what you said, and b) taking the hint and learning for future reference to stop and think about what you are saying beforehand, and whether there is just the slightest chance it may be retarded.


On a different note...

Consider that you may be a dominant F type.
TiNe as an excuse for that emotional argument with ridiculous unfounded idea and sudden change of mind. Blame it on the type.

But, seeing as that you are FiTe type, I think I'll blame your inabilities on type as well.

Often, when I am considering an idea and uncertain of whether or not it really holds up, I can learn more about it by arguing from the perspective of that idea and seeing if anyone else is able to find something wrong with it.
This is how I usually try to understand things. It's not always effective though. Depends on who and what.

Sometimes the idea turns out to be bad and I abandon it and move on to a different one. Sometimes there's a problem with it that I hadn't noticed and it takes arguing it out with others to figure that out. I think all of this is pretty typical ENTP. For extroverted perception, part of the idea evaluation process involves finding out what others think about it and testing it out against people who oppose it.

I know Jaguar thinks arguing for positions that one doesn't necessarily support is ridiculous, but it's part of the way EPs evaluate ideas and you'd think that by now he'd at least expect me to be doing it, instead of quoting my discarded ideas 600 times as if he expects me to support them all the way to my deathbed.

I guess "support everything you've ever said to your deathbed" is associated with some kind of Fi honor thing. From a Te perspective, I imagine it looks flaky and disingenuous. "Why can't he figure out what he thinks for sure before arguing it with people?" Well, because sometimes other people introduce a perspective I didn't notice on my own and that forces me to reevaluate my idea.

It's in the EP's nature to experiment with things before we know for sure if they work. The process of experimenting with them (by trying them out, arguing in their favor, etc.) is a crucial part of finding out whether or not we really want to support them.
EP's? I'm assuming Pe, extroverted perceivers, and not ExxP's?

So, Ne Ti, Se Ti, Ti Ne, Ti Se. but....Including Fi users? wouldn't that mean including FiTe? I believe it's best to simply call it TiFe, not EP.

There's the mature way to discuss(argue?) an idea and then there is the SimulatedWorld way. Just a thought.
I've actually found flexible argument to be my own highest form of maturity. Controlled argument. that is, testing my patience.

I've considered simple discussion early on but the responses to those are not so critical as one might expect from the more tensed"argument. Argument to me is simply another way of learning. several ways are used in several different ways anyways.


All EPs aren't flakes who change their mind 72 times an hour.

Looks like he changed his mind, yet again. :rolleyes:

Perhaps perceivers have to adapt to a behavior in favor of Judgers, so as not to find conflict. Slash that, you're just trolling/baiting.

Well, why does playing devil's advocate necessitate having no depth or substance?

I don't know about you, but for me, taking a position and trying to come up with a justification for it is a useful thought exercise that helps me to consider different ways of looking at an issue. I think of it like a court of law: I can't fully dismiss an idea until I've tried to put myself in its shoes and see if I can make it work in an argument against someone who opposes it. (Not to mention, it's just fun to explore the different angles.)

Sometimes the idea ends up being wrong, but I don't really know until I try. Ti is isolated from outside influence and so Ne's experimentation with how others will respond to the idea is often the only effective way of incorporating any external influence into decision-making.

I can see why, from a TeFi perspective, this creates a lack of integrity. But I don't really see it that way...it's just part of the process of evaluating ideas.

This was very informative. I am almost certain to have dominant TiFe behavior and it only adds up to my recent observations of people. it makes too much of sense to ignore...

Though, I am quite sure that TiFe's can overdo it in a way that what they initially thought as "experiment" became an emotional drive of simply the pride of "being right". Of course, control is not impossible.

FiTe's could also be experimental.

Yet, how do you explain a social-norm concerned ESTP?


As far as INTJ go, you guys use Fe (in my opinion, not Fi) and I see this irl all the time. So, no, I never perceive INTJs as lacking in consideration of my feelings.

Interesting. This conflicts so very much with my experience with that type. In comparison, what I've observed from IxTJ's is that they will try to do things based on what they feel is right but the way they do it is somewhat less considerate of the process and more directed towards the goal.

My father is one actually. The man never tried to control social dynamics. Social understanding and connecting was never priority to him. He did occasionally express Te in some manipulative ways but it never seemed to be genuinely Fe. But this is no problem in my opinion since I myself can relate only so much.
 

Andy

Supreme High Commander
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Would the J/P difference have any correlation with a tendency toward short-range or long-range thinking? (If this has been discussed before, I couldn't find it in a search.)

Yes, to a degree. All J types have introverted perceiving, which is associated with temporal information gathering. SJs tend to look backwards, to see what has worked/failed/occured before and us that to predict events and chart a reliable passage into the future. NJs tend to look into the future to find some desirable outcome, then look backwards to see how they can be made to happen/avoided.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
That's because Fi doesn't really operate in isolation from Te, and Ti doesn't operate in isolation from Fe. FiTe and TiFe are fluid processes that make up the basis of judgment.



Fi leads us to make value judgments in terms of how they affect our personal, subjective feelings. It rejects the idea that it should ever have to compromise its values or change its feelings in response to anyone else's, and holds that personal, subjective values are the only way to maintain integrity when it comes to ethical decisions. The idea that true ethics could come from any external standard seems absurd to Fi. Fi will ignore logical consistency in favor of maintaining its values.

Ti leads us to make value judgments in terms of impersonal, natural logic. It rejects the idea that it should ever accept or go along with any idea which seems to contradict its own principles or appears inconsistent from a strictly impersonal standpoint. It rigidly refuses to change its ideas about the nature of logic and consistency because it holds that the only true source of guidance for such decisions is an immovable, internal sense of natural logic. The idea that true logic could come from any external standard seems absurd to Ti. Ti will ignore emotional interference in favor of maintaining its idea of consistency.

Both Fi and Ti are subjective because they ignore external influence entirely, and in fact tend to resent any external attempts to change them or force them into something they judge to be unreasonable.

I like your definitions.


The dialogue is meaningless if you don't understand the terms and their definitions well enough to use the model effectively. Hang out with some INTPs for a while. If you pay attention, you'll discover that their "nitpicking" is usually because they understand the significance of the distinctions in question better than you do. It may look to you like pointless nitpicking, but that is usually because you lack the depth of understanding of the topic at hand to recognize why it's so important in the context of the system in question.

I just have a different focus and strength, is how I see it. I understand that you don't validate that. You seem to feel like the proof is in the definition, and definitions are important, for sure, but I feel like you criticize me ad nauseum about my weakness in this area, yet fail to see that I perhaps make up for lack of Ti by using more Ni, Ni/Fe or Te(call it T if you don't agree with my Te hypothesis). Furthermore, I haven't seen you really get beyond definitions very much. It's like the primary thing you seem to argue about, although I don't doubt you have in the past (talked about your theories). As for function theories, it sounds like you are saying until I understand functions according to how you view functions, whatever I say is necessarily suspect. That is why debating with you is fruitless for me because you think you are the holy grail when it comes to this stuff, and denigrate my knowledge at every turn. I admire Jung and his contributions to type theory and for identifying some archetypes, but I don't think Jung is some typology God either. I think you can see the INTJs on here do not necessarily have him on a pedestal either. This is a manifestation of Ni doms; we look outside for answers. Not to say we can't be guided by, nor influenced by, gurus who have gone before; it's just that we don't limit our thinking to what they have said necessarily, like you seem wont to do.

So, until you can understand this fundamental difference, and accept it, I don't see how discussing things with you can go anywhere good for me. You also are missing out on my strengths by holding your way of being as the epitome of enlightenment.

I'll use a game theory example: Jane is teaching Dick to play poker. Dick shows Jane a hand where he raised with Ace-Nine because he remembers seeing Jane raise Ace-Nine. She tells him that he made a mistake by playing that hand from an early seat and that it only works in later position.

"What is all this nitpicking about 'position'?" asks Dick. "Either it's a good hand to open with or it isn't. I don't want to hear your nitpicking about which seat I'm in when I play it."

Dick doesn't yet possess the understanding of poker to recognize the multitude of mistakes he's opening himself up to by presuming that Jane's distinction between Ace-Nine in an early seat and Ace-Nine in a late seat is "trivial nitpicking." It may seem that way now, but it won't when he improves his understanding of the specifics of this subject.

This all assumes that Jung was absolutely correct in everything he said. It also assumes you think you know everything I know about Jung. There are a lot of assumptions being made by you. I like to get down to the base of things, and build back up without assumptions, inasmuch as possible.



Ne likes inventing a lot of different patterns and approaches based on the building blocks Ti has defined. If you're not using the same blocks we are, we can't build new patterns with you because we're speaking different languages. Any meaningful patterns would be lost in translation.

This is why NTPs "nitpick" you when you ask them about topics they've put a lot of study into. They recognize how quickly meaningful communication will break down if some common terminology isn't clearly defined, and that if you're routinely misinterpreting the meaning of the terms, you won't be able to articulate your ideas in a way that makes sense in the framework of the model.

I don't mind at all working on definitions to get them concise and equal, I do mind working with someone who thinks they are superior in the way they think, and who don't come at learning with/from others from an open-minded aire but a lecturing aire. Sharing personal beliefs is one thing, but to tell someone who is trying to get deeper about this stuff that they are missing the point and lack depth, is just not a functional way of communicating.

This is why I see you as totally Fi. You can be Fe when you want to be, but I largely feel you as selfishly devoted to your ideas in a valuing kind of way. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I think that might even be a bigger hindrance to our communications than your Ti commitments, as I said before. Trying to communicate with you about this stuff (which you feel strongly about) feels analogous to me as when I have a problem communicating with INFPs; we just can't communicate, simple as that.

INTJs tend to utterly ignore Fe and are frequently insulted by the suggestion that they should have to change their personal feelings in order to align with prevailing social or cultural standards. They place high value on, as Zarathustra put it, "a rugged sense of individuality." The Fe-driven need for the emotional/social/ethical validation from community groups is practically nonexistent with them. (In fact, as Z explained it to me, it's one of the things that annoys INTJs most about ENTPs.)

I disagree. And I know a couple up close and personal irl. The individuality you see is their Ni. True, since F is tert, they don't place high priority on it; T drives them and their very existence. But when they are around people or interact with people, they are very Fe minded, imo.

If they're accommodating such standards, it's usually because Te has a specific purpose in mind and considers "avoid offending these people" as one of the necessary steps toward completing its private goals. A natural Fe perspective would place inherent value on adapting to the Feeling standards of the groups to which it feels it belongs--not just pretend to go along with them in order to achieve some unrelated end.

Occam's razor says not. If it looks like Fe, it's probably Fe, not Te trying to mimic Fe. Te doesn't care if people agree with him as much; Te wants to find a precise and new way (Ni) of doing things with reproducible results.

Please explain what you see INTJs doing frequently that you think is representative of Fe. Your model suggests that every type prefers two judgment functions oriented in the same direction rather than one in each direction, and this seems pretty counterintuitive to me, given the way Fe naturally compliments Ti, and the way Te naturally compliments Fi.

I already said, I thought. I hate repeating myself. I don't have time to rehash. Maybe it was earlier in this thread or another one. They don't care much about people's opinions, but they are very, very appropriate when dealing with people, very considerate. I don't feel that Fi thing at all, and you must understand that since Fe is my aux function, I have been up close and personal to Fi many times in my infp friends, and on here. My aux F will be able to intuit more F, and those attitudes, in others that perhaps you cannot appreciate.



Finally, I find it intriguing and contradictory that you say I don't understand Jung, and am constantly making some new age theory, yet I am the only one trying to go back to Jung and say, "Hey I think Jung might have been right about the tert orientation."
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
We build a model based on one idea, and if it turns out that idea was wrong, oh well--we quickly and easily discard it and build a new one.

I see. Kind of like you thinking hairdressers who read winnie the pooh, are ENTJ?
The erudition is bewitching me.
 

LeafAndSky

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
307
MBTI Type
ISFP
Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh, hairdressers, and posts I can't digest. I don't know why I'm still subscribing to this thread (my own) but it's entertaining in its own bizarre way. ;)
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh, hairdressers, and posts I can't digest. I don't know why I'm still subscribing to this thread (my own) but it's entertaining in its own bizarre way. ;)


Maybe. But if you presume that Star Wars is about P/J then it is reasonably sure that your thesis in the first post was correct. (at least in general)


Also I think that it is obvious who would be Js and who would be Ps when it comes to Star Wars story line.
 

LeafAndSky

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
307
MBTI Type
ISFP
Maybe. But if you presume that Star Wars is about P/J then it is reasonably sure that your thesis in the first post was correct. (at least in general)


Also I think that it is obvious who would be Js and who would be Ps when it comes to Star Wars story line.

Ah, okay, your comment was in regard to the original subject of the thread and not a reference to the apparent (and entertaining) War going on now.

Who would be Js and who would be Ps. Well Han S. is P.

The rest . . .

let's see,

'must decide yesterday'
vs.
'must decide tomorrow' . . .

Did George Lucas make all the bad guys Js and the good guys Ps? (Except maybe Princess L.)

It's not immediately obvious to me, sorry. But you say you think my thesis in the first post is correct in general, and that's helpful. Thanks. In which direction, long-range thinking or short-range thinking, do you see the J/P difference correlating?
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Ah, okay, your comment was in regard to the original subject of the thread and not a reference to the apparent (and entertaining) War going on now.

Who would be Js and who would be Ps. Well Han S. is P.

The rest . . .

let's see,

'must decide yesterday'
vs.
'must decide tomorrow' . . .

Did George Lucas make all the bad guys Js and the good guys Ps? (Except maybe Princess L.)

It's not immediately obvious to me, sorry. But you say you think my thesis in the first post is correct in general, and that's helpful. Thanks. In which direction, long-range thinking or short-range thinking, do you see the J/P difference correlating?



Actually I am looking on this more like a Rebels/light (P) vs. Empire/dark(J)



But since you are interested here is why I am using Star Wars and why I agree with your statements and how I see it .



The Empire was building the Deathstar in order to insure long turn domination and status quo. While rebels found a quick way to counter the Empire's ultimate weapon. Also it is interesting that they attacked when it actually started destroying planets.


Also if you take a look at the villain "The Emperor" you will see he has quite a number of J traits. The best example proably is how he became an emperor in the first place. Which is my something that you can apsolutly call a masterplan.


While on he other hand you have people like Han Solo and Jar-Jar which even don't know what they will be doing 3 hours from now. On the other hand Imperials are seting traps well in advance.


Also Ps are much more comfortable with making choices or theories that don't really makes sense. For example Obi-Wans surrender in a fight against Darth Vader is the obvious example.


If you watch carefully rebels are much more adventourus and they don't think that much on the long run. So they use alot of improvising.
While if you look at the Empire you will find very little improvisation.


Also Luke has a one trait that is typical for Ps. Which is that he has a spirtual path in order to figure himselfs out.


Basicly even trems "Rebellion" and "Empire" have a obvious P/J divide between them.


Etc.




So basicly it is

SP vs SJ = Advanture and improvising vs. Strict social order

and

NP vs NJ = Speculation and creativity vs. Strategic planning


I hope that this will explain my point to you. :yes:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I just have a different focus and strength, is how I see it. I understand that you don't validate that. You seem to feel like the proof is in the definition, and definitions are important, for sure, but I feel like you criticize me ad nauseum about my weakness in this area, yet fail to see that I perhaps make up for lack of Ti by using more Ni, Ni/Fe or Te(call it T if you don't agree with my Te hypothesis). Furthermore, I haven't seen you really get beyond definitions very much. It's like the primary thing you seem to argue about, although I don't doubt you have in the past (talked about your theories). As for function theories, it sounds like you are saying until I understand functions according to how you view functions, whatever I say is necessarily suspect. That is why debating with you is fruitless for me because you think you are the holy grail when it comes to this stuff, and denigrate my knowledge at every turn. I admire Jung and his contributions to type theory and for identifying some archetypes, but I don't think Jung is some typology God either. I think you can see the INTJs on here do not necessarily have him on a pedestal either. This is a manifestation of Ni doms; we look outside for answers. Not to say we can't be guided by, nor influenced by, gurus who have gone before; it's just that we don't limit our thinking to what they have said necessarily, like you seem wont to do.

We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.

So, until you can understand this fundamental difference, and accept it, I don't see how discussing things with you can go anywhere good for me. You also are missing out on my strengths by holding your way of being as the epitome of enlightenment.

Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.

But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.



This all assumes that Jung was absolutely correct in everything he said. It also assumes you think you know everything I know about Jung. There are a lot of assumptions being made by you. I like to get down to the base of things, and build back up without assumptions, inasmuch as possible.

It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.


I don't mind at all working on definitions to get them concise and equal, I do mind working with someone who thinks they are superior in the way they think, and who don't come at learning with/from others from an open-minded aire but a lecturing aire. Sharing personal beliefs is one thing, but to tell someone who is trying to get deeper about this stuff that they are missing the point and lack depth, is just not a functional way of communicating.

You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?

This is why I see you as totally Fi. You can be Fe when you want to be, but I largely feel you as selfishly devoted to your ideas in a valuing kind of way. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I think that might even be a bigger hindrance to our communications than your Ti commitments, as I said before. Trying to communicate with you about this stuff (which you feel strongly about) feels analogous to me as when I have a problem communicating with INFPs; we just can't communicate, simple as that.

My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.

This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.

You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.


I disagree. And I know a couple up close and personal irl. The individuality you see is their Ni. True, since F is tert, they don't place high priority on it; T drives them and their very existence. But when they are around people or interact with people, they are very Fe minded, imo.

Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.


Occam's razor says not. If it looks like Fe, it's probably Fe, not Te trying to mimic Fe. Te doesn't care if people agree with him as much; Te wants to find a precise and new way (Ni) of doing things with reproducible results.

Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.

This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal. Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.

Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.



I already said, I thought. I hate repeating myself. I don't have time to rehash. Maybe it was earlier in this thread or another one. They don't care much about people's opinions, but they are very, very appropriate when dealing with people, very considerate. I don't feel that Fi thing at all, and you must understand that since Fe is my aux function, I have been up close and personal to Fi many times in my infp friends, and on here. My aux F will be able to intuit more F, and those attitudes, in others that perhaps you cannot appreciate.

Only with people that:
A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).

If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.

But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.

It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)

LTEW said:
Fe: Until I can see where this fits into my network of tribal bonds and obligations, I don't see how I can relate to it. How can I tell if I'm for it or against it until I know how other people feel about it?

Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.

Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"


Finally, I find it intriguing and contradictory that you say I don't understand Jung, and am constantly making some new age theory, yet I am the only one trying to go back to Jung and say, "Hey I think Jung might have been right about the tert orientation."

There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.

Wiki said:
Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant. In support of Myers' (and/or Briggs') interpretation, in one sentence Jung seems to state that the three inferior functions of an (extreme) extravert are introverted. The "most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted" (Jung, [1921] 1971:par. 575).

Many, however, have found Jung's writing to be ambiguous, and those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect. Jungians interpret Jung as explicitly stating that the tertiary function is actually in the same attitude as the dominant, providing balance.

Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.

Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.

mkay. I am always open to a better way/better definition. Never said I wasn't.



Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.

I'm studying Jung. More than some, less than others.

But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.

I don't think I'm that far off. You make it sound like I'm some ape human that has not idea what functions even are.


It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.

You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?

I'd say the very same thing about you. I try to use intuition, observation, feeling, and thinking to figure things out; especially as it regards current function theory, and I post quite a bit about it, predominantly about it, in fact.

Some of my approach isn't necessarily deeper, some is. I believe I use more of a Te approach, that of reorganizing and redefining what exists, identifying where there are gaps (that can then be filled), and along the way, use lingo everyone can understand.



My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.

This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.

You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.

I've already told you I'm leaning away from the tert aligned similarly to the dom, so you saying FiTe holds little to no validitiy for me at this time. I disagree. You use Fi, not Fe.

No, the INFP disconnect results from the feeling aspect of our personalities, for the most part, and always has. I think it's highly cavalier of you to think you know best what an F aux has an issue with regarding an Fi dom. Just another illustration that you think you know everything better than anyone else.


Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.

They are motivated by Fe because Fe is usually their tertiary function.


Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.

But once you enter into the world of people, and relating with people, you are using Fe, not Te. There is no reason to assume that there is an underlying manipulative motivation there. Manipulation would ensue only if a person is unbalanced. You are implying all INTJs would inherently be imbalanced.

This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal.

I disagree with this. I have seen Jung speak to this occasionally, but I don't believe a person needs to believe consciously in the value of a function to use the function. Especially if that function is in the tert position. In fact, I'm pretty sure Jung says that all processes except the dominant are largely unconscious processes, and that a person might not know he is using them, but that others can see them in use.

Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.

No, they don't need to adjust. You might. :) But if they inherently use Fe over Fi, they will naturally be able to get along with people without necessarily adjusting their beliefs at all.

This is a good segway for relating that the stereotypical definitions of Fe are not very good. Fe is not just about societal expectations within social groups or culture. That is an outdated perception, and it might have worked 100 years ago when Jung wrote Psychological Types, but the world has changed a lot since then. We have discussed this before, I think, a while back. They might indeed keep their true feelings hidden. Who doesn't!! Fe doesn't have much to do with true feelings, necessarily.

This is just another example of how little you grasp Fe, but I'm not blaming you necessarily, because F is your tert function.

Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.

Obviously, with all the discussion and arguing and debating done around here and elsewhere as it regards typology, we don't know crap; there is forthcoming debate and possible change looming on the horizon for the tert function's orientation, and to say INTJs use Te in a manipulative way to appear as Fe, I'd classify it myself as a "problem we know nothing about."

How about this: If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and shits like a horse, it's probably a ......horse.


Only with people that:
A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).

If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.

Yes, they can be horribly cold and harsh. They just usually don't need to be nor care to be, especially with those they don't know. So, you are wrong there. If they feel 'safe' with someone, they're probably going to be harsher with them, imo.

But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.

It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Your conceptual understanding of F is convoluted and messed up. As I said before, it can be Fe (or any other function) whether you give it conscious thought or not. The bolded is basically bullshit, and a spewing of bad definition. There are much better and more valid definitions of Fe than that. I think your little definition of Fe up there ^ more aptly represents Fi ideas; you'd have to make yourself appear Fe, even though you are feeling Fi feelings. Think about it.

The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)

Yeah, okay. Or Fe terts use Fe to appeal to the masses to spread their ideas and insights.

Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.

Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"

That's just not even applicable. That's a manipulative behavior and a twisted, lying one at that.



There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.



Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.

Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.

Oh, I thought it was out. Jung also thought he was an INTP, but some think he was an INTJ. Just because we see ourselves one way, does not mean we are that way. Even if Jung did see it that way, what does it really matter? It is up to us to take his work and theory further than he did. He understood that would, and should, happen.

Furthemore, so Jung was more hung up on definitions and a philosophical approach to personality. That is even more reason why the field is wide open for function theory interpretations and hypotheses. His work has gaps, we know more now, there are more of us. Why not continue forth?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Some of my approach isn't necessarily deeper, some is. I believe I use more of a Te approach, that of reorganizing and redefining what exists, identifying where there are gaps (that can then be filled), and along the way, use lingo everyone can understand.

What about that is characteristic of a Te mindset, exactly?

I've already told you I'm leaning away from the tert aligned similarly to the dom, so you saying FiTe holds little to no validitiy for me at this time. I disagree. You use Fi, not Fe.

In that case, you have no idea what Fi and Fe are, which is why I keep insisting that you don't know the function definitions. I don't believe that any ethics exist without external context to define them. In situations involving people and groups that are important to me, I adjust my emotional reactions to those of others in order to harmonize with the prevailing standard of that context. This is stereotypically Fe.

The only principles I stick to rigidly regardless of external context are conceptual/logical ones regarding impersonal evaluations. This is what you see me sticking to dogmatically, and this is what you mistakenly believe to be Fi. This is also stereotypically Ti.

If I were using Fi often, I would eschew such impersonal evaluation in favor of maintaining my personal, subjective, feeling-oriented values, and I would rarely consider adapting my emotional responses to those of other people. In Fi philosophy, all personal feelings and forms of self-expression of unique identity are sacred and expressing them honestly is always the right thing to do.

No, the INFP disconnect results from the feeling aspect of our personalities, for the most part, and always has. I think it's highly cavalier of you to think you know best what an F aux has an issue with regarding an Fi dom. Just another illustration that you think you know everything better than anyone else.

No, but I do think I know Jungian functions better than you, and better than most (not all) people on this forum.

They are motivated by Fe because Fe is usually their tertiary function.

And you wonder why I think you're making up your own model?

But once you enter into the world of people, and relating with people, you are using Fe, not Te. There is no reason to assume that there is an underlying manipulative motivation there. Manipulation would ensue only if a person is unbalanced. You are implying all INTJs would inherently be imbalanced.

I've implied no such thing. Fi can and does motivate people to interact peacefully and courteously toward others; the key is whether the source of ethical ideals comes from a subjective internal source or an objective external one. Dealing with other people doesn't necessitate Fe use.

I disagree with this. I have seen Jung speak to this occasionally, but I don't believe a person needs to believe consciously in the value of a function to use the function. Especially if that function is in the tert position. In fact, I'm pretty sure Jung says that all processes except the dominant are largely unconscious processes, and that a person might not know he is using them, but that others can see them in use.

The person might not consciously recognize that that function is influencing his behavior, but the reason for his behavior is still that he holds some sort of belief based on function's ideals.

For instance, tertiary Fe will sometimes lead ETPs to react negatively to perceived rudeness (rudeness being violating generally accepted external behavioral standards of some sort.) The ETP might not realize this is what's motivating him to react negatively, but the fundamental belief in the importance of these Fe-oriented behavioral standards is still there, whether or not the ETP consciously recognizes it.

No, they don't need to adjust. You might. :) But if they inherently use Fe over Fi, they will naturally be able to get along with people without necessarily adjusting their beliefs at all.

No, because they're not using Fe unless they adjust to external moral standards because they see inherent value in such standards for their own sake. For an INTJ to use Fe he has to temporarily set aside his own feelings in favor of an external moral standard simply for its own sake. They'll occasionally do this, but not often.

Being nice to people =/= using Fe.

This is a good segway for relating that the stereotypical definitions of Fe are not very good. Fe is not just about societal expectations within social groups or culture. That is an outdated perception, and it might have worked 100 years ago when Jung wrote Psychological Types, but the world has changed a lot since then. We have discussed this before, I think, a while back. They might indeed keep their true feelings hidden. Who doesn't!! Fe doesn't have much to do with true feelings, necessarily.


This is just another example of how little you grasp Fe, but I'm not blaming you necessarily, because F is your tert function.

This is you making up your own definitions again. You haven't shown enough comprehension of functional definitions for me to take your criticisms of my understanding of Fe very seriously.

Obviously, with all the discussion and arguing and debating done around here and elsewhere as it regards typology, we don't know crap; there is forthcoming debate and possible change looming on the horizon for the tert function's orientation, and to say INTJs use Te in a manipulative way to appear as Fe, I'd classify it myself as a "problem we know nothing about."

How about this: If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and shits like a horse, it's probably a ......horse.

You need to focus on why the behavior is happening, not what the person is doing. Fe use = aligning your feelings/moral beliefs with an external standard because you see inherent value in doing so, not because you seek to complete some unrelated goal.

They're not trying to appear as Fe; they're not even considering the things Fe considers. They're drawing ethical standards entirely from internal subjective standards (Fi) and logical standards from external, empirical evidence that's shown to work to achieve their goals (Te.)

Yes, they can be horribly cold and harsh. They just usually don't need to be nor care to be, especially with those they don't know. So, you are wrong there. If they feel 'safe' with someone, they're probably going to be harsher with them, imo.

That depends on a variety of factors that are largely unrelated to Fi vs. Fe use.

The only determining factor is where the moral/emotional standard is coming from--an internal/subjective or external/objective source.

Your conceptual understanding of F is convoluted and messed up. As I said before, it can be Fe (or any other function) whether you give it conscious thought or not. The bolded is basically bullshit, and a spewing of bad definition. There are much better and more valid definitions of Fe than that. I think your little definition of Fe up there ^ more aptly represents Fi ideas; you'd have to make yourself appear Fe, even though you are feeling Fi feelings. Think about it.

Making up your own definitions for already defined terms. Not interested. If you're going to claim that standard, commonly accepted definitions of Fe are wrong, then cite a credible source that you believe shows a better definition.

Yeah, okay. Or Fe terts use Fe to appeal to the masses to spread their ideas and insights.

Sometimes they can, sure.

That's just not even applicable. That's a manipulative behavior and a twisted, lying one at that.

It is applicable because it shows that behaving in a way that appears Fe on the surface does not necessitate genuine Fe use.


Oh, I thought it was out. Jung also thought he was an INTP, but some think he was an INTJ. Just because we see ourselves one way, does not mean we are that way. Even if Jung did see it that way, what does it really matter? It is up to us to take his work and theory further than he did. He understood that would, and should, happen.

That doesn't mean tearing apart the fundamentals of what he already wrote.

Furthemore, so Jung was more hung up on definitions and a philosophical approach to personality. That is even more reason why the field is wide open for function theory interpretations and hypotheses. His work has gaps, we know more now, there are more of us. Why not continue forth?

You're not filling in gaps; you're ripping out the fundamentals and making up a new system.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What about that is characteristic of a Te mindset, exactly?



In that case, you have no idea what Fi and Fe are, which is why I keep insisting that you don't know the function definitions. I don't believe that any ethics exist without external context to define them. In situations involving people and groups that are important to me, I adjust my emotional reactions to those of others in order to harmonize with the prevailing standard of that context. This is stereotypically Fe.

The only principles I stick to rigidly regardless of external context are conceptual/logical ones regarding impersonal evaluations. This is what you see me sticking to dogmatically, and this is what you mistakenly believe to be Fi. This is also stereotypically Ti.

If I were using Fi often, I would eschew such impersonal evaluation in favor of maintaining my personal, subjective, feeling-oriented values, and I would rarely consider adapting my emotional responses to those of other people. In Fi philosophy, all personal feelings and forms of self-expression of unique identity are sacred and expressing them honestly is always the right thing to do.



No, but I do think I know Jungian functions better than you, and better than most (not all) people on this forum.



And you wonder why I think you're making up your own model?



I've implied no such thing. Fi can and does motivate people to interact peacefully and courteously toward others; the key is whether the source of ethical ideals comes from a subjective internal source or an objective external one. Dealing with other people doesn't necessitate Fe use.



The person might not consciously recognize that that function is influencing his behavior, but the reason for his behavior is still that he holds some sort of belief based on function's ideals.

For instance, tertiary Fe will sometimes lead ETPs to react negatively to perceived rudeness (rudeness being violating generally accepted external behavioral standards of some sort.) The ETP might not realize this is what's motivating him to react negatively, but the fundamental belief in the importance of these Fe-oriented behavioral standards is still there, whether or not the ETP consciously recognizes it.



No, because they're not using Fe unless they adjust to external moral standards because they see inherent value in such standards for their own sake. For an INTJ to use Fe he has to temporarily set aside his own feelings in favor of an external moral standard simply for its own sake. They'll occasionally do this, but not often.

Being nice to people =/= using Fe.



This is you making up your own definitions again. You haven't shown enough comprehension of functional definitions for me to take your criticisms of my understanding of Fe very seriously.



You need to focus on why the behavior is happening, not what the person is doing. Fe use = aligning your feelings/moral beliefs with an external standard because you see inherent value in doing so, not because you seek to complete some unrelated goal.

They're not trying to appear as Fe; they're not even considering the things Fe considers. They're drawing ethical standards entirely from internal subjective standards (Fi) and logical standards from external, empirical evidence that's shown to work to achieve their goals (Te.)



That depends on a variety of factors that are largely unrelated to Fi vs. Fe use.

The only determining factor is where the moral/emotional standard is coming from--an internal/subjective or external/objective source.



Making up your own definitions for already defined terms. Not interested. If you're going to claim that standard, commonly accepted definitions of Fe are wrong, then cite a credible source that you believe shows a better definition.



Sometimes they can, sure.



It is applicable because it shows that behaving in a way that appears Fe on the surface does not necessitate genuine Fe use.




That doesn't mean tearing apart the fundamentals of what he already wrote.



You're not filling in gaps; you're ripping out the fundamentals and making up a new system.


Let me summarize and be done.

You do not define Fe's characteristics sufficiently for me.

I perceive you to do the bolded, at least often on Type C, and not just with me.

I have demonstrated decent use of Jungian definitions and ideas in recent history here. Good enough to at least dialogue with others. Yet you consistently refuse to validate my knowledge, which leads me to suspect an ad hominem motivation of some sort.

I find, from an Fe stance, your behavior in this discussion to be not only be nonfacilitative, but derogatory in nature, which lends an aire of negativity to fruitful discussion.

I find your inability to consistently see other's viewpoints as valid or valuable in some way, destructive for the acquisition of knowledge and increasing understanding.
 
Top