Pretentious Fi

[Seymour]

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.

I kind of tried to ignore this post, but it is still bothering me. I hope you don't mind if I ask where this post was coming from.

Among other things, OrangeAppled hadn't posted in this thread since about page 6, so I find I'm wondering why that got characterized as "incessant whining." We all have threads and interaction styles that we prefer. I think it's fine for someone to point out a thread they like better if they think it better addresses the topic.

While I think it's fine for you to point out that you see a lot of good content in this thread (I see some good stuff in here, too), I find the tone above to be pretty emotionally colored and hostile. Note that I think you have every right to disagree with someone else's assessment on something.

If it's helpful I'm willing to be more specific about why I think the word choice in part of the above is a little extreme. I think most people in this thread have gone out of their way to not take offense at colorful phrasing, word choice and opinions (including in the OP). Seems like that should be a two way street when reacting to other people's posts, too.

I hope you don't take this as offensive or over-sensitive, because I'm really not trying to be. Still, I think that a certain minimal level of restraint should be shown in our responses to each other, even when we disagree.

 

[teslashock]

I kind of tried to ignore this post, but it is still bothering me. I hope you don't mind if I ask where this post was coming from.

Among other things, OrangeAppled hadn't posted in this thread since about page 6, so I find I'm wondering why that got characterized as "incessant whining." We all have threads and interaction styles that we prefer. I think it's fine for someone to point out a thread they like better if they think it better addresses the topic.

While I think it's fine for you to point out that you see a lot of good content in this thread (I see some good stuff in here, too), I find the tone above to be pretty emotionally colored and hostile. Note that I think you have every right to disagree with someone else's assessment on something.

If it's helpful I'm willing to be more specific about why I think the word choice in part of the above is a little extreme. I think most people in this thread have gone out of their way to not take offense at colorful phrasing, word choice and opinions (including in the OP). Seems like that should be a two way street when reacting to other people's posts, too.

I hope you don't take this as offensive or over-sensitive, because I'm really not trying to be. Still, I think that a certain minimal level of restraint should be shown in our responses to each other, even when we disagree.

No I don't take this post as offensive or overly sensitive, don't worry. You are nice to provide such insight, and I understand where you are coming from.

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.

 

[Seymour]

No I don't take this post as offensive or overly sensitive, don't worry. You are nice to provide such insight, and I understand where you are coming from.

However, OA never approached this thread reasonably, and 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.

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.

I can understand all that (whether or not I personally agree with every one of your assessments). It just makes it difficult for me to want to remain involved with the thread (and I do find the topic and viewpoints really interesting) when my continuing posts make it seem like I'm implicitly agreeing with that level of hostility.

I do want this discussion to continue (including hearing your perspectives) but I'd far prefer for it to happen more civilly. Sorry to make this all about my personal comfort level, but I felt like I couldn't just ignore the whole thing. I can always bow out, too, if that's too much of an imposition on others.

Thanks for responding and explaining where you were coming from. Was definitely helpful. Appreciate you answering honestly.

 

[teslashock]

I can understand all that (whether or not I personally agree with every one of your assessments). It just makes it difficult for me to want to remain involved with the thread (and I do find the topic and viewpoints really interesting) when my continuing posts make it seem like I'm implicitly agreeing with that level of hostility.

I do want this discussion to continue (including hearing your perspectives) but I'd far prefer for it to happen more civilly. Sorry to make this all about my personal comfort level, but I felt like I couldn't just ignore the whole thing. I can always bow out, too, if that's too much of an imposition on others.

Thanks for responding and explaining where you were coming from. Was definitely helpful. Appreciate you answering honestly.

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 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. You, on the other hand, along with most of the others in this thread, have been perfectly willing to engage in a respectable discussion, and I believe I've treated you and them with a good bit of courtesy and decency. I'm sorry if anything I've said to OA or anybody else in this thread has scared you away; regardless of how extreme I may sound at times, there's rarely any hard feelings.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ I like how you've expressed that sim.

But do you think a Ti dominant would never use Fi? Never, ever?

Not just Ti dominants, I don't think any type with Ti in its functional makeup uses Fi, ever, and vice versa.

imho, there are four basic types of cognitive tasks: external perceptions, internal perceptions, external judgments and internal judgments. We need a different cognitive function to handle each of these types of tasks, but we don't use two different contradictory forms of the same type of function because the clash between them would keep us from having any real solidified value systems. Ti and Fi contradict each other--Ti and Fe don't, though, because they perform different tasks in different areas.

One form of Ji says: "I think our worldview for internal judgments should be built on these criteria,"
but then the other form says: "No, I think it should be built on these criteria instead."

I think the belief that people use all eight functions is tied to a fundamental misunderstanding as to what functions actually are. They are not just singular actions--"I went with my conscience so I must have used Fi" doesn't make any sense. Ti is just as much of a "conscience" as Fi; it just bases these internal judgments on wholly different criteria. If you don't know someone very well, it's easy to confuse Ti/Fi, or Se/Ne, or Te/Fe, or Si/Ni, because each of these pairs performs very similar tasks and operates in similar situations--they're only subtly different in terms of criteria used to perform the task.

The functions are lenses that color our perspectives on everything. Saying "I use Ti sometimes and Fi other times" is effectively saying, "My most basic conception of how to choose the moral and logical values that my entire life is built on changes all the time", which is just silly. Functions are the deepest underlying value systems upon which we construct our entire worldview.

From a Ti standpoint, making internal value judgments based on personal feelings doesn't make any sense at all. From an Fi standpoint, ignoring your feelings and making them based on impersonal logical constructs doesn't make any sense at all. People who claim to switch between both just misunderstand the nature of their functions, and don't really realize that whatever seemingly off-function decision they're making can actually be reduced further to manifestations of their regular functions, upon closer analysis. In short, they're not looking deeply enough at their own motivations.

You just can't say this to some people or they get offended and think you're imposing on their individuality. Not coincidentally, this almost always comes from Fi users.

 

[Seymour]

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 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. You, on the other hand, along with most of the others in this thread, have been perfectly willing to engage in a respectable discussion, and I believe I've treated you and them with a good bit of courtesy and decency. I'm sorry if anything I've said to OA or anybody else in this thread has scared you away; regardless of how extreme I may sound at times, there's rarely any hard feelings.

I'm fine with how you treated me personally (definitely have been courteous in your responses to my posts), and don't bear you any personal ill-will about anything. I also don't know your history with OA, but it just seemed (to a newbie like me) that the response was out of line with the offense.

If it's okay with you, let's table this and move on. Sorry to derail the conversation.

So... about Ti having a hard time allow Fi much scope in a Ti-dom....

 

[William K]

You just can't say this to some people or they get offended and think you're imposing on their individuality. Not coincidentally, this almost always comes from Fi users.

Yeah, some people might think it is pretentious

 

[PeaceBaby]

Not to overemphasize the point:

I think online we can forget about "being polite" to the detriment of understanding. OA won't be back to this thread likely, and perhaps that gives you satisfaction teslashock; true, she was impatient - and you hostile in response, so hostile as to ensure your point for her to "piss off" was well-taken. You admit to it yourself above.

And as an outcome, many Fi users will simply steer clear of you in the future and won't be as open to help you with legitimate questions or concerns you might have. Perhaps to your loss. Who wants to be berated exponentially to the offense?

There's an old saying, and a wise one to be considered: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I applaud Seymour for broaching the topic.

Also, explore the shadow functions more deeply. They may enhance your appreciation that we are possibly more than the sum of only 4 cognitive functions. The "math" in psychological theory is not so exact, therefore it shouldn't be applied as such, but I can appreciate the desire that it be so.

I think the belief that people use all eight functions is tied to a fundamental misunderstanding as to what functions actually are. They are not just singular actions--"I went with my conscience so I must have used Fi" doesn't make any sense. Ti is just as much of a "conscience" as Fi; it just bases these internal judgments on wholly different criteria. If you don't know someone very well, it's easy to confuse Ti/Fi, or Se/Ne, or Te/Fe, or Si/Ni, because each of these pairs performs very similar tasks and operates in similar situations--they're only subtly different in terms of criteria used to perform the task.

OK, so let's assume that shadow functions exist for a moment. Could it not be that, in a stress situation, that the individual simply cycles down through the functions, from dominant to weakest, in an effort to, in desparation almost, latch on to a function that allows them to ... survive?

 

[teslashock]

Not to overemphasize the point:

I think online we can forget about "being polite" to the detriment of understanding. OA won't be back to this thread likely, and perhaps that gives you satisfaction teslashock; true, she was impatient - and you hostile in response, so hostile as to ensure your point for her to "piss off" was well-taken. You admit to it yourself above.

And as an outcome, many Fi users will simply steer clear of you in the future and won't be as open to help you with legitimate questions or concerns you might have. Perhaps to your loss.

Well, I have a number of NFP buddies on this forum that I think will still give me the time of day, regardless of how I treated OA. I don't think that all NFPs are unreasonable simply because OA is an NFP and I find her unreasonable, and I hope my posts to her don't resonate with that belief.

There's an old saying, and a wise one to be considered: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Yeah that's a nice saying, but this is an internet forum, and the consequences here are limited. I don't really see the value in expending the energy to use honey on a fly that I don't even think is worth catching.

I applaud Seymour for broaching the topic.

Yeah me too, especially considering how scary I seem

Also, explore the shadow functions more deeply.

They may enhance your appreciation that we are possibly more than the sum of only 4 cognitive functions. The "math" in psychological theory is not so exact, therefore it shouldn't be applied as such, but I can appreciate the desire that it be so.

Meh...

I'm not trying to apply math here. Four isn't some appealing number to me. It just makes more sense to me that if one uses Ti to define their personal value system, they can't also use Fi.

 

[teslashock]

OK, so let's assume that shadow functions exist for a moment. Could it not be that, in a stress situation, that the individual simply cycles down through the functions, from dominant to weakest, in an effort to, in desparation almost, latch on to a function that allows them to ... survive?

I know this was directed at SW, but I'll respond anyway. I don't really see how our actions and cognitive processes in times of desperate situations where we are on the brink of death is particularly pertinent to evaluating our true personalities. We aren't our selves in times of serious stress.

 

[Eric B]

Honestly I've never really bought into or fully understood the whole shadow thing. Are you saying that our unconscious uses the other 4 shadow functions?

The unconscious is not an entity that "uses" anything; but rather the area rejected by the conscious ego. Though you could perhaps look at it that way if you divide the unconscious into the four shadow complexes (opposing personality, witch/senex, trickster, demon), and these are really complexes within the ego, not the functions themselves. Hence yes, these complexes are what those functions are connected with, then.

Ok, so maybe when we are under high levels of stress we use the other 4 functions. That's not really pertinent though, as we aren't our usual "cognitive selves" under situations of high stress. You found a special example that's not really applicable to a very expansive whole, so you of all people must not find it particularly relevant. Why bother even sharing it?

Yes, we aren't our cognitive selves under those situations, but the shadows can come up in better situations, and do have positive sides to them. You can see this in Berens' descriptions of them. Beebe described this as well, and he mentioned that for an ENFP married to an INTP(http://www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.pdf), Ti will be associated with an "introverted function that had a sense of humor about introverted people and understood how to get along with them."

Most people's cognitive process test results will have the inferior as the actual weakest, and the other four functions will be inbetween somewhere, hence why some prefer Lenore Thomson's or Socionics' order.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yeah me too, especially considering how scary I seem

Well impolite ≠ scary.

I'm not trying to apply math here. Four isn't some appealing number to me. It just makes more sense to me that if one uses Ti to define their personal value system, they can't also use Fi.

I agree with that; I just think that in chronic or acute situations, Ti is in you somewhere as an Fi user, and therefore could be utilized and expressed. That's my opinion; I make no claim it's provable.

I know this was directed at SW, but I'll respond anyway. I don't really see how our actions and cognitive processes in times of desperate situations where we are on the brink of death is particularly pertinent to evaluating our true personalities. We aren't our selves in times of serious stress.

I don't think you had even heard of shadow functions before the post mentioning them though ...

 

[teslashock]

I don't think you had even heard of shadow functions before the post mentioning them though ...

Um, that's pretty presumptuous. I actually have heard of shadow functions, but I've never understood why it's logical to assume that we use them.

 

[PeaceBaby]

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

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

 

[simulatedworld]

OK, so let's assume that shadow functions exist for a moment. Could it not be that, in a stress situation, that the individual simply cycles down through the functions, from dominant to weakest, in an effort to, in desparation almost, latch on to a function that allows them to ... survive?

Sure, but that's not shadow function--just normal use of the tertiary and inferior. The "shadow functions", as I understand them, are supposed to be manifestations of the four non-preferred functions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a person cycles through the functions to find the one that allows the greatest "survival", s/he is just cycling through the four main functions--one form of Ji, one form of Je, one form of Pi and one form of Pe. I see no reason to believe that the other four functions ever come into play at all.

 

[Seymour]

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

Deveopment of Cognitive Functions Throughout One's Life

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

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

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

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

 

[onemoretime]

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

 

[simulatedworld]

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

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

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

You're still defining functions according to specific actions when they're really just motivational value systems. Writing elegant code isn't "using Ti"; functions don't equate to singular actions. The act of writing code isn't any particular function at all; it's why you wrote it that determines your functional makeup.

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

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

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

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

This is likely motivated by Fe. I assume you mean that you get upset and scream and make a scene when your team does badly. This arbitrary emotional response to a sports event that has no real effect on your life is part of blending into your social group's standards--our group supports this team because that's part of the tribal bond that ties us together. This is almost always motivated by Fe, not Fi.

 

[ergophobe]

It's still part of our psychological profiles. It's like having to write with your left hand when your right hand is cramped - sure, it doesn't work very well at first, but it's still there, and it's worth exercising so when you DO have to use it, you can use it more effectively.

This is what I intended. More after I've had a chance to articulate thoughts on function mimicking.

 

[PeaceBaby]

You're still defining functions according to specific actions when they're really just motivational value systems.

But isn't that how they are defined by other (apparently credible) sources? (Must head to bed so won't cut & paste references ATM; but likely you know what I mean anyway sim.)

Isn't this a cause of significant confusion?

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