FPs, how changeable are your values?

[Costrin]

What are your reasons for disagreeing?

Well, it seems that Fi users are agreeing with me, so my views aren't completely unfounded. Elaboration to follow:

The definition of Fi is as follows.

Feeling: A cognitive unconscious disposition towards processing emotion.

Introversion: A cognitive unconscious disposition to be cognitively inspired by the inner life more than the external world.

What this simply means is that an introvert's mind unconsciously responds more easily to his own thoughts rather than entities outside of him (perhaps his observations of the external world).

Hence, Introverted Feeling is a tendency to process emotion in relation to the intrinsic content of the mind in question.

The tendency to emote leads a person to be interested in values as such a person is closely in tune with his likes and dislikes (personal values). An Introverted Feeler is in tune with the sentiments generated within himself (because they are generated within his mind they are concerned with his inner being more than the external world), hence he is intensely focused on his personal values (or strictly speaking how he feels) more than the community. (An Extroverted Feeler on the hand, whose sentiments are more concerned with the external world is more focused on the values of others and inevitably his values mirror those of others almost by default.)

I have a different definition of Fi. Fi is nearly the same as Ti. It builds a model of the universe, using information provided by Pe. The difference is that Fi assigns a subjective judgment also, based on how the piece of information makes the user feel. This is connected to other pieces of data, and a model is created.

Because Fi is simply a tendency to emote in relation to the inner life, it ipso facto lacks logical structure. (I anticipate some may remonstrate that there are logical Fi people in the world. I do not wish to deny that. However, they are logical not because of their Fi faculty but due to their competence with their Thinking faculty) Fi, unlike Fe that conforms to the rigid structure of the external world of values (therefore does not change easily, it changes in a manner akin to the whims of fashion, in small ways. We notice that significant traditions and values of the community rarely radically change, and hence neither does Fe for this reason.), has no solid foundation. It is founded on mere fleeting feelings. (There is no solid foundation because Fi in itself does not conceptualize feelings, it only processes them, hence there is nothing stopping Fi from going from one temporary passion to another.)

Here's where your problem seems to be. You think emotions are fleeting. This isn't true. Emotions are a response meant to move people towards positive things, and away from negative things. Purely a survival mechanism from an evolutionary standpoint. Therefore, it is possible to predict emotions. Whatever hurts the user evokes a negative emotional response, whatever aids the user evokes a positive emotional response. They are not random, it is in fact quite logical.

This is all recorded in the Fi users model. As more information is gathered and added to the model, it becomes more secure, much in the same way as a Ti model.

The Fi model is changed when a contradiction is discovered in it (in an entirely logical process).

 

[wolfy]

Some people are talking about Fi only.
Others are talking about combinations of functions.
Some others are reflecting on their type.

We need to clarify and agree on what we are talking about.

 

[BlackCat]

What is the point of talking about Fi only? It functions based on the Extroverted Perception function backing it. I mean sure, someone who just uses Fi will be totally illogical. Anyone who just used one function would be illogical.

 

[Costrin]

What is the point of talking about Fi only? It functions based on the Extroverted Perception function backing it. I mean sure, someone who just uses Fi will be totally illogical. Anyone who just used one function would be illogical.

And probably non-functional.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, it seems that Fi users are agreeing with me, so my views aren't completely unfounded. Elaboration to follow.

That does not mean that your views are unfounded.

I have a different definition of Fi. Fi is nearly the same as Ti. It builds a model of the universe, using information provided by Pe. The difference is that Fi assigns a subjective judgment also, based on how the piece of information makes the user feel. This is connected to other pieces of data, and a model is created..

Constructing the model of a universe requires logical Thinking. Feeling is distinct from Thinking. Therefore Fi cannot be constructing a model of the universe.

Here's where your problem seems to be. You think emotions are fleeting. This isn't true. Emotions are a response meant to move people towards positive things, and away from negative things. Purely a survival mechanism from an evolutionary standpoint. Therefore, it is possible to predict emotions. Whatever hurts the user evokes a negative emotional response, whatever aids the user evokes a positive emotional response. They are not random, it is in fact quite logical...

Yes, evolution has conditioned us to emote in a certain way. Yet unless you think logically to organize your emotions you will not be clearly aware of what your emotions are. For this reason you could be persuaded to change your mind about how you feel with regard to a certain entity.

This is all recorded in the Fi users model. As more information is gathered and added to the model, it becomes more secure, much in the same way as a Ti model....

An Fi person cannot be clearly aware of what his worldview is unless he uses Thinking to analyze his views.

The Fi model is changed when a contradiction is discovered in it (in an entirely logical process).

A discovery of a contradiction requires logical analysis, this is within the province of Thinking.

What seems to be confusing you is the idea that Fi people use Thinking and you seem to attribute the work that they do to the function of Fi. That is a category mistake. If Fi by definition of itself involves Thinking it would not be a separate function from Thinking. But it is a separate function, hence Thinking cannot be part of Fi.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What is the point of talking about Fi only? It functions based on the Extroverted Perception function backing it. I mean sure, someone who just uses Fi will be totally illogical. Anyone who just used one function would be illogical.

Most dominant Fi people rely heavily on Fi, hence their behavior would be reminiscent of somebody who uses Fi only. Some Fi doms will not be function in this manner, yet such persons are rare.

 

[BlackCat]

Most dominant Fi people rely heavily on Fi, hence their behavior would be reminiscent of somebody who uses Fi only. Some Fi doms will not be function in this manner, yet such persons are rare.

Behavior =/= how you function.

Also you should read the post I put on the last page, you seemed to have neglected/missed it.

 

[Costrin]

That does not mean that your views are unfounded.

Of course not, but when trying to understand something one does not have, it helps to get the views of people who do have it.

Constructing the model of a universe requires logical Thinking. Feeling is distinct from Thinking. Therefore Fi cannot be constructing a model of the universe.

Yes it does, but perhaps you would understand better if I rephrased it. Fi takes data from Pe, notes the emotional reaction to it, and stores it. It connects this piece of data to other pieces of data in a process similiar to how Ti operates.

So it creates a model, where everything is categorized to varying degrees as "good" or "bad"

Yes, evolution has conditioned us to emote in a certain way. Yet unless you think logically to organize your emotions you will not be clearly aware of what your emotions are. For this reason you could be persuaded to change your mind about how you feel with regard to a certain entity.

I disagree. There's a reason that low Fi people say they often don't understand their emotions (see this thread).

An Fi person cannot be clearly aware of what his worldview is unless he uses Thinking to analyze his views.

You say this, but you don't back this up with any argumentation or evidence.

A discovery of a contradiction requires logical analysis, this is within the province of Thinking.

No. Logic isn't the province of thinking. Ti does not use logic, instead its more like this:

"Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it."

- Introverted Thinking

Fi is like that, but includes among the "essential qualities" of something, the emotional response it evokes.

What seems to be confusing you is the idea that Fi people use Thinking and you seem to attribute the work that they do to the function of Fi. That is a category mistake. If Fi by definition of itself involves Thinking it would not be a separate function from Thinking. But it is a separate function, hence Thinking cannot be part of Fi.

I think what is confusing you is that logic is the province of thinking, as I elaborated on above. I am of the opinion that Feeling and Thinking are nearly the same thing.

Most dominant Fi people rely heavily on Fi, hence their behavior would be reminiscent of somebody who uses Fi only. Some Fi doms will not be function in this manner, yet such persons are rare.

Does this apply equally for all dominant functions, or just Fi? Either way, I disagree. You are making many statements of fact, yet you are not supporting them at all.

 

[BlackCat]

Constructing the model of a universe requires logical Thinking. Feeling is distinct from Thinking. Therefore Fi cannot be constructing a model of the universe.

So you're trying to say I can't envision a world based on how I feel it should be based on emotions because it relies on logic? It isn't based on logic about how I feel the world should be, I didn't use logic in constructing this. Yet I still have this vision in mind, or as he calls it a model of the world. This isn't a paradox, you can do things entirely with emotions. You misinterpreted his point about constructing a model of the universe. You need to explain why you think it requires logic.

Yes, evolution has conditioned us to emote in a certain way. Yet unless you think logically to organize your emotions you will not be clearly aware of what your emotions are. For this reason you could be persuaded to change your mind about how you feel with regard to a certain entity.

Why do I have to organize my emotions to know what I'm feeling? I know exactly how I'm feeling all the time, and it's not organized in a logical way. You will know if you're angry very clearly, you will know if you are happy, you will know if you are sad. This doesn't require being organized in a logical way. It's a moot point to be arguing this because a feeler will use logic, and they will know how they are feeling in more complicated situations because of this logic. From that you can say that the person won't be manipulated into feeling a different way, since Fi users most of the time clearly know why we feel the way we do, and from that we can't simply be manipulated about feeling a different way about something unless someone convinced us that the source of how we feel is illogical and/or makes no sense.

An Fi person cannot be clearly aware of what his worldview is unless he uses Thinking to analyze his views.

Why are you arguing this? Fi users employ their Te to analyze their feelings regardless, whether they know it or not. It's an unconscious process in our minds. Just because it's inferior doesn't mean it isn't used. That's like saying an INTP will be oblivious to all emotions unless he uses feeling to analyze it the situation and come up with an emotion to feel. Everyone thinker unconsciously feels emotions, as does every feeler unconsciously use logical reasoning to some degree.

A discovery of a contradiction requires logical analysis, this is within the province of Thinking.

What about an emotional contradiction? This is what he meant. We realize that what we are feeling about something doesn't quite fit anymore, so we change. The process is entirely logical.

What seems to be confusing you is the idea that Fi people use Thinking and you seem to attribute the work that they do to the function of Fi. That is a category mistake. If Fi by definition of itself involves Thinking it would not be a separate function from Thinking. But it is a separate function, hence Thinking cannot be part of Fi.

This just seems misinformed. Logic =/= thinking whatsoever, not in this case. People don't use reasoning differently if they have Ti or Te, it's all apart of being a human being. It transcends MBTI. This seems to be where your points are flawed.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes it does, but perhaps you would understand better if I rephrased it. Fi takes data from Pe, notes the emotional reaction to it, and stores it. It connects this piece of data to other pieces of data in a process similiar to how Ti operates...

Perception collects data. Thinking unconsciously organizes the data. Feeling regards the data that has been organized as either good or bad. Feeling does not in itself organize data, it only comments on what has already been organized.

So it creates a model, where everything is categorized to varying degrees as "good" or "bad"...

Thinking creates such a model, Feeling does not.

I disagree. There's a reason that low Fi people say they often don't understand their emotions (see this thread). "...

Understanding your emotions requires processing them and analyzing them. People with supressed F dont understand it because they dont properly process it, people with supressed T dont understand it because they dont analyze it properly.

You say this, but you don't back this up with any argumentation or evidence."...

Re-read my posts.

No. Logic isn't the province of thinking. Ti does not use logic, instead its more like this:."...

What is Thinking if not the use of logic?

Fi is like that, but includes among the "essential qualities" of something, the emotional response it evokes.:."...

How exactly does it do that?

I think what is confusing you is that logic is the province of thinking, as I elaborated on above. I am of the opinion that Feeling and Thinking are nearly the same thing..:."...

What reason is there to believe in this? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

Does this apply equally for all dominant functions, or just Fi? Either way, I disagree. You are making many statements of fact, yet you are not supporting them at all.

You need to re-read my posts many more times. Most people rely heavily on their dominant function yes. So, T doms would rely little on Feeling and as a result would resemble the kind of a person who uses only Thinking.

 

[BlackCat]

How can anyone believe your side SolitaryWalker if you don't provide evidence?

 

[CrystalViolet]

Solitary Walker
It doesn't mean I agree with what you posted.
Carry on folks, while I ponder. I find Fi perplexing.
It makes me stand up for people in situations, that if it were just me I wouldn't do so. It makes me into a warrior women, where logically it's not in my best interests. Oddly I feel at my best, when in these moments.
I don't think Fi changes, I think the data that feeds into it does. That why in real life, I try to be very careful about acting until I have all the information at hand. It seems to me though it's a pretty cold function though.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So you're trying to say I can't envision a world based on how I feel it should be based on emotions because it relies on logic? It isn't based on logic about how I feel the world should be, I didn't use logic in constructing this. Yet I still have this vision in mind, or as he calls it a model of the world. This isn't a paradox, you can do things entirely with emotions. You misinterpreted his point about constructing a model of the universe. You need to explain why you think it requires logic..

How is it possible to construct a model of the universe without using logic? (Note, you may think you did not use logic, but if you have a coherent vision of the world your mind did so on an unconscious level)

So you assert that it is possible to construct a model of the world without using logic, its your responsibility to explain how.

Here is my argument for how logic is the only way of constructing a vision of the world. Logic represents our basic reasoning and only through reasoning can anything be figured out. Hence, anyone who constructs a vision of the world reasons or uses logic.

Why do I have to organize my emotions to know what I'm feeling? I know exactly how I'm feeling all the time, and it's not organized in a logical way. You will know if you're angry very clearly, you will know if you are happy, you will know if you are sad...

Because you are conditioned to use logic on a deeply unconscious level.

This doesn't require being organized in a logical way. It's a moot point to be arguing this because a feeler will use logic, and they will know how they are feeling in more complicated situations because of this logic. From that you can say that the person won't be manipulated into feeling a different way, since Fi users most of the time clearly know why we feel the way we do, and from that we can't simply be manipulated about feeling a different way about something unless someone convinced us that the source of how we feel is illogical and/or makes no sense....

With basic emotions (that they could figure out through unconscious thinking) yes. Understanding more complex emotions requires conscious thinking. In that case they often dont understand how they really feel (only mistakenly believe that they do) due to poor analytical reasoning skills.

Why are you arguing this? Fi users employ their Te to analyze their feelings regardless, whether they know it or not. It's an unconscious process in our minds. Just because it's inferior doesn't mean it isn't used. ....

Usually it means its poorly used.

That's like saying an INTP will be oblivious to all emotions unless he uses feeling to analyze it the situation and come up with an emotion to feel. Everyone thinker unconsciously feels emotions, as does every feeler unconsciously use logical reasoning to some degree.....

An INTP will not properly process most emotions unless he uses Feeling well.

What about an emotional contradiction? This is what he meant. We realize that what we are feeling about something doesn't quite fit anymore, so we change. The process is entirely logical......

All contradictions require logical thinking. If a contradiction is difficult to spot, a Feeler with underdeveloped thinking wont find it easily as finding such a contradiction requires laborious conscious scrutiny.

This just seems misinformed. Logic =/= thinking whatsoever, not in this case. People don't use reasoning differently if they have Ti or Te, it's all apart of being a human being. It transcends MBTI. This seems to be where your points are flawed.

We all use all functions, you're right. Just some more than others.

How can anyone believe your side SolitaryWalker if you don't provide evidence?

I did provide evidence. Will do it again if you ask me specific questions. Otherwise, I am not sure of what your concerns are with regard to my argument. If you think I did not provide evidence, you need to re-read my posts more carefully.

 

[Costrin]

Perception collects data. Thinking unconsciously organizes the data. Feeling regards the data that has been organized as either good or bad. Feeling does not in itself organize data, it only comments on what has already been organized.

Perception collects data. Judging judges the data. Both thinking and feeling organize data. Assigning the labels of good and bad is organization.

Thinking creates such a model, Feeling does not.

A simple contradictory statement is not a good argument.

Understanding your emotions requires processing them and analyzing them. People with supressed F dont understand it because they dont properly process it, people with supressed T dont understand it because they dont analyze it properly.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Re-read my posts.

I did. I see no evidence. Maybe I missed or misunderstood it. So I ask you to repost it in very clear simple logic that will be unlikely to be misunderstood.

What is Thinking if not the use of logic?

Something different than logic. Objective judging. Judging and categorizing of data without subjective interpretation.

How exactly does it do that?

Unknown. Scientists haven't figured it out yet.

What reason is there to believe in this? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

True. I'm afraid I'm gonna back out of this one though. It's not exactly relevant, and my evidence is mostly anecdotal and theoretical in nature anyway.

You need to re-read my posts many more times. Most people rely heavily on their dominant function yes. So, T doms would rely little on Feeling and as a result would resemble the kind of a person who uses only Thinking.

As above, I clearly must have missed your evidence, so please repost it.

 

[BlackCat]

I'm pretty sure "logical thinking" and "logical reasoning" has nothing to do with MBTI. MBTI's definition of thinking has to do with how said reasoning/thinking is employed, and if someone puts a lot of weight on this style of employment. This is why I think all of these things we have been debating about are doable without MBTI's thinking. This pretty much is my response to what you said, it conveys the point more clearly as to what I'm trying to make you understand. Religious following of MBTI won't get you anywhere, you have to understand humanity and how humans work and put that before MBTI.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Perception collects data. Judging judges the data. Both thinking and feeling organize data. Assigning the labels of good and bad is organization. .

Note, MBTI defines Judging functions as those that organize data. Jung however, has defined Judging functions as the rational functions, which for him merely meant conscious.

MBTI theorists took this idea unwarrantedly a step ahead and decided such functions are the ones that organize information. One can argue how Thinking could do this, but Feeling cannot.

Note, I am not discussing the functions as they are defined in MBTI, but as they are stationed in the human psyche.

A simple contradictory statement is not a good argument..

There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind which is responsible for merely processing emotion. This is what I call Feeling. There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind that is responsible for dispassionate reasoning, I call it Thinking.

Hence, ipso facto, Feeling is distinct from Thinking. A type theorist who uses on term to depict both Feeling and Thinking does not clearly describe the cognitive processes of our mind.

Please provide evidence for this claim...

What is an emotion? A mind-state. Hence, it is a psychological phenomenon that we need to understand. We need to feel emotion or to allow ourselves to consciously process it, and then we need to analyze it to get a clear idea of what it is. If you don't do one of the two, you wont be able to understand it.

I did. I see no evidence. Maybe I missed or misunderstood it. So I ask you to repost it in very clear simple logic that will be unlikely to be misunderstood....

Ask me specific questions. Its inconvenient for me to re-explain my views in entirety again.

Something different than logic. Objective judging. Judging and categorizing of data without subjective interpretation.....

How is it possible to organize ideas without using logic? Logic is the method of organization of all things, or the method of thought itself.

Unknown. Scientists haven't figured it out yet......

If its unknown, you're not in the position to assert that it is true. That is just like me saying that it is an unknown that Johns is a thief and I know that Johns is a thief.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm pretty sure "logical thinking" and "logical reasoning" has nothing to do with MBTI. MBTI's definition of thinking has to do with how said reasoning/thinking is employed, and if someone puts a lot of weight on this style of employment. This is why I think all of these things we have been debating about are doable without MBTI's thinking. This pretty much is my response to what you said, it conveys the point more clearly as to what I'm trying to make you understand. Religious following of MBTI won't get you anywhere, you have to understand humanity and how humans work and put that before MBTI.

No, it doesnt have anything to do with MBTI, and I don't write about MBTI either. Logical reasoning however is a cognitive faculty of our mind. That is what I call 'Thinking', I was not referring to the MBTI notion of Thinking.

Perhaps you should read my book on typology, your view of my ideas will change significantly after you do that.

http://www.authorhouse.com/Bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=56047

 

[BlackCat]

If its unknown, you're not in the position to assert that it is true. That is just like me saying that it is an unknown that Johns is a thief and I know that Johns is a thief.

Just because something is unknown doesn't mean it can't be. Why do we exist? It's unknown. If we don't know why we exist, going by your logic, then we cannot exist. Fi does exactly what you said was impossible. It's coming from a dominant. How can you deny it?

EDIT: This is a debate about MBTI, so if you don't write about MBTI then why are you debating this?

 

[speculative]

Here is my argument for how logic is the only way of constructing a vision of the world. Logic represents our basic reasoning and only through reasoning can anything be figured out. Hence, anyone who constructs a vision of the world reasons or uses logic.

Perhaps we're talking about different points along the time-line. Values for example originate in F to start with, but then from there would be further investigated by S/N, conceptualized by T, and either implemented or not implemented by P/J. Reasoning cannot figure out what a person's values are in the sense of choosing them or originating them, but it can figure them out in the sense of conceptualizing how they apply to the real world. Otherwise, what we are discussing are not values in the first place, but logical, rational decisions. (Which are not the topic of this thread: values are.) There's nothing wrong with rational decisions, but they are not values.

Perhaps a more clear example is love. Love is derived from F. Figuring out when you're in love is one of the most important decisions of your life. There are many movies that focus on a main character who can't figure out that they're in love because they are too stuck in their head (T) and don't find happiness until they learn to follow their heart (F). This is the best example I can currently think of regarding how F makes decisions/processes information completely outside the realm of T. T cannot make my heart warm when she is near me; only F can do that. And it's a warm heart, not a calculated logical deduction, that tells me I am in love.

When discussing values, we're looking at a model of humanity (values), not a model of the universe (things). I feel that perhaps that language that we are all using is confusing. Or, if this thread has perhaps gone that far afield of the original topic maybe it would best be split into a new thread. If by "model of the universe" you're talking about Einstein and the Big Bang Theory, or quantum mechanics, or things like the economy, then I wholly agree that T is what gets the job done. Math, for example, is derived from T. I cannot "feel" a fractal into existence; I must "reason" one into existence. A value cannot be "thought" into existence (otherwise it is a logical decision and not a value); a value must be "felt" into existence. Values are derived from F. Maybe you could use F to possibly further mathematics in some way after they are brought into existence by T, but math will never derive directly from F to exist in the first place. You can also use T to adjust values, but you cannot use T to originate values, as it can only originate logical reasoning and values are not based on logical reasoning.

If you try to originate values from T instead of F, you will arrive at something akin to Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." This is the best illustration I can think of to try to communicate the point I'm trying to make. Of course, once values exist, all the other functions combined, none less important than T, go into conceptualizing and then implementing those values...

 

[Costrin]

Note, MBTI defines Judging functions as those that organize data. Jung however, has defined Judging functions as the rational functions, which for him merely meant conscious.

MBTI theorists took this idea unwarrantedly a step ahead and decided such functions are the ones that organize information. One can argue how Thinking could do this, but Feeling cannot.

Is it not a possibility that Jung could be wrong and MBTI right?

Note, I am not discussing the functions as they are defined in MBTI, but as they are stationed in the human psyche.

Noted.

There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind which is responsible for merely processing emotion. This is what I call Feeling. There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind that is responsible for dispassionate reasoning, I call it Thinking.

Hence, ipso facto, Feeling is distinct from Thinking. A type theorist who uses on term to depict both Feeling and Thinking does not clearly describe the cognitive processes of our mind.

Feeling is distinct from Thinking, agreed. However, I disagree with your definitions of Feeling and Thinking, as I've previously posted.

What is an emotion? A mind-state. Hence, it is a psychological phenomenon that we need to understand. We need to feel emotion or to allow ourselves to consciously process it, and then we need to analyze it to get a clear idea of what it is. If you don't do one of the two, you wont be able to understand it.

I'd like some elaboration on how Thinking analyzes emotion before I respond to this.

Ask me specific questions. Its inconvenient for me to re-explain my views in entirety again.

I shall then.

How is it possible to organize ideas without using logic? Logic is the method of organization of all things, or the method of thought itself.

Indeed. Thinking uses logic, but is not logic in itself. Feeling also uses logic, but is not logic in itself. Feeling notes the data, notes the emotional reaction to it, and labels the data accordingly. For a very rudimentary example:

Data A is received.

• If sad move to sad column.
• If happy move to happy column.

Is this not logical?

If its unknown, you're not in the position to assert that it is true. That is just like me saying that it is an unknown that Johns is a thief and I know that Johns is a thief.

It's known the effects, its unknown the cause. This is true of essentially everything. For example, how the universe came into existence.