User Tag List

First 24323334353644 Last

Results 331 to 340 of 492

Thread: Pretentious Fi

  1. #331
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Honestly I've never really bought into or fully understood the whole shadow thing. Are you saying that our unconscious uses the other 4 shadow functions?
    The unconscious is not an entity that "uses" anything; but rather the area rejected by the conscious ego. Though you could perhaps look at it that way if you divide the unconscious into the four shadow complexes (opposing personality, witch/senex, trickster, demon), and these are really complexes within the ego, not the functions themselves. Hence yes, these complexes are what those functions are connected with, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Ok, so maybe when we are under high levels of stress we use the other 4 functions. That's not really pertinent though, as we aren't our usual "cognitive selves" under situations of high stress. You found a special example that's not really applicable to a very expansive whole, so you of all people must not find it particularly relevant. Why bother even sharing it?
    Yes, we aren't our cognitive selves under those situations, but the shadows can come up in better situations, and do have positive sides to them. You can see this in Berens' descriptions of them. Beebe described this as well, and he mentioned that for an ENFP married to an INTP(http://www.centerpointec.com/files/t...evelopment.pdf), Ti will be associated with an "introverted function that had a sense of humor about introverted people and understood how to get along with them."

    Most people's cognitive process test results will have the inferior as the actual weakest, and the other four functions will be inbetween somewhere, hence why some prefer Lenore Thomson's or Socionics' order.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #332
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Yeah me too, especially considering how scary I seem
    Well impolite ? scary.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I'm not trying to apply math here. Four isn't some appealing number to me. It just makes more sense to me that if one uses Ti to define their personal value system, they can't also use Fi.
    I agree with that; I just think that in chronic or acute situations, Ti is in you somewhere as an Fi user, and therefore could be utilized and expressed. That's my opinion; I make no claim it's provable.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I know this was directed at SW, but I'll respond anyway. I don't really see how our actions and cognitive processes in times of desperate situations where we are on the brink of death is particularly pertinent to evaluating our true personalities. We aren't our selves in times of serious stress.
    I don't think you had even heard of shadow functions before the post mentioning them though ...

  3. #333
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post


    I don't think you had even heard of shadow functions before the post mentioning them though ...
    Um, that's pretty presumptuous. I actually have heard of shadow functions, but I've never understood why it's logical to assume that we use them.

  4. #334
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    ^ I'm just teasing ya ... but suffice it to say you hadn't researched them fully then concluded they were irrelevant.

    It's interesting and I'll admit my understanding of shadow functions are limited too. Always more to learn

  5. #335
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    OK, so let's assume that shadow functions exist for a moment. Could it not be that, in a stress situation, that the individual simply cycles down through the functions, from dominant to weakest, in an effort to, in desparation almost, latch on to a function that allows them to ... survive?
    Sure, but that's not shadow function--just normal use of the tertiary and inferior. The "shadow functions", as I understand them, are supposed to be manifestations of the four non-preferred functions.

    I used to have a different opinion on this, so bear with me if the following explanation contradicts anything I've written on the topic before--

    I think what we perceive as "using shadow functions" is actually just normal use of the related natural function, and that our perception of "shadows" comes from a mistake in the way we conceptualize functions and failure to recognize how similar the two different Ji (or Je, or Pi, or Pe) functions can look.

    Note the structural similarities between, for instance, Ne and Se. Sometimes I indulge in sensory pleasures just because they feel good now, and some would describe this as "shadow Se" coming out, but I think it's really just another manifestation of Ne's desire to explore and take in a lot of different kinds of data. Ne is going to conceptualize the data received from these experiences in a more abstract way than Se would, but both Pe functions can easily lead a person toward such behavior. What Se and Ne share is an expansive view that takes in a lot of different external data all at once, and this leads people toward a "jump in and figure it out as you go" kind of attitude. It's often pointed out how Se likes to go with its gut feeling and do whatever makes an immediate impact, but Ne does the same thing--this is not an Se characteristic exclusively, but rather a Pe characteristic that applies equally to Se and Ne. No "shadow Se" explanation is necessary if we simply broaden the definition of Ne.

    In a sense, Se and Ne are almost the same thing--they perform the same type of task (extroverted perception), but according to slightly different criteria.

    The same relationship applies to each other pair (Te/Fe, Ni/Si and Ti/Fi.)

    Si and Ni both deal with personalized interpretation of symbolic significance. Si bases this interpretation on what's known through firsthand past experience, while Ni bases it on looking at as many different theoretical interpretations as possible, but what they share is that the user of Pi simply understands meaning and significance through a priori experience that cannot be adequately explained or communicated to others that do not share these direct, personal perceptions.

    And so I think the whole "shadow function" theory is just one big misinterpretation caused by assigning definitions to the natural functions that are too parochial in the first place.

    When a person cycles through the functions to find the one that allows the greatest "survival", s/he is just cycling through the four main functions--one form of Ji, one form of Je, one form of Pi and one form of Pe. I see no reason to believe that the other four functions ever come into play at all.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #336
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    So, as far as the shadow functions and whether you have any use of them and whether you use them daily or not... I made a post earlier about Thompson's view of their role in individuation vs their day to day functioning (as well as my attempt at an overview of Jungian individuation) here:

    Deveopment of Cognitive Functions Throughout One's Life

    So, I think opinions differ as to how much we use other functions on a day-to-day basis. I think it's true that we tend to use our less preferred functions contextually to support the goals selected by our more preferred functions, except when our unconscious takes the reins (as can happen during individuation).

    One could argue that using Ti (for example) in a particular domain (computer programming) to implement some goal set by Fi (improving the lives of others) isn't "really" using that function. But it seems clear that some Ti use is going on, although it isn't in the driver's seat the way it would be for an Ti-dom. As a programmer, I suck at the more Te-typical strengths (lining up resources, scheduling, imposing standards) and am much better at the more Ti-typical strengths (elegant code, finding the minimal change for the maximal effect, concisely expressing intent, optimizing and adjusting as I go). I suppose others can say that it's some mutant Fi combined with Te, but doesn't feel like it subjectively. I don't see how Fi is going to have a strong opinion on how I implement a sub-class or why Fi would object to using precise logical criteria to optimize a sub-routine.

    Maybe someday I'll be convinced that I'm a subtle Te-backing-Fi master, but doesn't look that way to me (and I bet if my co-workers were type aware, they wouldn't peg me as expressing Te, even in work mode). I realize some of my perspective is influenced by subjective introspection that isn't visible to others... but my Fi is fine with that.

    I realize that Ti users might not find their Ti makes room for Fi so easily, even in less logically oriented contexts. I also don't claim to use Ti as effortlessly, as cleanly, or precisely as a Ti-dom. I'm still an Fi-dom, so my Ti use is more limited and clumsy.

  7. #337
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    My shadow Fi comes out whenever I'm watching college football.

  8. #338
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    One could argue that using Ti (for example) in a particular domain (computer programming) to implement some goal set by Fi (improving the lives of others) isn't "really" using that function. But it seems clear that some Ti use is going on, although it isn't in the driver's seat the way it would be for an Ti-dom.As a programmer, I suck at the more Te-typical strengths (lining up resources, scheduling, imposing standards) and am much better at the more Ti-typical strengths (elegant code, finding the minimal change for the maximal effect, concisely expressing intent, optimizing and adjusting as I go). I suppose others can say that it's some mutant Fi combined with Te, but doesn't feel like it subjectively. I don't see how Fi is going to have a strong opinion on how I implement a sub-class or why Fi would object to using precise logical criteria to optimize a sub-routine.

    Maybe someday I'll be convinced that I'm a subtle Te-backing-Fi master, but doesn't look that way to me (and I bet if my co-workers were type aware, they wouldn't peg me as expressing Te, even in work mode). I realize some of my perspective is influenced by subjective introspection that isn't visible to others... but my Fi is fine with that.

    I realize that Ti users might not find their Ti makes room for Fi so easily, even in less logically oriented contexts. I also don't claim to use Ti as effortlessly, as cleanly, or precisely as a Ti-dom. I'm still an Fi-dom, so my Ti use is more limited and clumsy.
    You're still defining functions according to specific actions when they're really just motivational value systems. Writing elegant code isn't "using Ti"; functions don't equate to singular actions. The act of writing code isn't any particular function at all; it's why you wrote it that determines your functional makeup.

    Looking around and seeing something is not "using Se." Se is a value system that encourages us to trust our immediate sensory impressions, but the act of taking in sensory information is not in itself associated with any function.

    Organizing and categorizing information is not "using Ti". Ti is a value system that encourages us to organize and categorize information according to internal impersonal logical standards, but the act of organizing it is not in itself associated with any function. It's not the action; it's the reason for it.

    etc., etc...you may do things in your everyday life that Ti would likely encourage a person to do, but you're not going to get the basis of Jungian functions until you stop describing what and start asking why.


    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    My shadow Fi comes out whenever I'm watching college football.
    This is likely motivated by Fe. I assume you mean that you get upset and scream and make a scene when your team does badly. This arbitrary emotional response to a sports event that has no real effect on your life is part of blending into your social group's standards--our group supports this team because that's part of the tribal bond that ties us together. This is almost always motivated by Fe, not Fi.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #339
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It's still part of our psychological profiles. It's like having to write with your left hand when your right hand is cramped - sure, it doesn't work very well at first, but it's still there, and it's worth exercising so when you DO have to use it, you can use it more effectively.
    This is what I intended. More after I've had a chance to articulate thoughts on function mimicking.

  10. #340
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You're still defining functions according to specific actions when they're really just motivational value systems.
    But isn't that how they are defined by other (apparently credible) sources? (Must head to bed so won't cut & paste references ATM; but likely you know what I mean anyway sim.)

    Isn't this a cause of significant confusion?

    Why haven't you published your theories on functions too to present this viewpoint and your explanations?

Similar Threads

  1. [Fi] NTJs: how does Fi manifest in your type?
    By Venom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 05:08 PM
  2. [Fi] Fi building
    By BlueScreen in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 03:09 PM
  3. [Fi] What does "Fi" really look like?
    By INTPness in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 02:36 AM
  4. [Fi] Fi -- Why does it drive you nuts?
    By CzeCze in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 08:47 AM
  5. [Fi] Fi: You only get it if you got it
    By SillySapienne in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 649
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 11:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO