User Tag List

First 324041424344 Last

Results 411 to 420 of 492

Thread: Pretentious Fi

  1. #411
    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 teslashock View Post
    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...

    Really? You think we can simultaneously introvert and extrovert the same judging function? Are you just trolling to test if I've read your other posts in this thread?


    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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.

    I mean...what?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #412
    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
    Call it whatever - the idea is the same - different internal processes lead to the same external manifestation.
    Well, that much should obvious to anyone with any background whatsoever on Jungian psychology. I can't even imagine how you'd make an argument that a given external action must always be motivated by the same internal process.



    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    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.
    This is Te demanding empirical evidence on a purely subjective topic where none exists in order to justify Fi's indignation at being "boxed in" via my suggestion that we don't use all eight functions. Don't buy.



    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    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.
    Right, but if you really understood completely what Ti and Te represent, you'd understand that there's only room for one in a person's value system because they completely disagree on what constitutes a logical decision. See the state i am in's post on this earlier in the thread.

    As I said this could change slowly from one to the other over a long period of time, but people don't routinely switch between the two. We don't make some internal judgments on Ti and others on Fi, though--we might make all internal judgments on Ti and then eventually change permanently into making all internal judgments on Fi later in life, but this is not an easy change and not one we make repeatedly.

    As I said, a shift from Ti/Fe to Fi/Te is possible but would require your whole worldview to permanently shift into one that completely contradicts the one you hold now.



    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Stretching the definitions too far, broadening them to fit cases makes the concept less useful in itself, weakens our understanding.
    I haven't broadened the definitions; you and others have narrowed them from their original forms. I'm not sure why you think the "we use all eight functions cause they relate directly to specific actions" argument somehow constitutes the a "default" interpretation that I'm "stretching." You just have the functional definitions wrong in the first place, as does most of this forum.

    Functions are broad value systems that try to explain the different ways in which we see the world. The whole "we have to use all 8 functions cuz I see people doing things that I think represent them" argument came about as a misinterpretation of what Jung actually described functions as. There is no singular action that you can observe in others that definitively indicates use of any particular function--you need more information regarding the person's deepest internal motives and values.

    What argument do you even have for using all 8 functions besides "I see people doing stuff that I think represents all of them"?

    Looking at the functions as they were intended actually makes the whole concept much easier...at least from a Ti standpoint, anyway.

    Still waiting for somebody to take my functional interpretation challenge, btw.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #413
    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
    Well, that much should obvious to anyone with any background whatsoever on Jungian psychology. I can't even imagine how you'd make an argument that a given external action must always be motivated by the same internal process.
    Great - glad we both think it's obvious so we can move beyond thinking it's a unique perspective. I never actually suggested that - the point was that the mimicking part is purely semantics.

    This is Te demanding empirical evidence on a purely subjective topic where none exists in order to justify Fi's indignation at being "boxed in" via my suggestion that we don't use all eight functions. Don't buy.
    I'm not selling anything so it doesn't matter if you buy. I'm not suggesting an alternative explanation from the dominant one. You are. If you're the one suggesting a different theory of cognitive processes than the several (Jung, Lenore etc etc) all of whom refer to people using all eight functional processes but with varying skill then the onus lies at your end to explain and provide evidence for what you are suggesting as a shift in paradigm.

    Either it's a purely subjective topic where several interpretations apply - your response to Seymour and others implies otherwise or its an objective topic where you provide evidence for a singular explanation that applies best. Pick one and argue accordingly. It can't be subjective when you feel like it and objective otherwise.

    Right, but if you really understood completely what Ti and Te represent, you'd understand that there's only room for one in a person's value system because they completely disagree on what constitutes a logical decision. See the state i am in's post on this earlier in the thread.

    As I said this could change slowly from one to the other over a long period of time, but people don't routinely switch between the two. We don't make some internal judgments on Ti and others on Fi, though--we might make all internal judgments on Ti and then eventually change permanently into making all internal judgments on Fi later in life, but this is not an easy change and not one we make repeatedly.

    As I said, a shift from Ti/Fe to Fi/Te is possible but would require your whole worldview to permanently shift into one that completely contradicts the one you hold now.
    1. Okay so you've already shifted into saying that people can use them at different times but this would require a permanent shift. This implies, already, that we all have eight functions. If the shift can happen later on in life, the access remains even if you don't use them earlier.

    2. If this shift can happen, it could happen periodically and be really difficult when it happens? Seriously, that's really the big point of difference here.

    I haven't broadened the definitions; you and others have narrowed them from their original forms. I'm not sure why you think the "we use all eight functions cause they relate directly to specific actions" argument somehow constitutes the a "default" interpretation that I'm "stretching." You just have the functional definitions wrong in the first place, as does most of this forum.
    Of course we do. Even though I've repeatedly said otherwise and not identified functions with a particular external manifestation.

    What argument do you even have for using all 8 functions besides "I see people doing stuff that I think represents all of them"?

    Looking at the functions as they were intended actually makes the whole concept much easier...at least from a Ti standpoint, anyway.

    Still waiting for somebody to take my functional interpretation challenge, btw.
    I've been talking about Fi being used to a different degree by everyone which is an internalized process so no, I haven't been arguing that I've seen the same external manifestations of the same. That would be inconsistent with the mimicking. I've actually been arguing that Ti doms/auxs have talked about their own experience with using this weaker internal judging process and how alien it feels. It seems from their experiences that they can tap into it. They may or may not weild it well depending on age and experience but they do seem to from their descriptions of the experience. Also, everyone has feelings and when one makes an internal feeling based judgment it isn't always done using Fe especially if it doesn't relate to the group and maintaining external harmony or other community value. If related to the individual's feeling himself/herself - it's Fi. That's what I've said in case you missed it the first few times.

    Again, I don't need to argue this Sim -- this is what all cognitive function theory is saying besides the experiences of members on this board and outside who keep confirming this. They don't all have the definitions wrong and yours is not very helpful or new, honestly. Anything else to back up your claim or will this magical challenge prove all?

    I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree if this is in fact a completely subjective topic as you suggest. You can choose to believe that you only have access to and use four functions and perhaps you do. Don't, however, tell everyone else that they don't know the definitions and don't use the eight functions they think they are if they disagree. That's presumptuous.

  4. #414
    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
    Great - glad we both think it's obvious so we can move beyond thinking it's a unique perspective. I never actually suggested that - the point was that the mimicking part is purely semantics.
    The entirety of typology is semantics, since none of it has any empirical evidence. We're just arguing over categorization, nothing more.



    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    I'm not selling anything so it doesn't matter if you buy. I'm not suggesting an alternative explanation from the dominant one. You are. If you're the one suggesting a different theory of cognitive processes than the several (Jung, Lenore etc etc) all of whom refer to people using all eight functional processes but with varying skill then the onus lies at your end to explain and provide evidence for what you are suggesting as a shift in paradigm.
    Actually, Jung never said that. The "we use all eight functions" model was introduced by Berens, Beebe and other more recent authors:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    ...those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect. Jungians interpret Jung as explicitly stating that the tertiary function is actually in the same attitude as the dominant, providing balance. More recently, typologists such as John Beebe and Linda Berens have introduced theoretical systems in which all people possess eight functions -- equivalent to the four functions as defined by Jung and Myers but in each of the two possible attitudes -- with the four in the opposite attitude to that measured known as the "shadow functions," residing largely in the unconscious.
    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Either it's a purely subjective topic where several interpretations apply - your response to Seymour and others implies otherwise or its an objective topic where you provide evidence for a singular explanation that applies best. Pick one and argue accordingly. It can't be subjective when you feel like it and objective otherwise.
    Okay, let me be clear--nobody has any empirical evidence for any typology system, myself included. I'm arguing why I think this interpretation is most internally consistent and describes people's motivations most effectively. Everyone's interpretation of something this amorphous is obviously subjective; typology is just a form of philosophy, not science.


    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    1. Okay so you've already shifted into saying that people can use them at different times but this would require a permanent shift. This implies, already, that we all have eight functions. If the shift can happen later on in life, the access remains even if you don't use them earlier.
    No it doesn't. You only have "access" to whichever functions comprise your current worldview. If some sort of life experience convinces you that your worldview thus far has been wrong, you might then change to one that contradicted your previous one, but that doesn't mean you had access to the new one before the shift in perspective occurred. The old has to completely fade out before the new can take over.

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    2. If this shift can happen, it could happen periodically and be really difficult when it happens? Seriously, that's really the big point of difference here.
    I won't say it's totally impossible that such a shift could happen more than once, but it's not a voluntary or controllable reaction, and it's certainly something that would happen very rarely. It'd be like a religious conversion--some kind of huge revelation via profound life experience would have to convince you that the entire basis for your worldview has been completely wrong all along. This could theoretically happen to someone more than once throughout life, but it certainly would not be a routine occurrence and this still wouldn't allow people to use Fi/Te without completely getting rid of Ti/Fe's influence (or vice versa.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Of course we do. Even though I've repeatedly said otherwise and not identified functions with a particular external manifestation.
    I would like to know what leads you to believe that people use all eight attitudes routinely, then.



    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    I've been talking about Fi being used to a different degree by everyone which is an internalized process so no, I haven't been arguing that I've seen the same external manifestations of the same. That would be inconsistent with the mimicking. I've actually been arguing that Ti doms/auxs have talked about their own experience with using this weaker internal judging process and how alien it feels. It seems from their experiences that they can tap into it. They may or may not weild it well depending on age and experience but they do seem to from their descriptions of the experience. Also, everyone has feelings and when one makes an internal feeling based judgment it isn't always done using Fe especially if it doesn't relate to the group and maintaining external harmony or other community value. If related to the individual's feeling himself/herself - it's Fi. That's what I've said in case you missed it the first few times.
    I would argue that these Ti doms are feeling the unfamiliar effect of Si/Fe, not Fi.

    But this is just a question of semantics regarding our definitions of Fi. I would define these "alien experiences" as manifestations of Fe, but obviously we're not going to agree on that. I don't think "I felt something emotional that was unfamiliar" is necessarily Fi, because I don't think the Ti dom in question is fully aware of where these feelings are coming from. For all we know, they might be validated externally even if the Ti dom doesn't realize it.

    You seem to be listening to these experiences and deciding that they constitute Fi, without really knowing where the feelings came from or what the root cause of them was.

    Maybe you could post some of these recollections of this sort of experience from Ti doms?

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Again, I don't need to argue this Sim -- this is what all cognitive function theory is saying besides the experiences of members on this board and outside who keep confirming this. They don't all have the definitions wrong and yours is not very helpful or new, honestly. Anything else to back up your claim or will this magical challenge prove all?
    That's interesting, because quite a few members have thanked me for the help my interpretations have provided them with typology.

    Besides that, you just implied that all credible sources use an 8-function model (which isn't actually true--see quote above), and that my functional definitions are "stretched" from the original, "standard" definitions, but now my 4-function model is also "nothing new"?

    Which is it? I can't be out of touch with everyone in the typology community and totally not unique. Pick an insult and stick with it.

    For that matter, where does Jung state that people use all eight functions on a regular basis?

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree if this is in fact a completely subjective topic as you suggest. You can choose to believe that you only have access to and use four functions and perhaps you do. Don't, however, tell everyone else that they don't know the definitions and don't use the eight functions they think they are if they disagree. That's presumptuous.
    Listen, I'm not arguing that our brains are biologically incapable of using the shadow functions--just that switching to them requires permanently changing into a different personality type via some sort of life-changing experience. It's a dramatic shift in perspective that would edge out our old perspective.

    So if I go along living my life and get to the point where I realize Fi actually makes more sense to me than Ti, then Ti has been pushed out of my functional makeup. If I reach a point where Fi truly resonates more clearly with my perspective than Ti, then Ti is gone--I'm not going to just switch between the two whenever I feel like it. The difference between Ti and Fi is that profound. If this happened to me, I would become an ENFP, which is possible but not something that would happen overnight or whenever I feel like it. And changing back to ENTP would require some equally powerful experience to convince me to rebuild my worldview again.

    So when I say we don't use all eight functions, I mean we have a mold of four that makes up our worldview and that our worldview has to change profoundly and significantly in a way that clearly contradicts our old worldview in order to move into using the other four--and that once this happens (barring a similar revelatory experience in the other direction) there's no going back. The people I'm taking issue with are the ones who say things like, "Yesterday I used Fi for this and that, and today I'm using Ti for something else! Later this afternoon I'll use Fi again, but then I might use Ti tonight!" That's not how this works.

    So my theory is that we're holding four tools at a time. At some point we may eventually decide to set down two (or even all four) of them and pick up some other ones, but this would be a very gradual and life-changing decision, not something people do on a daily basis.

    Picking up new tools requires setting other contradictory tools down--we can't hold all eight at once.

    I believe that this theory is more representative of Jung's original model (which never actually says that any one person uses all eight functions routinely.) I'll continue to support this theory in my functional discussions until such a time as I change my mind.

    Maybe later I'll end up deciding that we do use all eight functions--but that won't mean that I was a four-function believer and an eight-function believer at the same time, or that I had "access" to believing the eight-function theory before changing my mind. The point is, the four-function theory and eight-function theory cannot simultaneously be true, so I can't believe one without rejecting the other first--Ti and Fi share this relationship.

    To continue the religious conversion parallel, I could be an atheist at one point in my life and later become a theist, but I'd have to discard atheism first and I would not routinely waffle between atheism and theism because these are really fundamental parts of one's worldview that simply don't change that easily. I see cognitive functions the same way--it's possible for an Fi/Te user to become a Ti/Fe user, but not without discarding Fi/Te first.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #415
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Really? You think we can simultaneously introvert and extrovert the same judging function? Are you just trolling to test if I've read your other posts in this thread?
    I am going to refrain from any sort of wit-fest here, but honestly you're being kind of dense. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and read my posts a little better. I'm not trolling; I have a curiosity, and you have yet to properly alleviate/discuss that curiosity. You bolded what I said as though it was me implying that we can't both introvert and extrovert T or F (ie have both Te and Ti or both Fe and Fi), but that's not what I said.

    I meant that I don't see how there's room for both Fi/Ti together or Te/Fe together, but I don't see why Ti/Te can't be together. I don't see how there's room for all 8 functions, but it doesn't seem completely impossible that one could have Te, Ni, Se, Ti for example, rather than Te, Ni, Se, Fi. I don't see why the former is so impossible because I don't see how Te/Ti and Fe/Fi are contradictory. The only explanation that you gave for why Te/Ti and Fe/Fi contradict is that you can't simultaneously externalize and internalize logic/morality, and again, that just seems like a restatement of the premise.

  6. #416
    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 teslashock View Post
    I am going to refrain from any sort of wit-fest here, but honestly you're being kind of dense. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and read my posts a little better. I'm not trolling; I have a curiosity, and you have yet to properly alleviate/discuss that curiosity. You bolded what I said as though it was me implying that we can't both introvert and extrovert T or F (ie have both Te and Ti or both Fe and Fi), but that's not what I said.

    I meant that I don't see how there's room for both Fi/Ti together or Te/Fe together, but I don't see why Ti/Te can't be together. I don't see how there's room for all 8 functions, but it doesn't seem completely impossible that one could have Te, Ni, Se, Ti for example, rather than Te, Ni, Se, Fi. I don't see why the former is so impossible because I don't see how Te/Ti and Fe/Fi are contradictory. The only explanation that you gave for why Te/Ti and Fe/Fi contradict is that you can't simultaneously externalize and internalize logic/morality, and again, that just seems like a restatement of the premise.
    Wouldn't a Te+Ni+Se+Ti person have no motivation to consider ethical/emotional/empathetic issues ever?

    If you believe that we can't use two different versions of the same type of function, then we're already limited to four--meaning we have to lose one of the primary functions entirely: either S, N, T, or F.

    I don't think it makes sense that someone could be completely lacking an F function (or S or N or T.) This would imply that the person has one type of cognitive skill S/N/T/F that he has absolutely no capacity for even learning about. What happens if someone has no S capacity (or N or T or F) at all? Are these simply people with severe mental disabilities?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #417
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Wouldn't a Te+Ni+Se+Ti person have no motivation to consider ethical/emotional/empathetic issues ever?
    Could Te not yield a motivation for considering ethical/emotional/empathetic issues? Some situations call for group harmony, courtesy, or even empathy in order to pragmatically and effectively travel down the path towards reaching a specific end goal. Regarding emotions can be a logical/practical thing to do. I don't see how lack of F necessarily makes one devoid of morality.

    If you believe that we can't use two different versions of the same type of function, then we're already limited to four--meaning we have to lose one of the primary functions entirely: either S, N, T, or F.
    Yeah but we'd still have Pe, Pi, Je, and Ji. You even said yourself that one behavior is not exclusively motivated by one function. Perhaps cognition that's guided by both Te/Ti or Fe/Fi can come to ethical or logical conclusions/behaviors (respectively) as a result of some other function(s) aside from F-guided "ethics" or T-guided "logic", but maybe my interpretation of the functions is too subjective or ill-defined.

    I don't think it makes sense that someone could be completely lacking an F function (or S or N or T.) This would imply that the person has one type of cognitive skill S/N/T/F that he has absolutely no capacity for even learning about. What happens if someone has no S capacity (or N or T or F) at all? Are these simply people with severe mental disabilities?
    As far as having no S or N function, I never really touched upon that in my posts here. I explicitly limited my discussion to the judging functions. I'm not sure it's possible for one to lack S or N functions entirely (at least not a healthy one), as these are forms of perception, and lacking one of these functions would result in a serious inability to make something from external sensory inputs. I don't see how lacking an F or T function would necessarily result in a completely immoral or illogical/unpractical personality, however.

    I know that you want to communicate some kind of cohesion here with the functions, but you can't just expect me to believe in the cohesion simply because it paints a pretty picture.

  8. #418
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Could Te not yield a motivation for considering ethical/emotional/empathetic issues? Some situations call for group harmony, courtesy, or even empathy in order to pragmatically and effectively travel down the path towards reaching a specific end goal. Regarding emotions can be a logical/practical thing to do. I don't see how lack of F necessarily makes one devoid of morality.
    Agreed. There seems to be a great deal of self-preservational "common sense" in much group ethical behavior. It's easier to get people to do what you want them to do if you treat them with respect. You scratch my back, I scratch yours...

  9. #419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Could Te not yield a motivation for considering ethical/emotional/empathetic issues?
    yeh, I find ENTJs to be one of the better types in these areas and they don't have much F in terms of functions.
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  10. #420
    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 teslashock View Post
    Could Te not yield a motivation for considering ethical/emotional/empathetic issues? Some situations call for group harmony, courtesy, or even empathy in order to pragmatically and effectively travel down the path towards reaching a specific end goal. Regarding emotions can be a logical/practical thing to do. I don't see how lack of F necessarily makes one devoid of morality.
    I suppose it could, but it would be totally faked and used only for the purpose of deceiving people. Maybe these people exist but are just sociopaths--they usually follow rules and laws but only for fear of punishment. They have no inherent belief in any kind of morality beyond self-preservation, internal or external.

    One might imitate others' moral behavior in an attempt to appear to be moral, but is this really true morality, if it's only an act for the purpose of deceiving others?



    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Yeah but we'd still have Pe, Pi, Je, and Ji. You even said yourself that one behavior is not exclusively motivated by one function. Perhaps cognition that's guided by both Te/Ti or Fe/Fi can come to ethical or logical conclusions/behaviors (respectively) as a result of some other function(s) aside from F-guided "ethics" or T-guided "logic", but maybe my interpretation of the functions is too subjective or ill-defined.
    I don't see how N or S could come to any moral decisions because all they do is define our preferred methods of taking in information--evaluation and categorization of it is up to a Judging function.

    So how could Te+Ti reach any sort of ethical conclusions, if the F function is entirely absent and N and S are incapable of passing judgment?



    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    As far as having no S or N function, I never really touched upon that in my posts here. I explicitly limited my discussion to the judging functions. I'm not sure it's possible for one to lack S or N functions entirely (at least not a healthy one), as these are forms of perception, and lacking one of these functions would result in a serious inability to make something from external sensory inputs. I don't see how lacking an F or T function would necessarily result in a completely immoral or illogical/unpractical personality, however.
    A person with no T function would place no value whatsoever on ever viewing anything impersonally outside of his own feelings, and a person with no F function wouldn't have any capacity to grasp emotional or personal values. I'm going to need to hear a good explanation how these things could happen before I'll grant their existence.

    But maybe if such people do exist, they have extreme personality disorders or mental disabilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I know that you want to communicate some kind of cohesion here with the functions, but you can't just expect me to believe in the cohesion simply because it paints a pretty picture.
    Well, the great thing about this kind of unfalsifiable system is that every time you discover a situation where it doesn't work, you just amend the system so that it more accurately reflects reality.

    You've got an interesting point about Ti/Te and Fi/Fe, but what would an Fi+Fe person do when his personal feeling contradicts the external standard for the way he should feel?


    Quote Originally Posted by noigmn View Post
    yeh, I find ENTJs to be one of the better types in these areas and they don't have much F in terms of functions.
    They have Fi, which, even as the inferior function, is much better than having no F function at all.
    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