User Tag List

First 27353637383947 Last

Results 361 to 370 of 492

Thread: Pretentious Fi

  1. #361
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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.
    I don't think anyone is arguing that people suddenly throw their priorities and values overboard and have the full subjective experience of being someone who is dominant in that function. But, as in Babylon Candle quotation above, we do have access to all eight functions. We don't use them all consistently and in a high-quality kind of way, of course. Our preferences tend to be habitual and long-lasting... otherwise there would be no such thing as "type." Conversely, as Gen said, they are called "preferences" for a reason.

    There are also books like this one:

    Skill Development

    whose goal is to help one better develop and experience one's less preferred functions (all 8 in fact, if you read through the page). I think it's true that some functions don't get along well with certain other functions, so it's not like we can use all 8 functions all at once out loud. Trying to be XXXX really isn't a healthy or achievable goal, but being able to use Fe, for example, when it's the best tool for the job is helpful.

    I also acknowledge that different cognitive processes can lead to the same external behavior. The judge can arrive at the same verdict in different ways.

    Anyway, I think the main problem here is one of term definition. It seems to me like the ones you use are narrower and more stringent than the generally used ones, and that leads to your disagreeing with that people have said in some specific cases. I'm not saying you have to change your definitions, but it does seem like not everyone is using terms in the same way, so acknowledging that may aid us when we try to understand each other.

    Anyway, I feel like I've beat this topic into the ground. Just understand when I say I say "use Ti," I'm making a more limited claim than you would using the same phrase. I'll try to keep in mind when you say "use Ti," you mean it in more of a fundamental "Ti in charge of our days and our nights" kind of way.

    (BTW, I do like the term "function attitude" from that Exegesis link. The functions do have conflicting priorities and approaches to answering "what's important?")

  2. #362
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    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.
    I'm not sure what you're actually criticizing in the beginning. Most people seem to describe the archetype as functions, and I have learned that this is not the best way to understand it, but rather, as multiple (eight) complexes within the ego, which are as you put it, "centers of awareness". Each complex is associated with a function. And the functions are really different sides of the same coin. Decision making or perception processes that divide into four functions, which can then be used in either an internal or external orientation.

    So it's not hard to see how one can morph into another, at all. These aren't totally different "animals", so to speak

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Im going to help you guys get along, by providing new information:

    Not Cognitive Processes

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

    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.
    I don't know if Lenore goes into it in that book, or if it's covered on the wiki, but in my discussion with her (Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz), she had mentioned the concept of "unfifferentiated" functions, which she compared to undeveloped embryonic cells which are the same, and have not become different body parts yet. So that's something to remember as well. I had thought of the problem of

    •"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?"

    •Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi [as] 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."


    That sort of thing really makes it hard to figure type, and leads to the Forer effect.
    Then, when you add in the archetypes, it then becomes "am I in trickster mode when I recognize a face? Demon mode when I stroke my cat, or since that is physical, could that be trickster mode...etc".

    I would say those descriptions likely fall in this "undifferentiated" category. anyone can do them. What I've been trying to discern is how to tell when an action is undifferentiated, or connected with a particular function and archetype. The key to that might be what she also pointed out, that the archetypes are not the functions but rather complexes.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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.
    I would think the manifestation of Fi, in this case, if the INTP is the one being bullied, would be the sense of importance of defending values or maintaining integrity in the situation (either by getting out of it, or possibly reacting). this would generally come out in a very negative way. Hence, the rash emotional reactions they have, and usually attribute to "inferior Fe", but also would have "demonic Fi" involved as Beebe points out. The good side of Fi would be giving him a sense of true importance/value (don't take it to heart, etc). Elfinchilde over on Spam Pudding explained this stuff well in the cognitive process test dissections.
    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

  3. #363
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I also acknowledge that different cognitive processes can lead to the same external behavior. The judge can arrive at the same verdict in different ways.
    This is the flaw I see in MBTI. It is based on external actions and behaviors. Why I was trying to use an internal experience to explain using both Ti and Fi within a person.
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #364
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Thanks everybody for the discussion on cognitive functions. I wish it had taken place in a more appropriate thread, but I suppose I can't expect a bunch of NPs, myself included, to stay on topic

    I haven't read every detail of each post, but I believe that I agree more with the position that our cognition is guided by 4 of the 8 functions. It still seems contradictory to me to have introverted judging that's guided both by thinking and feeling, and it also seems contradictory to have two forms of extoverted/introverted perception and extroverted judging. I simply cannot see how there's room for all 8 functions.

    I believe that when we see behaviors that are typical manifestations of a certain function, we attribute such behaviors to said function, but in actuality, there can be more than one motivation for a particular action/belief. I actually think the argument that says we use all 8 functions is more limiting than the one that says we use only 4. The only viable argument behind the idea that we use all 8 functions is the one that says "I see behaviors from one person that correlate to each of the 8 functions, thus said person must be 'using' all 8 functions." This is a rather narrow interpretation of functions, and it's more limiting than the one that says "We use only 4 of the functions, and each of the functions we use can result in different behaviors/cognitive processes based on different contexts and their differing combinations with other functions." Attributing one behavior to one function regardless of context is a lot more robotic than having a more broad intepretation for a given function set.

  5. #365
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    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.



    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.



    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.



    The hypocrisy kills me.
    You're right. I am a dense, hypocritical bitch who only wants to bash Fi. That's all I'm here for; you got me. How perceptive of you.

  6. #366
    THREADKILLER Prototype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    Why?
    Socionics
    SEX
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Does anybody feel like strong Fi users are really pretentious when it comes to understanding emotions? It seems like Fi people constantly think they know how other people are feeling but are wrong many times. In my experience, Fi users seem to feel the overwhelming urge to convince me that I'm feeling a certain way. It can be kind of annoying at times, but maybe it's some times helpful?

    Why do you Fi users do this? Or is this not an Fi thing and just something I made up in my head?

    Perhaps Fi users hear another person's perspective and think in terms of how their own mind would manifest that perspective and automatically assume that the rest of the world would express it the same way, leading to flaws in their emotional analyses.

    I feel like NFJs are so much better than NFPs at interpreting feelings and thinking about human behavior in terms of the feelings that guide such behaviors, but NFPs simply think they absolutely rock the world of emotional analysis. It's obnoxiously arrogant. SFPs are also more accurate than NFPs (maybe it's the Ni?). I don't know about SFJs. I think they just don't really try to overanalyze other people's heartfelt issues as much as other F types.

    Is this an Fi thing, or am I giving Fi a bad rap? Thoughts?

    I see the value in Fi when it's used more realistically, but it seems to me like oftentimes it's just completely out of control.

    Now before you Fi types start declaring how arrogant Ti is, I'm alread acknowledging this. I pretend/think that I know/understand a lot more about logical systems than the average Joe, so if you bring up arrogant Ti, please make it relevant to the issue at hand rather than a tool for bashing the NTP who started this thread, k?

    I wouldn't say it's an assumption, but more of a generalized observation!

    Maybe it's more of a "I told you so" type of conclusion.
    ... They say that knowledge is free, and to truly acquire wisdom always comes with a price... Well then,... That will be $10, please!

  7. #367
    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 Gen View Post
    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.
    You must have gotten bored before you bothered to read the 5-6 places in this thread where this was explained.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I don't think anyone is arguing that people suddenly throw their priorities and values overboard and have the full subjective experience of being someone who is dominant in that function. But, as in Babylon Candle quotation above, we do have access to all eight functions. We don't use them all consistently and in a high-quality kind of way, of course. Our preferences tend to be habitual and long-lasting... otherwise there would be no such thing as "type." Conversely, as Gen said, they are called "preferences" for a reason.
    The "preferences" thing came from MBTI, where Te/Ti and Fe/Fi have been oversimplified and reduced to just "T" and "F". If you're looking at it in these terms, you have to call them preferences because obviously everyone uses some T and F--but I still don't think everyone uses all four T and F functions, and I've explained why about 5 times now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Anyway, I think the main problem here is one of term definition. It seems to me like the ones you use are narrower and more stringent than the generally used ones, and that leads to your disagreeing with that people have said in some specific cases. I'm not saying you have to change your definitions, but it does seem like not everyone is using terms in the same way, so acknowledging that may aid us when we try to understand each other.
    On the contrary; my definitions are broader because I argue that each function is capable of more than most people acknowledge. Most people seem to think "every time I feel anything inside I must be using Fi", which is a narrow and limited definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Anyway, I feel like I've beat this topic into the ground. Just understand when I say I say "use Ti," I'm making a more limited claim than you would using the same phrase. I'll try to keep in mind when you say "use Ti," you mean it in more of a fundamental "Ti in charge of our days and our nights" kind of way.
    Wait, so now your definition is more limited? Didn't you just describe mine as "narrower and more stringent"? Which is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    (BTW, I do like the term "function attitude" from that Exegesis link. The functions do have conflicting priorities and approaches to answering "what's important?")
    I'm getting a little annoyed because I've deconstructed the "they're just PREFERENCES, of course we use all of them!!!" argument about 5 times in this thread alone and people keep throwing it at me without bothering to read what's already been said.

    Yes, we do all have preferences for which of our four functions are used more often than the others, but we don't all use all eight functions because they represent fundamentally contradictory attitudes regarding how to build our worldviews. Once more with feeling, for those who haven't bothered to read it yet:

    Ti represents a fundamental worldview that logic is an internal, subjective process that is unaffected by external conditions.

    If you subscribe to this belief system, you cannot simultaneously believe Te, which is a worldview that logic is an external, objective process that depends entirely on external conditions.

    Fi represents a fundamental worldview that ethics are an internal, subjective process that is unaffected by external conditions.

    If you subscribe to this belief system, you cannot simultaneously believe Fe, which is a worldview that ethics are an external, objective process that depends entirely on external conditions.

    These are the most basic cores of people's value systems. As far as preferences go, you either prefer Ti sometimes and Fe other times, or Fi sometimes and Te other times. You don't mix both because then you wouldn't have any way of really making decisions. Every time a need for judgment comes up, you wouldn't have any criteria on which to choose an internal/external basis for it. And yet the decision gets made somehow! How could this be if we routinely switch between Fi and Ti?

    When you look at the most basic components of people's value systems, they're very consistent. There's no random waffling between contradictory internal judgment processes (and no, Ti/Fe do not contradict each other), or there would be no ultimate criteria on which that person could make moral and logical decisions. The competing voices of Fi vs. Ti and Fe vs. Te would preclude any decisions from ever being made!

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    I can provide an example of this but I need a volunteer who knows his MBTI type to answer a few questions for me.

    Basically it would go like this: I pick a moral issue and ask you where you stand on it. When you answer, I ask "Why?" over and over and over until we find the basic internal voice that this belief is based on--and once we do that, we're going to find either Fi or Fe--not both. If you think you can explain different beliefs on your own part that are motivated by Fe and Fi, you haven't figured out the real reason for them yet.


    P.S.,

    In response to Tesla's stuff about NFP vs. NFJ--

    NFJs are Fe/Ti users, so they're better at interpreting and understanding the feelings and reasoning of other Fe/Ti types (like us, the ENTPs.)

    NFPs are Fi/Te users, so they're better at doing this with other Fi/Te types.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #368
    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 it's mimicking; I think people just misunderstand the functions in the first place.
    Call it whatever - the idea is the same - different internal processes lead to the same external manifestation.

    External standards absolutely can influence how we feel internally. That's how it works for Fe users.
    This is not evidence - it is Ti saying "I just know this is how it works". Also a gross generalization for your whole type. Don't buy.

    External standards can't tell Fi how it feels--that's what makes it Fi.
    Yes - we're not actually differing on this at all. We differ on the contention that as a given we don't utilize our weaker 4 functions at all i.e. People who have Fe in their top 4 won't utilize Fi at all. It would be good to hear from others who do in fact have Fe in their top 4, know how cognitive functions work and speak to this.

    I don't think I'm really stretching the functions--I just think most people's models are too narrow.
    Stretching the definitions too far, broadening them to fit cases makes the concept less useful in itself, weakens our understanding.

    Basically it would go like this: I pick a moral issue and ask you where you stand on it. When you answer, I ask "Why?" over and over and over until we find the basic internal voice that this belief is based on--and once we do that, we're going to find either Fi or Fe--not both. If you think you can explain different beliefs on your own part that are motivated by Fe and Fi, you haven't figured out the real reason for them yet.
    I've seen something similar.

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U"]Surveys -- Yes Prime Minister[/YOUTUBE]

  9. #369
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Bah, I still think we can simultaneously introvert and extrovert our judging function. Just because one is a Te-er doesn't mean one also must be an Fi-er, at least imo.

    The only argument I've seen regarding this from you, Simmypoo dearest, is that logic and ethics can't be both externalized and internalized, and that's not really an argument but more like a restatement of the premise. And yes, I've read through your posts on this thread now, so refrain from getting snippity and just make your logic within that argument seem a bit more...logical...

  10. #370
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Christ, everyone in this thread needs to GTF over themselves.

    Particularly the ENTPs.

    Including myself.

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