User Tag List

First 26343536373846 Last

Results 351 to 360 of 492

Thread: Pretentious Fi

  1. #351
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'd argue that Feeling is never experienced by Ti users in a totally internal fashion. Your assertion that it does seems to based entirely on vague descriptions of feeling sick and uncomfortable that you've heard from Ti users. Let's be careful of multiple meanings of the word "feeling" here--the sickness you're describing, let's call it a "sensation."

    So when Ti users start to feel Fe's influence (which says, "Hey, you should be responsive to the emotional states of others and seek to help out those in your group regardless of whether or not it seems logical), if they're not used to that kind of feeling, it's easy to be confused and have some sort of physical reaction. But this physical sickness sensation shouldn't be confused with Fi--Fi is a value system that encourages us to make internal value judgments according to personal feelings, which is something Ti is diametrically opposed to.

    Once the xxTP person grows up and learns to harness all four functions somewhat, Fe will fit naturally into his repertoire because it's used for extroverted judgments. I think you've confused this "wow I've never really thought about being emotionally supportive to others much before" reaction (which is clearly Fe-motivated) with Fi.

    A breakdown of the psyche would be necessary because Ti's entire worldview is predicated on the idea that logic is a subjective and internal process which is unaffected by external conditions. To Ti, the idea that we should make these kinds of internal value judgments according to personal feelings makes no sense whatsoever--Ti and Fi contradict each other because they perform the same cognitive function (introverted judgment) but do it in ways that cannot be reconciled with each other.


    Yes, it's a really uncomfortable shift into realizing that the tertiary and inferior functions are important too. This comes with age and maturity. But again, for NTPs those are Si and Fe--not Fi.
    Dude, being supportive towards others is clearly tied to Fe - back to external manifestation and particularly towards the other (friend/family/whoever). It could certainly be a result of Fe than Fi. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. The physical sensation of being sick was associated with an internal feeling (happy/sad/anxious) for oneself due to an individual emotional response to a personal circumstance - the loss of a friend/breakup/etc etc...not for someone else but for themselves. This is not remotely how I experience Fi so this is not my description of it. Read ENTP/INTP descriptions or even INFJ descriptions of this process..these are emotions related to an internal evaluation/judgment for the person experiencing this emotion+sensation. For the TPs, it was not a physical sensation alone - it's just interesting that it was accompanied by it and highlights what they described as difficult. It was concerned with the user him/herself not the group in any fashion -- how do I feel about what I'm experiencing (death/other loss). That's an internal process. Fe is not concerned with supporting oneself!?!

  2. #352
    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 ergophobe View Post
    Dude, being supportive towards others is clearly tied to Fe - back to external manifestation and particularly towards the other (friend/family/whoever). It could certainly be a result of Fe than Fi. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. The physical sensation of being sick was associated with an internal feeling (happy/sad/anxious) for oneself due to an individual emotional response to a personal circumstance - the loss of a friend/breakup/etc etc...not for someone else but for themselves. This is not remotely how I experience Fi so this is not my description of it. Read ENTP/INTP descriptions or even INFJ descriptions of this process..these are emotions related to an internal evaluation/judgment for the person experiencing this emotion+sensation. For the TPs, it was not a physical sensation alone - it's just interesting that it was accompanied by it and highlights what they described as difficult. It was concerned with the user him/herself not the group in any fashion -- how do I feel about what I'm experiencing (death/other loss). That's an internal process. Fe is not concerned with supporting oneself!?!
    I don't think this physical sickness sensation is necessarily indicative of Fi. It could be, or it could be Fe, depending on the person. Or it could be some other function--all depends on where it came from. I think that, for the xxTP person, it has to do with Fe kicking in and creating a sense of responsibility toward others. You seem to think that feeling happy/sad/anxious with oneself is uniquely Fi--but it's not. Fe can motivate precisely the same feelings, just for different reasons.

    "How do I feel about what I'm experiencing?" could easily be Fi or Fe. The determining factor is where the source of motivation for this feeling came from--internal or external standards.

    Fe is concerned with supporting oneself insofar as oneself is seen as part of a social or cultural fabric.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #353
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I don't think this physical sickness sensation is necessarily indicative of Fi. It could be, or it could be Fe, depending on the person. Or it could be some other function--all depends on where it came from. I think that, for the xxTP person, it has to do with Fe kicking in and creating a sense of responsibility toward others. You seem to think that feeling happy/sad/anxious with oneself is uniquely Fi--but it's not. Fe can motivate precisely the same feelings, just for different reasons.

    "How do I feel about what I'm experiencing?" could easily be Fi or Fe. The determining factor is where the source of motivation for this feeling came from--internal or external standards.

    Fe is concerned with supporting oneself insofar as oneself is seen as part of a social or cultural fabric.
    Very thin ice here - particularly the bolded part and stretching of the concepts of the functions themselves. The mimicking model is innovative and I think has real application to many circumstances but also has limitations. This is one of them, in my opinion.

    External standards cannot be used to determine how we feel internally. We could get cues from our environment on how to appropriately express how we're feeling or as you suggested respond to a group/external circumtance but not how we feel internally (this is entirely too ironic coming from an F to a T)

    Bottomline: If we continue to stretch functions like this, we can use any function to explain any internal or external response. At that point, not quite as useful any more. I'm off to bed - have to be up early tomorrow. Good night!
    Last edited by ergophobe; 01-08-2010 at 03:12 PM.

  4. #354
    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 ergophobe View Post
    Very thin ice here - particularly the bolded part and stretching of the concepts of the functions themselves. The mimicking model is innovative and I think has real application to many circumstances but also has limitations. This is one of them, in my opinion.
    I don't think it's mimicking; I think people just misunderstand the functions in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    External standards cannot be used to determine how we feel internally. We could get cues from our environment on how to appropriately express how we're feeling or as you suggested respond to a group/external circumtance but not how we feel internally (this is entirely too ironic coming from and F to a T)
    External standards absolutely can influence how we feel internally. That's how it works for Fe users.

    External standards can't tell Fi how it feels--that's what makes it Fi.

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Bottomline: If we continue to stretch functions like this, we can use any function to explain any internal or external response. At that point, not quite as useful any more. I'm off to bed - have to be up early tomorrow. Good night!
    I don't think I'm really stretching the functions--I just think most people's models are too narrow.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #355
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    If you took the time and effort to wipe away your clouded Fi lens, maybe you could find it within yourself to objectively and impartially read through the numerous posts on this thread. Many members have offered an array of posts that do a very good job of explaining Fi, why it doesn't mesh well with Ti users, and how both Ti and Fi can be used in a more Fe-friendly way to remedy the situation. Your incessant nonsense about how this thread sucks is just annoying and unwanted. Most of the members posting in the last half of this thread have done a really good job of alleviating any hostility, and a lot of good things have been said. If you don't like the thread, then just stay away. None of us like listening to your pointless gripes anyway.
    Cuz I'm the biased one :rolli:
    I can't even take you seriously....as if you are objective and impartial, of all people. I don't enjoy your pointless gripes or this thread, and I wanted to express that.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    However, OA never approached this thread reasonably and with an open mind, even after the hostility was alleviated. The fact that she's back griping about it is just kind of unnecessary and rude to the people that have spent a lot of energy trying to provide reasonable arguments and claims, imo.

    So yes, my tone was intended to be hostile because I'm just that annoyed with her. I turned off the Fe there because her closed-minded interpretation of this thread was irking me. People have spent pages of posts giving productive information and insights, but she just completely ignored them and thumbed down the whole thread, and that's just rude and uncalled for, so I see no reason to provide her with any Fe decency if she won't do the same for everybody else that has been helpful in this thread. I'd prefer she just stay away if she has nothing but insult to contribute.

    Sure, we all are entitled to our opinions about which threads we enjoy, but her opinion was reasonably interpreted as hostile towards this thread. If she preferred the other thread, she could have ended her post before adding in the thumbs-down part. It was just rude and unnecessary, and I'm not one to treat rude and unnecessary with courtesy.
    How do you know how I approached this thread? I don't think the thread was started reasonably and with an open mind, but my mindset was not one of hostility with my first post. I've read through much of it and my overall impression is not a positive one. I don't find it very insightful on Fi or any function. I cannot take it seriously.

    Rude and unnecessary? Look in a mirror, honey.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I feel like she has behaved uncivilly, so I was treating her in the same uncivil manner. That's all. I don't like being uncivil to people who are actually trying to discern something useful from these threads, but it seems like all she wants to do is adamantly defend Fi and talk about its good things, so as soon as anyone says anything bad about it, she goes off on her personal soap box in a bit of a hostile way.
    I've consistently discussed the positive and negative aspects of Fi in many, many threads. You seem to only want to discuss the negatives and adamantly insist on them. You come across as the one with major bias.

    I typically try to respect people who actually seem interested in a reasonable discussion, but she has not given any evidence that she's here for that.
    The hypocrisy kills me.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  6. #356
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    "omg I'm being logical and you're not"

    "no, I'M being logical and YOU'RE not"

    Fi/Te and Ti/Fe talking past each other. They don't even conceptualize logic the same way; how can the same person be using all four of them?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #357
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    in the time-tested academic style, i disagree with all of you.

    i don't like identifying the functions directly with ego. there's a strong correlation, but enneagram shows us that there are multiple possible ego-complexes for an mb-jungian type/pattern. i don't think attributing a different balance of shadow archetypes clarifies this in any way, i think it obscures when viewed as structures of consciousness. if anything, they are like a form of socionics prescribed relations to other conscious functions. if there is a good way to say it, i would say the archetypes are like IDEAS in the ego. how we deal with them, strategize, and develop a way of coping/integrating is still a somewhat flexible, life hands you lemons, roll with the punches reality. plus parental relationships. and instinctual energies.

    i think part of what is at stake is in understanding whether the functions are a) biological processes b) components of ego (very psychoanalysis) or c) the components that create experience (however the mechanism that makes them biological works).

    i think of them as centers of intelligence, or centers of awareness. they fit together in specific ways, they work in tandem with each other. i think the quadras are not so much a group of ego-relationships, but more of like a cognitive dna. the ego types that emerge out of these are varied. i won't try to decide whether they are inborn/innate, or if they are a developmental/activation process bc i don't see the need. i don't believe you can change type. i don't believe you can use two introverted judging processes. i can imagine it, in a way, creating both Ti AND Fi judgments internally, but it doesn't fit with anything i've experienced so far. lenore kind of does this with the left- and right-brain alternatives, but i just don't see it. in a writing course, i was learning from an intj. all along i think i'm using Te, and then i realize it's Ti. it's not a natural ability to automatically organize, it's a critical ability to understand the variables, critique different methods, and then just Ni the rest hoping that a bit of direction/scaffolding will guide your mind's eye in a semi-coherent way.

    the general Ti rejection of this approach is on many levels. it throws the clarity and definition of the fundamental element of the system into question. and, it seems, it does it in a way that is seen as less of a systemic problem/error and more of a personal motivation or a subjective truth. these contribute to knowledge as well, but in a more human-centric is it good for us or bad for us kind of way. Fi interprets our emotional motives. do we like ourselves this way or don't we. vs Ti's system-building approach. it seems like it is another case of Ti "correct" vs "incorrect" or Fi "good" or "bad." Ti is waiting for an objection to be raised about the validity of Ti only or Fi only, but it seems more of an objection that that restraint is "bad." Ti vs Fi has much at stake, they are both trying to develop and create their own form of truth, Ti presupposes objectivity and Fi subjectivity. it is specific, direct claims, vs holistic, vague/indirect values.

    the introverted functions are the long-term learning functions. they form much of the predictive, comprehending capability of the mind. the extroverted functions are the responsive behavioral instincts.

  8. #358
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Im going to help you guys get along, by providing new information:

    Cognitive processes, or gear-shifting
    In "cognitive processes" theories, Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi are categories of conscious mental activity, so that nearly everything we do mentally can be fit into one category. Different versions of "cognitive processes" assign pretty different meanings to the same two-letter codes, but here is a sample of how the approach works: memory, or recalling the past, is Si; envisioning future scenarios is Ni; playing sports is Se; having sex is Se; saying something to put people at ease is Fe; expressing your emotions is Fe; keeping your emotions to yourself is Fi; brainstorming is Ne; finding the leverage points that will repair a system is Ti; making and following a schedule is Te; etc.

    This leads to questions like:
    "Which cognitive process do I use when stroking my cat? Fi because it's empathic? Fe because it's expressive? Se because it's physical? A combination of those three?"
    "Which cognitive process is recognizing a face? Se because it's visual? Ne because it involves a pattern? Te because it involves putting something into a category? Si because it's recognizing something known from the past?"

    Another way to put it is that these theories make Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi into something like gears in a car, and you shift between them just like when driving. For example, "It's time to plan next year's budget. Since that's in the future, I'd better use my Ni."
    A type, in terms of these theories, is usually a hierarchy of "preferences": everyone has a favorite cognitive process, a 2nd-favorite cognitive process, and so on, down to a most-disliked, or 8th, cognitive process. In other theories of this kind, a person's type is a hierarchy of how much skill or strength they have with each cognitive process, suggested by Steve Myers' "mental-muscle diagrams" (though he defines type in terms of a favorite mental muscle).

    Hypothesis: Lenore's function attitudes are conflicting forms of mental representation

    Lenore Thomson, by contrast, is describing conflicting ways that the brain structures or represents the self and the environment. Each attitude gives you a different view of the same situation, and it's hard to see in terms of more than one of them at the same time, something like a Necker cube. Having many conflicting ways of looking at the same things was Nature's way of giving you extraordinary adaptiveness, many opposite ways of structuring information creating greater stability than committing stiffly to any one form of coherence. Each attitude gives you a different mechanism for orienting yourself in a situation and navigating through life.

    It's not so easy to switch between attitudes, especially J and P attitudes. J attitudes are "left-brain": addressing small amounts of information at once, interpreting them as signs and symbols, making a decision, and moving forward to the next sign or symbol, orienting especially by words and numbers--that is, linguistically. P attitudes are "right-brain": addressing large amounts of information perceived simultaneously, and making sense of it "all at once" by grasping it as a gestalt, orienting to the overall pattern, and responding "in flow" with spontaneous and fluid muscle movements, varied and expressive vocal intonation, etc., rather than words and numbers.

    Lenore's type concepts have less to do with preference than with what what you consider honorable or true to yourself. Everyone seems to find P attitudes more enjoyable. From a J perspective, though, it's irresponsible to have playtime all the time.

    On top of all this, more than one attitude simultaneously affects your actions. In particular, the inferior function is often at work in a way that's hidden to the person's conscious self-understanding but (often) obvious to others. For example, an ISFP might simultaneously try to stay in the right-brain mode of achieving whatever instinctively seems good, without following procedures or predetermining results, and at the same time seek social validation as someone with credentials, who's been proven to know what they're doing, isn't just making this up as he goes along, deserves to carry a lot of responsibility, deserves to have other people defer to his decisions because of his greater authority, etc.--simultaneous and conflicting introverted feeling and extraverted thinking. The one hand is all love and delight; the "alien hand" is all authority and obedience. (See Parliament of Attitudes.)

    Conflicting priorities
    Lenore's attitude concepts have to do with situations where there is potential for conflicting priorities: conflict between self and community, conflict between the need for free-form response and the need to maintain order and boundaries, conflict between high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth forms of communication, conflict between the need for action and the need for reflection.

    Consequently it's a mistake to attempt to categorize human activities, or even all forms of cognition, as one function attitude or another. By itself, stroking your cat is not the sort of thing where those kinds conflicts arise. On the one hand, it calls upon a right-brain state of mind, because you have to bring your muscle movements into harmony with the cat in a smooth, continuously adapting way rather than in a linguistic way. So in that sense you could say it calls forth a P attitude. But stroking a cat calls for no special development of talents beyond the musculo-neural development of a small child. It certainly calls for no political choice between upholding the social contract, extending the social contract, or doing what you believe is right even when it opposes recognized social authority. What really takes a P attitude is trusting your ability to respond "in flow" when something is truly at stake for you, vs. trying to manage it by bounding it within known, stable, verbalized categories. (See Place-Your-Stakes Exegesis.)

    Eight questions
    Instead of categorizing human activities or cognitive processes with two-letter codes, we might understand Lenore's theory by asking which aspects of a single activity or part of life provide the cues that each function attitude tracks. We could describe what each attitude brings into focus with a question:

    • Se: What is happening now? What stands out and gets attention here? What is my gut reaction to it? What do I feel like doing right now? What needs no explanation?
    • Si: What are the facts? What label can I put on this situation so I know what it is and how to deal with it? What is my personal stake here, that I need to keep my eye on? What is the known region that is my business to protect against the unknown?
    • Ne: What is the big picture that this is a part of? How could we incorporate some of the broader context, so we get new information that will change our present understanding of the situation? What will change this situation into something else? What's next?
    • Ni: How is our way of interpreting this situation actually shaping the situation? What would we see if we looked at this situation not in terms of any interpretation at all, but just as it is, agnostic with regard to interpretations or context? Where are my blind spots? What unintended consequences could arise from a given action?
    • Te: How does this meet or fail to meet the appropriate criteria? What are those criteria? What goal are we trying to achieve, and what action in the present situation will move us in that direction the fastest? Who knows the most about this, and should therefore be deferred to?
    • Ti: What is the truth, regardless of what anyone thinks and regardless of any predefined categories or criteria? What causal factors are in play, what potential do they have, and what whole do they form? What is my part in the overall system? What does the whole need me to do, to create/restore/continue the harmony or principle that keeps it alive?
    • Fe: What are my obligations in this situation? Who else has a stake in this and what are their concerns? What action will people recognize as placing me for them or against them, and where do I want to stand?
    • Fi: What is truly good? What living need calls out to be fulfilled, simply because of who and what we are--as opposed to our social status, achievements, track record, past agreements, past good or bad deeds, or anything else that would justify saying that one "deserves" or "has earned" something? What is the truly beneficial thing to do, regardless of obligation or social recognition? What is the moral "true north" that I should follow in this or any other situation, and what does it demand of me here and now, regardless of consequences?


    These questions don't define the function attitudes (e.g. one could ask "What's the truth?" from a left-brain state of mind, but then it wouldn't be Ti), but they hint at them indirectly, by indicating what seems most relevant to each way that the brain represents matters of ego orientation.

    Notice that these questions aren't each limited to any activity or particular sphere of life. Each applies to everything, and the answers you get can pull you in different directions. Thus you must choose. The need to choose is the basis for distinct types and even distinguishing between function attitudes in Lenore's system.
    The value of learning about the function attitudes is that it gives you greater awareness of the choices that you're actually making. The ISFP mentioned earlier may still choose to assert authority and demand deference, but now he will do so knowingly. And that makes all the difference. Now he will assert authority with some understanding of what it takes for people to recognize you as an authority, and some understanding of the costs of succeeding in that pursuit.

    See Type and Sexuality for a concrete illustration of the "eight questions" approach and how it contrasts with the approach of categorizing activities or spheres of life under two-letter codes: "Which function attitude is sex?" vs. "What aspects of sex seem most important when you look at sex through each function attitude?
    Word choice

    "Attitude" is a more appropriate word than "cognitive process" for these concepts, because the difference between attitudes is what they emphasize or prioritize. "Cognitive process" doesn't suggest that processes nullify, oppose, and broaden each other, the way conflicting attitudes do. "Cognitive process" suggests something that you can turn on or off at will, whereas an attitude is something that takes a long time to develop, refine, and change. Most importantly of all, "attitude" suggests the Necker cube phenomenon: multiple, conflicting ways of seeing the same thing, which are hard to bring into focus simultaneously (though it would be nice to have a word that suggests this even more strongly).
    Not Cognitive Processes

    ^ this should put the "attitudes not actions" debate to rest FOREVER.

    Conflicting ways of assigning meaning
    Humans have four fundamental ways of giving consciously understood meaning to what they experience--which we will call "functions". Each of them can be used in a way that is independent of or grows out of socially accepted beliefs and morals--that is, in an Introverted or an Extraverted attitude. Each combination of function + attitude provides the vocabulary and ground rules for developing an epistemological and ethical perspective on life. No one of them, however, provides enough for a full life that incorporates all your potential, talents, and callings.

    Each way of assigning meaning leads to very different conclusions in everyday life about what is trustworthy and what is important. It is not possible to develop a coherent, functioning self by holding all of the perspectives in a balanced manner. As people become adults, they usually develop their epistemological and ethical perspectives along one pattern of assigning meaning. This is a person's Dominant Function.

    Eventually, they reach difficulties in their lives that cannot be resolved within the rules of the Dominant Function. At this time, they need to turn to an alternative way of making sense of things that modifies their dominant attitude without nullifying it. This natural alternative attitude is the person's Secondary Function. It's natural partly because we've been developing it all along. Extraverts have been using their secondary attitude to hold a piece of themselves in reserve--to cultivate a perspective that enables them to respond in ways not obviously dictated by their situation. Introverts have been using their secondary attitude to cultivate a definite place for themselves in the world.

    Introverted Function Attitudes

    The Introverted perspectives draw upon our innate, inherited potential to think and understand, without regard to present-day opportunities or social conventions.

    • Introverted Sensation (Si) tunes you in to the chaos, unpredictability, and unknowability of the concrete world, leading you to value whatever few signs you can find that have stable meaning. For example, the stripes of tabby cats might hold a particular meaning for you, and you might come to treasure that. As an epistemological perspective, Si leads you to view anything from outside a familiar context as dangerous and untrustworthy. You are in tune with the fact that nearly all possibilities lead to destruction. For example, if you're designing an airplane, nearly all combinations of the variables fail. Of the possible combinations of wingspan, wing placement, wing shape, fuselage shape, and so on, there is only a tiny subset that make an aerodynamically workable plane--and then only if you get a whole lot of other things just right, too. All of life is like that, only much more complicated. We live only in the small islands of the world that we've grown up with and are suited to us. And we can't possibly know why these small islands are relatively safe. As an ethical perspective, Si leads you to protect the integrity of the things and signs that we depend on. This usually takes the form of setting up barriers against the unpredictable. For example, saving for a rainy day (hardships come at unpredictable times) or inspecting buildings for fire safety (so people can trust that "being inside a building" is a sign of safety against the elements). Within these barriers, where all is trustworthy and familiar, we can survive and enjoy what is precious to us--for a while.
    • Introverted Intuition (Ni) focuses on what is inexpressible--the incommensurable and chaotic things that exist outside of any conceptual framework. For example, what do you hear in the theme-and-variations movement of Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131? There is a meaning there, but you can't put it into words. Any attempt to put it into words will result in only a tawdry parody of the reality. Better to remain silent. As an epistemological perspective, Ni leads you to view all signs as meaningless or even deceptive, not necessarily connected to what they're supposed to represent. The true reality is something that exists beyond all signs and appearances, and can only be apprehended by a kind of direct intuition. To learn truth, one must learn to see through appearances--to make contact with a reality that cannot be seen or said. As an ethical perspective, Ni leads you to hold yourself apart from and unaffected by the meanings that others attach to words and events--to keep your own vision pure and pursue your own path regardless of evidence, reasons, or the opinions of others.
    • Introverted Thinking (Ti) makes sense of the world by apprehending it in terms of effects emerging from a cause, or a harmony of elements. For example, the way a beautifully made desk appears to emerge from a single idea. As an epistemological perspective, Ti leads one to trust only things that you understand first-hand for yourself, preferably through direct, hands-on interaction. You must see for yourself how a given thing or subject makes sense. Knowledge must emerge from the concrete reality itself, not from preconceived categories or criteria, and the search for knowledge must follow wherever logic and the subject matter lead, regardless of how people feel about it. As an ethical perspective, Ti leads you to do what is best for the system regardless of reward or gain or social conventions that define right and wrong behavior. For example, the sense of "natural law" that guides Clint Eastwood to do what needs doing in Old West towns regardless of the law.
    • Introverted Feeling (Fi) makes sense of the world by relating everything to universal human needs and callings. For example, understanding the actions of a bully as the expression of an unmet need to be connected and feel important. Understanding that, we can see the bully without judgement: we can see him as a living being not so different from ourselves, seeking to fulfill his needs just as we do, but in a way that creates unnecessary conflict. As an epistemological perspective, Fi leads you to take whatever a person thinks or believes as an expression of that person's unique nature--not to criticize it because it fails to live up to some externally imposed criteria like whether or not it's "logical" or "appropriate". As an ethical perspective, Fi leads you to act out of empathy regardless of the social status or "deservingness" of the beneficiary. Fi leads you to view all living things as equal in value, all needing to thrive in interpersonal harmony without giving up any of their uniqueness.


    Extraverted Function Attitudes

    The Extraverted perspectives lead you to use present-day opportunities and circumstances as the ultimate building blocks of your beliefs. Extraverted perspectives provide ways to negotiate through the present-day world, making sense of situations quickly and knowing where you stand in relation to them and what you want to do.

    • Extraverted Sensation (Se) makes sense of the world by attending to what exists concretely here and now, and trusting your instincts. As an epistemological perspective, Se leads you to believe only in what you can see and experience concretely, and to trust your immediate, gut-level responses to it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then it's a duck. Whatever a sign means is obvious and inescapable; if a sign's meaning is not obvious, then it's meaningless. Whatever is physical, immediate, gut-level cannot be faked and must be right. For example, if you sense that someone is up to no good, then you trust that sense. If you have an impulse to paint the town red, then you go out and do so. As an ethical perspective, Se leads you to believe that life is to be lived right now, "in the moment", responding to things immediately and without thought. What matters most in life is what makes the biggest perceivable impact, whatever stands out in a way that can't be ignored. Se leads you to develop a persona that is attractive and "hip" according to the conventions of your society and your time--to go with the flow without stopping to question the direction. If something isn't fun, then don't do it.
    • Extraverted Intuition makes sense of the world by seeing ways to incorporate what is known into a broader context--breaking through the limits of current concepts. For example, sensing, before nearly anyone else, that high-bandwidth communication networks would "change the rules" of commerce. As an epistemological perspective, Ne leads you to practice "out of the box" thinking. There are never any final answers, just more and more opportunities to shift concepts and make sense of things in new ways. Whatever we think things mean today, we'll probably find out tomorrow they mean something different. As an ethical perspective, Ne leads you to take risks and dive into the unknown--stacking the deck to some extent by diving into areas that look especially fertile, but genuinely entering the unknown and allowing it to send your mind in new directions. If you don't know, just guess! Try something, and information will come to you--but only if you stir up the pot. From an Ne perspective, life is a succession of opportunities to pounce on, each opportunity opening up more that you can't yet see.
    • Extraverted Thinking makes sense of the world by viewing things "objectively": in terms of categories and measurements that can be defined in advance of observation. For example, defining the specifications of a wheel that make it acceptable for use on the road. Stable categories and measurements enable people to define shared goals and enforce agreements fairly. You can tell whether the wheel met the specifications or not; anyone can tell, because the specifications are defined independently of both the wheel and the person doing the measuring. As an epistemological perspective, Te leads you to be concerned with logical and empirical justification. No conclusion may be accepted until it has been grounded on a firm foundation of other facts that have themselves been firmly established. What has not been tested is unknown; what cannot be tested is meaningless. As an ethical perspective, Te leads to a life of "rational hill-climbing": making every decision according to well-defined criteria for what counts as better and worse. You might not know how to get to your goal, but at each decision, you take the choice that leads closer to it: you improve your position at every opportunity. Moral codes in a Te worldview emphasize keeping one's promises. Justice is understood as a social agreement negotiated by all parties, which specifies rewards and punishments that must be enforced fairly according to objective rules.
    • Extraverted Feeling (Fe) makes sense of the world by viewing it in terms of where you stand with other people: interpreting signs that indicate the category of your relationship. As an epistemological perspective, Fe leads you to view every sign as an expression of people's loyalties. A simple example is that displaying a flag demonstrates your loyalty to country. What matters is how you go above and beyond efficient means to an end. For example, throwing a party in someone's honor is not "necessary" for survival: it's a gesture that goes above and beyond survival, expressing your feelings for the guest of honor in a way that all can understand. From an Fe perspective, words are never neutral descriptions of fact: your choice of words, your choice of topic, is a declaration of your feelings and loyalties. As an ethical perspective, Fe leads you to believe that "life is with people": to understand one's value and meaning in terms of your standing in the community--in terms of the people whom you influence and their feelings about you.
    Philosophical Exegesis

    ^^^ This should hopefully identify that it isn't THAT crazy to imagine an INTP temporarily seeing the world through the Fi mindset. Seriously, just read the Fi paragraph and tell me why they couldnt experience that JUST ONCE . I tend to agree that 2 or 3 is the most orientations we can maintain positively at once. I do not think there is an a priori reason for why someone can NEVER experience any of these attitudes. I also tend to see how some of these attitudes are oppose in such ways (Ni Se) that the traditional functional orders make more sense than people's wanna be orders.


    okay...now play nice

  9. #359
    Senior Member Gen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    319

    Default

    I got bored at some point reading this argument but I have to say, why do you think someone with one preference can't also use another almost as readily. I have a preference for forks, that doesn't mean that sometimes forks are just not the right choice. If I choose forks 51% of the time, it's a preference, but that certainly doesn't mean I don't know very well how to use spoons as well.

    And that's not all just theory either. My husband is an ENFP who sometimes uses Ti better than I do.

  10. #360
    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 Babylon Candle View Post
    ^^^ This should hopefully identify that it isn't THAT crazy to imagine an INTP temporarily seeing the world through the Fi mindset. Seriously, just read the Fi paragraph and tell me why they couldnt experience that JUST ONCE . I tend to agree that 2 or 3 is the most orientations we can maintain positively at once. I do not think there is an a priori reason for why someone can NEVER experience any of these attitudes. I also tend to see how some of these attitudes are oppose in such ways (Ni Se) that the traditional functional orders make more sense than people's wanna be orders.

    okay...now play nice
    There's a difference between doing the things listed as examples of manifestations of each function, and actually directly experiencing that function.

    An INTP could think, "Hmm, okay, I see that the bully is behaving this way because he needs human connection and wants to feel important", but for me as a Ti user, as soon as I read that Ti understands it more in a clinical, structural "oh this is what logically explains his behavior" kind of way than in a directly empathetic one. I can't "turn off" Ti enough to experience this understanding from a purely Fi perspective.

    So Ti can understand in theory how Fi works, but it still only does that in Ti terms. You can look through the Fi lens if you try hard to see what it's all about, but you can't remove the Ti coloration from your own perspective.

    Even if the Ti-er understands in theory what Fi does and engages in activities representative of its attitude, Ti's influence never really goes away completely, but it would have to in order for someone to experience and appreciate Fi for Fi's sake alone.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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