FPs, how changeable are your values?

[BlackCat]

As a "feeler", I can assure you that last statement is not true. I don't just accept something because it makes me feel good. It doesn't work like that.

It works like that to SW, and he will go out of his way to make sure it's logical and makes sense, and will deny any real proof (aka Fi users) aside from his own. We have spoken, you have not said anything back really aside from things that don't make sense or things that aren't true to how we work.

 

[CrystalViolet]

So you assert that Feelers will believe whatever random new idea comes up?

As a "feeler", I can assure you that last statement is not true. I don't just accept something because it makes me feel good. It doesn't work like that.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You make conclusions but provide no evidence in order to support statements such as these. Have you personally studied Fi dominant groups or individuals? How do you know these values are as "malleable" as you claim?.

If you think that I did not support my claims, you simply misunderstood my posts. You need to go back and re-read them. If you still have problems ask specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them. No, I have not studied Fi individuals. Remember, Fi is not a personality notion, it is a cognitive tendency. In principle, the study of Fi can be conducted without empirical investigation.

If you want people to grasp your methodologies, it would be a benefit to minimize the combative use of point - counterpoint techniques to defend them.

There is no combative use of point. Just healthy criticism of ideas which is necessary for a thorough and incisive inquiry.

 

[CrystalViolet]

It works like that to SW, and he will go out of his way to make sure it's logical and makes sense, and will deny any real proof (aka Fi users) aside from his own. We have spoken, you have not said anything back really aside from things that don't make sense or things that aren't true to how we work.

I know that well enough I've had run-ins with him before (hasn't most INFP's?)
I still can't resist responding, when he says something that's blatantly not true.

He just can't resist being around us

 

[BlackCat]

He just can't resist being around us

Maybe he's trying to tell us something.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Maybe he's trying to tell us something.

That we actually kinda hard to figure out? We'er kinda mysterious to him?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I agree with this.



This contradicts what you said previously:?

You said that Feeling was responsible for receiving the information.

No, it does not. I maintained that Feeling is one function that perceives information. I did not state that it is the only one.

If you honestly cannot see the difference, then I'm not sure what to say. Consider this though: Is seeing an emotion? Touching your keyboard? The sound from your feet hitting the ground? The taste of your food and smell of your food? All physical pain is, is your sense of touch, but emphasized.

Not all sensations entail emotions directly. Getting pinched is one that does, seeing something is one that does not.

You previously stated that the majority of people heavily use their dominant functions to the point where they would look like like someone who only uses that function:However, you also state that both Feeling and Thinking are required for the most rudimentary of tasks:

Surely, I use my dominant Thinking function a lot, however much I use it though, I must use Feeling to some extent. (As Thinking without feeling is not possible.

Where is the contradiction. I state that we use all functions, yet we heavily rely on our dominant and rely little on our inferior. It would be a contradiction if I said that we do not rely on the inferior at all.

So the majority of people would be nearly non-functional?:

Explain how you derived this thesis.

What do you mean by "deeply"?

Significantly.

And if reworded, you get something like this:
The dog saw two paths, determined that it was true that the object is down one of those paths. When the dog went down path A and did not find the object, the dog determined that it was true that the object must be down path B.

Correct.

Plus (I assume) dogs do not Thinking or Feeling or other cognitive processes. Does this not show it is possible to apply logic without the use of Thinking?.

Why do you assume that?

It has a model. It is a logical model (logic is not solely the realm of Thinking). ?.

Why is that? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

In this model, information is connected together. Among the information connected together is the emotional reaction experienced to it. So when new information is received, it judges what kind of information it is, and then judges the emotional reaction previously experienced to this kind of information. This new information is then assimilated into the model.?.

How is it possible to construct such a model without using logic? Again, how could there be non-logical thinking?

It So essentially you are saying that the majority IFPs are either lying or mistaken..?.

I argue that IFPs do use logical analysis, just in a slightly different manner and with different information than Ts. ..?.

Okay, that is the conclusion. Where are your premises? There is only one way to reason. That is deductively validly. Whoever doesn't reason in this manner is simply making mistakes. That is the case with IFPs. (For reasons mentioned earlier)

You would say of course that that is Thinking in action, and not feeling. I then point to the dog example. The dog does not have Thinking, and yet is capable of making logical decisions. Thinking != logic...?.

The dog does have Thinking, just on a much more primitive level than we do.

First, why are you making up quotes of me?

Where am I doing that.

Second, what do you propose is a better way of understanding cognitive processes? Clearly personal introspection at best can only give you an idea of those cognitive processes that one posses.?

There needs to be a more rigorous analysis of the data collected in introspection than what you seem to have in mind.

Please define "inspired by the internal/external world"..?

Example of what is inspired by the external world.

X happened right in front of me. I was compelled by X to do Z.

Example of what is inspired by the internal world.

X happened in the external world, I thought about X, and have come up with the idea of Z based on my own thoughts and not circumstances.

So contemplation is not entirely the realm of Thinking.

I maintained that contemplation can be done by Feelers, yet I did not claim that contemplation is done by Feeling.

 

[Costrin]

No, it does not. I maintained that Feeling is one function that perceives information. I did not state that it is the only one.

Does Thinking also perceive information?

Not all sensations entail emotions directly. Getting pinched is one that does, seeing something is one that does not.

What is the difference?

Surely, I use my dominant Thinking function a lot, however much I use it though, I must use Feeling to some extent. (As Thinking without feeling is not possible.

Where is the contradiction. I state that we use all functions, yet we heavily rely on our dominant and rely little on our inferior. It would be a contradiction if I said that we do not rely on the inferior at all.

You said that most people operate as if they only used their dominant function.

Explain how you derived this thesis.

You need both perceiving and judging in order to act. If the majority of people lack one of those, they would not be able to act.

Significantly.

Define "significantly". How is deeply or significantly unconscious different from unconscious?

Why do you assume that?

Good question. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

Why is that? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

I have been.

How is it possible to construct such a model without using logic? Again, how could there be non-logical thinking?

It isn't possible. That's why I am saying that Feeling uses logic.

Okay, that is the conclusion. Where are your premises? There is only one way to reason. That is deductively validly. Whoever doesn't reason in this manner is simply making mistakes. That is the case with IFPs. (For reasons mentioned earlier)

You didn't respond to this part of my post:

So essentially you are saying that the majority IFPs are either lying or mistaken.

Do you accept or deny this?

My premises are the words and actions of IFPs saying they do this. You seem to deny the truth of their words, though.

The dog does have Thinking, just on a much more primitive level than we do.

Well, I honestly don't know very much about the psyche of dogs, so if you could provide evidence for this, then I likely won't object.

Where am I doing that.

You quoted me as saying this:

How is it apparent that Te does not engage in dispassionate contemplation?.

When that is present nowhere in my post.

There needs to be a more rigorous analysis of the data collected in introspection than what you seem to have in mind.

Please elaborate.

Example of what is inspired by the external world.

X happened right in front of me. I was compelled by X to do Z.

Example of what is inspired by the internal world.

X happened in the external world, I thought about X, and have come up with the idea of Z based on my own thoughts and not circumstances.

I'm a little fuzzy on that last example, could you elaborate?

I maintained that contemplation can be done by Feelers, yet I did not claim that contemplation is done by Feeling.

Ok. So contemplation is an uncommon activity for dominant Feelers?

You also ignored this part of my post:

So you assert that Feelers will believe whatever random new idea comes up?

Do you believe this to be true or not?

Also, could you provide an example of what you think a dominant Feeler's though process would look like, and the difference between a dominant Thinker's.

 

[speculative]

I now better understand Solitary Walker's modus operandi. Only his definitions are correct in the world, no one else's are if they happen to disagree with his, because by definition only Solitary Walker has provided the best reasoning for his definitions. And even if you agreed with SW's definitions, you cannot possibly reason as well as him, so your definitions or reasoning are still not as correct as his, even if you arrived at the same conclusion.

If he asks you to show him how his definitions or reasoning are invalid and you try to do so, you have already failed before you begin the attempt. Because, if you disagree with him you are wrong, as his logic is the best. (This is by definition, and remember, SW chooses the definition and his are always correct because he has defined that by using reason which he has also defined, and so-on in a never-ending cycle of definitions all of which are only correct if they originate from SW and not from another, as no other human in the world is as valid as SW.) If you tried to discuss this with him, he would try (in vain) to strip ego from the conversation and say that of course his reasoning is the best because it is the more reasoned than the other reasoning on the forum. Why is it more reasoned? Well, SW himself is the arbiter, apparently, of that as only his definitions are valid, or are the most valid even if others arrive at the same conclusions through another method. This has already been admitted by SW himself, as he has stated his definitions are better than the MBTI definitions. So, really, anything anyone says on this forum is invalid because it does not follow SW's logic and reasoning but instead uses MBTI models.

This is pretty plain for us to see, so why are we still wasting time on this? In short, the only one who could point out an error in SW's ways is SW, because only his definitions and only his reasoning are correct, and that is by definition, and SW is the arbiter of all definitions and reasoning. Again, he would try to strip away ego from the situation by saying, well prove me wrong then. But, you could only prove SW wrong by using logic that follows SW's definitions and reasoning. So, what I see is someone trapped inside themselves. SW can never truly interface with the rest of us because he cannot accept that he could be incorrect and another could be correct. So, there is no possibility for understanding on his part. This is huge bait for us INFPs as we are helpers/healers and have been attempting a "recue" effort. But, there comes a time to realize when that rescue effort is not wanted nor warranted. Without change, there cannot be true understanding, and there is zero possibility for change in the world of SW as he is the sole arbiter of his world. In fact, I'm not even sure the rest of us exist unless SW has thought us up in his head... (And I thought us INFPs had a problem with living in our inner worlds! )

 

[Costrin]

Wild speculative theory of amusingness:

SW and Victor are the same, except opposite on the F/T axis.

 

[BlackCat]

Yep I pretty much agree with you speculative.

 

[speculative]

Wild speculative theory of amusingness:

SW and Victor are the same, except opposite on the F/T axis.

I think I don't know Victor yet well enough to extract 100% of the possible LOL from that statement, but I sense great possibility for LOL there. You've piqued my curiosity, so now I'll have to search out a few Victor posts.

 

[CrystalViolet]

You are onto something there
.

 

[PeaceBaby]

If you think that I did not support my claims, you simply misunderstood my posts.

I did get the meaning from your posts, loud and clear.

In principle, the study of Fi can be conducted without empirical investigation.

No scientist would accept this statement. Neither should you. The next step logically would be to prove your hypotheses.

There is no combative use of point. Just healthy criticism of ideas which is necessary for a thorough and incisive inquiry.

I agree that examination is key. But your conclusions from this inquiry can only be flawed, because you do not seem to place any credibility on first-hand accounts.

This ties back to your belief that a theoretical model is sufficient; the onus of proof is on you however to back up your claims. And you have no real-world evidence to reliably support these extrapolations, assumptions even. In fact, much of the real-world evidence here on the forum is to the contrary, yet you dismiss it. Why?

I seriously want to understand what is going on inside your head. Otherwise, this is a "going-nowhere" thread.

 

[King sns]

I don't really understand Fi too much.
I don't think that my values change too much, but I don't feel like a huge value-driven person either, and I don't think my values are well defined.

I guess you could say I value kindness, education, opportunity, freedom, hard work- (and not necissarily to "make it" in the world, but I value hardwork for the sake of hard work.) I think I could make a longer list. So you see my values are really vague and there has been nothing to prove that I should change them. I'm always open for the change though, since I think a value system is very individual based, and these have been working for me thus far. I also think I have a very American set of values, so they're mostly agreeable for everyone around me and I don't get much resistance or defiance towards them.