• 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.

"Does it fit"?

B

beyondaurora

Guest
I was reading this blog, specifically the part about functions as below:

"The four "rational" or "judging" functions are:

Te: Extroverted Thinking - The utilitarian function. Te whittles down possible courses of action by testing them for their utility and feasibility. People who make prominent use of Te tend to use a heuristically-oriented form of thinking in which the first possible solution that appears to be both useful and workable is chosen. "Will it work?"

Ti: Introverted Thinking - The logical function. Ti is the kind of thinking we use when writing proofs in math class. It takes things one step at a time and likes to arrive at the best answer - along with an argument for why it's the best answer. Of the rational functions, Ti is generally the slowest - but also the most likely to arrive at an optimal solution (assuming that there exists an objectively optimal solution). "Is it correct?"

Fe: Extroverted Feeling - The affiliative function. Fe arrives at decisions in a similar manner as is used by Te - the main difference being that Fe is more concerned with helpfulness than usefulness. Also like Te, Fe is heuristically-oriented and tends to snap to the first satisfactory solution rather than laboriously looking for the best of all possible approaches. Combined with the instinctive nature of "feeling" thought, Fe is generally the fastest of the decision-making functions (but also the one that tends to generate the greatest number of way-off conclusions which then have to be filtered out by peer critique or personal reflection). "Will it please?"

Fi: Introverted Feeling - The moral function. Fi is a form of decision-making thought anchored in one's internal moral code. Decisions made using Fi will settle upon the course of action which lies closest to the decision-maker's personal values. "Is it right?""​

What I'm wondering is, where does "does it fit" fit?


Now, I could have restructured the previous sentence for ease of reading, but I'm leaving it "as is" to illustrate my point.

Stay with me for a moment...

Imagine a large, dark room with thousands of multicolored shapes and patterns, grids and molds, swirling in the background. Then imagine an invisible stream of air that rapidly sucks up the nearby objects. Brought into the foreground, the individual objects are flipped through rapidly, side by side, to check for a "match". If such a match occurs, the objects are linked together and rotated again through the cycle. And this goes on and on and on.

This is my mind. And in many ways, this process exhausts me. Sometimes I would like to just shut down the factory for awhile.

So my question to you is which process is responsible for "does it fit"?
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
I think you posed that question to unnecessarily parse out the selection of feeling, maybe its just my thinking bias. In that sense maybe you've created something that tests for biases in interpretation.

This process to me seems to linear and progressive. Ti seems to me more hectic and rapid (with the bias that it is supported by intuition). So from your statement I would conclude Te with a S partnership. In the end it seems as if you would have a continuous accurate chain from beginning to end that incorporates only what is necessary at the time. There seems to be no thought aloud for future implications and no benchmark run after the fact to test for validity in different contexts.

It seems as if your explanation goes through a predetermined process and parses out only whats relevant there doesn't seem to be other process at play that would allow for cross referencing which is a Ti-Ne or Ne-Ti method.
 

Colors

The Destroyer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,276
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Doesn't sound like any judging process- sounds like a perceiving process. Si or Ni, actually.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
One time my friend told me he knows a guy and a girl who were going out, and the girl was a virgin, and she didn't think the guy's penis would fit in her vagina. So she let him stick it in just to see if it fit, but they didn't have sex. Now people ask them, "does it fit?"

I don't believe this story, but I'm just saying, it's out there.
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
Doesn't sound like any judging process- sounds like a perceiving process. Si or Ni, actually.

I think to perceive you likewise have to judge. No?

Endless loop ring a bell?
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251


Imagine a large, dark room with thousands of multicolored shapes and patterns, grids and molds, swirling in the background. Then imagine an invisible stream of air that rapidly sucks up the nearby objects. Brought into the foreground, the individual objects are flipped through rapidly, side by side, to check for a "match". If such a match occurs, the objects are linked together and rotated again through the cycle. And this goes on and on and on.

This is my mind. And in many ways, this process exhausts me. Sometimes I would like to just shut down the factory for awhile.



Ni. I can turn it on and off.
 

sarah

soft and silky
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
548
MBTI Type
isfp
I was reading Stay with me for a moment...

Imagine a large, dark room with thousands of multicolored shapes and patterns, grids and molds, swirling in the background. Then imagine an invisible stream of air that rapidly sucks up the nearby objects. Brought into the foreground, the individual objects are flipped through rapidly, side by side, to check for a "match". If such a match occurs, the objects are linked together and rotated again through the cycle. And this goes on and on and on.

This is my mind. And in many ways, this process exhausts me. Sometimes I would like to just shut down the factory for awhile.

So my question to you is which process is responsible for "does it fit"?

What do you want to do with the shapes when you find a match? By pairing things up, do the pairs become more meaningful and memorable to you than if they remained alone? What happens to the pairs -- do they split up again, or do they stay together? Do you consciously remember any sets of pairs?

By asking "does it fit", are you asking "Is it relevant?" Do you want to know which shapes will be useful to you right now, to solve a real-life problem? (Se)

Are you wanting to know which shapes are worth valuing (the ones that you can find pairs for vs. the ones that don't)? (Fi)

Or are you looking to consciously create pairs that might have symbolic meaning for you, so that you can use them to gain insight into some area of your life that you want to change? (Ni + Se)?

Sarah
ISFP
 
B

beyondaurora

Guest
I think to perceive you likewise have to judge. No?

Endless loop ring a bell?

Ah, but an endless loop it is for me! Something comes together, seems to fit, but later in the process it drops its pairing and fits something else!

This answers your question, Sarah - yes, they split up again.


Do you want to know which shapes will be useful to you right now, to solve a real-life problem? (Se)

Hmmm...maybe.


Are you wanting to know which shapes are worth valuing (the ones that you can find pairs for vs. the ones that don't)? (Fi)

No, I don't think so.

Or are you looking to consciously create pairs that might have symbolic meaning for you, so that you can use them to gain insight into some area of your life that you want to change? (Ni + Se)?

I'm not sure about the "symbolic" aspect of it, but "to gain insight into some area of your life that you want to change" is spot on! :cheese:
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I like this last paragraph, as it really helps sort out the differences:

Fe also differs significantly from Fi in that Fe applies ethical judgments to the intended and actual effects of one's actions while Fi applies ethical judgments to the actions themselves. In a similar vein, Te is predominantly results-oriented while Ti is more process-oriented.
 
B

beyondaurora

Guest
I'm resurrecting this thread because it's now a year later, and I'm still going through this endless loop!!! It's driving me crazy. I want the pieces to fit so badly, but they keep breaking apart and trying to fit elsewhere.

Here's an example:

Subject -- Body Shape

"Ah, I have narrow shoulders and broad hips, so I am a 'pear'. But wait, I'm not small busted, so I can't be a 'pear'. Maybe I'm an 'hourglass'. Yeah, that sort of works. But no, I have narrow shoulders and broad hips, so I am a 'pear'. But..."

This goes on and on and on and on. And it goes for personality typing, face shape, body shape, etc. -- anything in which I'm trying to put things into a category. I want so desperately for them to fit, and they do for a brief moment, but then they do not. It drives me crazy.

Any other ideas on which unhealthy function/dichotomy is at play here?
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Fi Si?

You are trying to figure things out based on the information that you have, and you aren't expanding on it or getting outside information from Ne.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm resurrecting this thread because it's now a year later, and I'm still going through this endless loop!!! It's driving me crazy. I want the pieces to fit so badly, but they keep breaking apart and trying to fit elsewhere.

Here's an example:

Subject -- Body Shape

"Ah, I have narrow shoulders and broad hips, so I am a 'pear'. But wait, I'm not small busted, so I can't be a 'pear'. Maybe I'm an 'hourglass'. Yeah, that sort of works. But no, I have narrow shoulders and broad hips, so I am a 'pear'. But..."

This goes on and on and on and on. And it goes for personality typing, face shape, body shape, etc. -- anything in which I'm trying to put things into a category. I want so desperately for them to fit, and they do for a brief moment, but then they do not. It drives me crazy.

Any other ideas on which unhealthy function/dichotomy is at play here?

Sounds like you are being very rigid about how things need to fit in order to determine where to put them.

None of the boxes will fit perfectly, and if you get into a situation where you can't decide which box you fit into because both are strong candidates, then you can tell yourself the boxes aren't right and don't apply to you, probably.

I'm not sure what function that is, it just seems to be too-rigid thinking coupled with a desire to somehow have the framework properly honor/respect yourself and have it resonate.
 
B

beyondaurora

Guest
Sounds like you are being very rigid about how things need to fit in order to determine where to put them.

None of the boxes will fit perfectly, and if you get into a situation where you can't decide which box you fit into because both are strong candidates, then you can tell yourself the boxes aren't right and don't apply to you, probably.

I'm not sure what function that is, it just seems to be too-rigid thinking coupled with a desire to somehow have the framework properly honor/respect yourself and have it resonate.

You are correct -- I am being too rigid, but I know no other way. I can't accept that the boxes don't fit, that they "aren't right" for me. That blows my mind. That defies the purpose of the box. Why even have boxes then?!?! That makes me want to completely rebel and say "#$%@ the box! The box has failed me."

With the body shape thing, I am naturally such a horrible dresser, having no talent for fashion at all, that I just want to 'figure it out' so that I can have a set of rules to follow and never have to think about it again.
 
B

beyondaurora

Guest
An INFP shouldn't give Te that much thought.

Oh god, don't make me start questioning my INFP-ness now! I just finally settled on my type.

(*whispering* So...what type would give Te that much thought? :blush:)
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Oh god, don't make me start questioning my INFP-ness now! I just finally settled on my type.

(*whispering* So...what type would give Te that much thought? :blush:)

My point was that it's normal for you to have problems with people things in boxes since you are an INFP and Te is your inferior function.

Also, do yourself a favor and don't buy into this MBTI bull. It poisons the mind.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You are correct -- I am being too rigid, but I know no other way. I can't accept that the boxes don't fit, that they "aren't right" for me. That blows my mind. That defies the purpose of the box. Why even have boxes then?!?! That makes me want to completely rebel and say "#$%@ the box! The box has failed me."

With the body shape thing, I am naturally such a horrible dresser, having no talent for fashion at all, that I just want to 'figure it out' so that I can have a set of rules to follow and never have to think about it again.

What you describe is typically Jx behavior, function-wise.
You're splitting hairs somehow, yes.

In the past I used to get that way with my Ti, but after awhile I just learned to N through it... like I said, realizing the boxes are arbitrary or that the subject in question is complex so chances are that no box will really ever be quite right... so then I can move from exacting logic to fuzzy logic and deal with generalities. "N" is all about big-picture... so go to the big picture.

With Body shape, for example, just back to your primary purpose in doing it, then proceed from there. Work pragmatically. Bottom line: Body shape only "technically" matters in trying to size clothes, otherwise it's just esoteric and irrelevant. So: If your shoulders and your hips don't match, then size your top and bottom each differently.

That's what I do. "Is this question important? If so, then why? What do I need the outcome to be?" and then I go from there. You never seem to move out of the abstracted analysis, though, and it's bewildering you. Move to a big-picture goal-driven approach to help you determine how to categorize things.

(*whispering* So...what type would give Te that much thought? :blush:)

Neurotic xNFPs.

Look, your Te-strong types know how to use Te in order to lop things off and make arbitrary categorizations. They know how to get closure, sacrificing exactness.

Your issues is that you are too exacting based on "definition." This is a Ji-sort of approach, and Te must be a tertiary or inferior function because it is in thrall to the exacting Ji function and thus cannot do its job appropriately -- instead, it's being abused.

See the difference between Te being in charge, and Te being used to serve the aims of another function? Te in charge would just make the decisions and be done with them. Te in service to Fi is being used to chase after Fi's goals, but it can't do anything with them except say "no, that's not right at all."
 
B

beyondaurora

Guest
What you describe is typically Jx behavior, function-wise.
You're splitting hairs somehow, yes.

In the past I used to get that way with my Ti, but after awhile I just learned to N through it... like I said, realizing the boxes are arbitrary or that the subject in question is complex so chances are that no box will really ever be quite right... so then I can move from exacting logic to fuzzy logic and deal with generalities. "N" is all about big-picture... so go to the big picture.

With Body shape, for example, just back to your primary purpose in doing it, then proceed from there. Work pragmatically. Bottom line: Body shape only "technically" matters in trying to size clothes, otherwise it's just esoteric and irrelevant. So: If your shoulders and your hips don't match, then size your top and bottom each differently.

That's what I do. "Is this question important? If so, then why? What do I need the outcome to be?" and then I go from there. You never seem to move out of the abstracted analysis, though, and it's bewildering you. Move to a big-picture goal-driven approach to help you determine how to categorize things.



Neurotic xNFPs.

Look, your Te-strong types know how to use Te in order to lop things off and make arbitrary categorizations. They know how to get closure, sacrificing exactness.

Your issues is that you are too exacting based on "definition." This is a Ji-sort of approach, and Te must be a tertiary or inferior function because it is in thrall to the exacting Ji function and thus cannot do its job appropriately -- instead, it's being abused.

See the difference between Te being in charge, and Te being used to serve the aims of another function? Te in charge would just make the decisions and be done with them. Te in service to Fi is being used to chase after Fi's goals, but it can't do anything with them except say "no, that's not right at all."

:worthy: Wow, thanks, Jennifer. Makes complete sense. I admit that when I do accept that not everything fits and let go of my "definitions", I feel less stressed and actually relieved. But in the moment it seems ever-so-pertinent, and I just can't let it go! Definitely something I will be working on. Thanks again for the analysis and explanation.
 
Top