• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Pretentious Fi

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
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?

I believe this is correct. Even as I was writing "You scratch my back, I scratch yours..." I was thinking of Tony Soprano.


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

Yep


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?

Well, speaking from personal experience, I believe I've had many Fi/Fe conflicts in my life...what the group or other people need or is considered "right" conflicting with my personal feelings, creating either guilt or frustration.

We all have the various functions, and I really disagree with your insistance that this is impossible.

Of course, I acknowledge that I also have "pseudo-Fe" in the form of my Fi realizing that in order to get what I want, that it would be most effective (Te) to do what other people consider good behavior.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
They have Fi, which, even as the inferior function, is much better than having no F function at all.

I was suggesting it is a stronger trait in them than many types, much more than an inferior function would account for. Hence the inferior function is not likely to be the cause of them taking these things into account. If the inferior function is not the cause, it suggests you don't need an F to notice or care for noticing these things, which is something I would agree with. You can do the same thing for many reasons. I use logic because it is a good tool to answer certain things. Do I care about logic? Not really, but I care about the correct answer, so I have many motivations to use it.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Of course, I acknowledge that I also have "pseudo-Fe" in the form of my Fi realizing that in order to get what I want, that it would be most effective (Te) to do what other people consider good behavior.

This part is the key. I'd argue that the only reason you ever "follow Fe" is because it serves a broader purpose for Te. This is where, I believe, most people make mistakes in interpreting their functions. And I understand why it's so confusing--you just figured out this one pretty well, but what about someone whose reasoning stops at "Oh I did what the group wanted--that has to be Fe"?

It's easy to make that assumption, but when you stopped and thought about it you realized that when we step back another level, it really just reduces to Te's realization that sticking to your feelings all the time doesn't get as much done as you'd like.

I think all supposed uses of shadow functions can be reduced to the main four through this process--unless your value system makes a permanent shift from Fi to Fe, in which case you'd truly be practicing Fe for its own sake and not just to serve Fi/Te's ends.


I was suggesting it is a stronger trait in them than many types, much more than an inferior function would account for. Hence the inferior function is not likely to be the cause of them taking these things into account. If the inferior function is not the cause, it suggests you don't need an F to notice or care for noticing these things, which is something I would agree with. You can do the same thing for many reasons. I use logic because it is a good tool to answer certain things. Do I care about logic? Not really, but I care about the correct answer, so I have many motivations to use it.

Maybe the sample of ENTJs you know has better Fi than most? In any event, there's still a significant difference between the inferior function and no function.

Your explanation of what logic means to you is classic Fi/Te.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Maybe the sample of ENTJs you know has better Fi than most? In any event, there's still a significant difference between the inferior function and no function.

Your explanation of what logic means to you is classic Fi/Te.

I agree with the last line.

I also think that maybe if this person is operating on Fi/Te, that rather than knowing a particularly in-touch-with-Fi bunch of ENTJs, this individual just responds well (generally speaking, of course) to the NTJ personality.
 

doner21

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
2
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
9
fi,ti,fe and all the other functions require practice!

im going to make an assumption and say that a dominant or even secondary functions will drive a person to practice that function whenever the need arises or even whenever the need doesn't arise. its a dominant function for a reason after all.

when one is learning to plays a piano one must fail much more than one succeeds.i dont think i would be wrong in saying that with every failed attempt one comes closer to the truth?

the fact that the op has had problems with people who use fi to judge his own feelings incorrectly would show us that people with fi are actually motivated to empathise and practice that skill when they can.if they get it wrong would it not be better to give them as much feedback as possible especially knowning they are trying to master a skill that with practice will get better.yes it may be annoying sometimes but that doesn't make the use of it wrong or even inaccurate relatively speaking. i would rather go to an infp when i need some empathy than another intp or even entp simply because the infp has failed more in their attempts to understand the "state of mind"
A person with ti especially an entp would want objective feedback on a system they are working on?
doesn't an infp or any other fi type deserve the same treatmeant?whether its people or systems the fact that we are all trying to "understand" should not be trivialized away by questioning the motivation to understand.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
Maybe the sample of ENTJs you know has better Fi than most? In any event, there's still a significant difference between the inferior function and no function.

Your explanation of what logic means to you is classic Fi/Te.

Not likely, they are better at this stuff than the INTJs I know. This might help.

Personalitypage (success for an ENTJ) said:
If action can improve an item or a situation then it ought to be taken, and the ENTJ will always be found in the midst of such action, organizing, planning and leading the way forward until the best result possible has been realized. This makes success for an ENTJ something that can be clearly seen, a real world result which can be measured. And whether measured in dollars, bricks, bread or just happy people, the successful ENTJ knows the result is due to their belief that it is just plain commonsense to try and make the best of every situation and get the most out if it for the most people.

Te Ni has a drive to optimise situations and get the most out of them. If they care for people, they get more out of the situation for those people and themselves. It is a motivation to show care for the ethical/emotional/empathetic when it achieves the best results. In some ways an improved version of what we do as NFs.

A good analogy is murder. I could not murder you for many reasons. Because I feel an emotional attachment. Because I have an innate sense of what is wrong. Because the law says so. Because if I do it then others can do it to me. Because I don't like blood. etc. Society is going to say some of those reasons are better than others, but they are all valid reasons. I'm happy whether their reason is the same as mine or not.

Social interaction is learnt with any function set. How you process information doesn't stop you from ever solving the human part or taking interest in it. You realise for one reason or another that we live together and working it somehow is best case. To figure how to work it you seek to understand your surroundings. Your surroundings include people (well most of what happens does). You see a point to considering how people work, because by doing this you better understand your surroundings. You realise how people work, you see similarities to yourself. You see similarities to yourself, you understand their reactions. You understand their reactions you have an idea of the effect of your actions. You have an idea of the effect of your actions, you gain conscience. You gain conscience, you have a reason for ethics. Why do you have a reason for ethics? Because you always knew you had emotions but now everyone does. You know what happens to them, you have a reason to consider it (whether it is logically, emotionally or rectally). Even the autistic look to understand these interactions to an extent. I doubt someone with just strange functions wouldn't.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I agree with the last line.

I also think that maybe if this person is operating on Fi/Te, that rather than knowing a particularly in-touch-with-Fi bunch of ENTJs, this individual just responds well (generally speaking, of course) to the NTJ personality.

Fair enough. I don't think it suggests that Te/Ti can come to real ethical/emotional conclusions without a corresponding F function, though.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
In some ways an improved version of what we do as NFs.

:shock:

You must really :heart: ENTJs....or are you confusing them with ENFJs, that's what I'm beginning to wonder.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^ Yeah that's starting to confuse me a bit too.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
:shock:

You must really :heart: ENTJs....or are you confusing them with ENFJs, that's what I'm beginning to wonder.

What's love got to do (got to do) with it?

I find ENFJs playful and a bit Fe. But ENTJs are some of the most social and caring people I know. Look after people way, way more than I do. You don't need to be emo to care about ethics or emotions of people. I'm not sure if you get other views off the board, but yeh... they don't need Fe or Fi. Maybe you don't know any well enough.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I find all types "a bit [their dominant function]", personally. ;)

Your experience is just with ENTJs with a healthy use of Fi. Be glad you don't know any really unbalanced ones.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
I find all types "a bit [their dominant function]", personally. ;)

Your experience is just with ENTJs with a healthy use of Fi. Be glad you don't know any really unbalanced ones.

I'm sure there are nuts of all types. I don't think they need to search for their inferior function to be stable though :). Maybe most people know the ones they have to work for. I might get a bit different understanding of their actions as a Te tertiary also.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm sure there are nuts of all types. I don't think they need to search for their inferior function to be stable though :). Maybe most people know the ones they have to work for. I might get a bit different understanding of their actions as a Te tertiary also.

You could interpret it as Te recognizing that appearing emotionally supportive to family/friends is an important structural component of having a functional and productive life, but without a little Fi balancing it, the ENTJ's empathetic acts would be hollow and used only for deceptive/strategic purposes.

I don't see that as genuine morality.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
U

What's love got to do (got to do) with it?

I find ENFJs playful and a bit Fe. But ENTJs are some of the most social and caring people I know. Look after people way, way more than I do. You don't need to be emo to care about ethics or emotions of people. I'm not sure if you get other views off the board, but yeh... they don't need Fe or Fi. Maybe you don't know any well enough.

Ok - check this out - my Daddy was an ISTJ. He wasn't especially known for his exceptional friendliness and warmth (he was extremely introverted and could be hellishly controlling) but he was also a very, very loving person and I NEVER doubted his love for me. At times he could seem more loving than my ESFJ step-monster. I think of Tertiary Fi as this wonderful thing hiding inside of IxTJs that they give to those they truly care about.

In the same vein, I'm thinking you saying

Maybe you don't know any well enough

about ENTJs is a similar thing. Love has everything to do with it, and I don't necessarily mean any sort of romantic love. ENTJs, as extroverts, are of course going to be social - prolly more social than you if you're NFP, even ENFP. And you may think of them as exceptionally caring because you had a personal connection with their Fi. You aren't really 'splainin' what you mean when you speak of their incredible abilities to care for others....
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
You could interpret it as Te recognizing that appearing emotionally supportive to family/friends is an important structural component of having a functional and productive life, but without a little Fi balancing it, the ENTJ's empathetic acts would be hollow and used only for deceptive/strategic purposes.

I don't see that as genuine morality.

Suppose. I don't see my approach as much different. I just see stuff will happen if I do stuff, so don't do stuff. It's really no less logical. It just involves a different object.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
about ENTJs is a similar thing. Love has everything to do with it, and I don't necessarily mean any sort of romantic love. ENTJs, as extroverts, are of course going to be social - prolly more social than you if you're NFP, even ENFP. And you may think of them as exceptionally caring because you had a personal connection with their Fi. You aren't really 'splainin' what you mean when you speak of their incredible abilities to care for others....

I don't think I need to justify that a personality type has a soul by glorifying one of my functions as the key to it. The ones I know do a good job and I like them. They pick up the mess and get people back on track, motivated and enjoying life. And none of it is insincere. Think this will be an agree to disagree.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I don't think I need to justify that a personality type has a soul by glorifying one of my functions as the key to it. The ones I know do a good job and I like them. They pick up the mess and get people back on track, motivated and enjoying life. And none of it is insincere. Think this will be an agree to disagree.

Glorifying one of your functions as the key to it? :huh: That's not what's going on here.

We're just trying to explain to you that all T's have F. Plus, everything that I've bolded is you describing Te, not Fi. No one said ENTJs can't love or care for people. Who the hell claimed such a thing? Most - if not all - people have the ability to love. Who ever said that ENTJs in general are insincere? Certainly not me and I didn't see Sim doing it either. He said that a person who "cared" for others simply as a means to an end wouldn't actually be empathetic or moral. No one ever singled out ENTJs.

I, for one, was challenging the notion that ENTJs are inherently, as a type, more caring or empathetic than NFs. That's all. I can't think of an ENTJ in particular that I dislike, for the record.
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Outsider:
"Now you listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. /.../ I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you whatever."

Mutiny in the ranks and cross-type fraternization! So many offences :dont: Amar, quick, get the rogue NF trap...:smile:

As long as my fight is for love, you will never catch me.

Unless you are willing to exploit that.

And to quote some more, ergophobe...
"I love you. I have for quite some time now. Just thought you should know." - Dr. Rodney McKay
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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 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.

Actually, Jung never said that. The "we use all eight functions" model was introduced by Berens, Beebe and other more recent authors:

I would like to know what leads you to believe that people use all eight attitudes routinely, then.

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.

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"?

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

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.
Again, the key to properly understanding the eight functions is to go back to (start with) four; --but without the "attitudes" (orientations). i/e orientation is really a preference of the ego, not the functions. This was Jung's original "four function" concept, though I have seen the claim that Jung later modified it so that the orientation is fixed to the function.
The dominant function is merely used in the preferred dominant attitude. The other three then follow suit in an alternating order (aux--opposite attitude, tertiary--same attitude, inferior--opposite attitude.

Once you understand it as the ego setting the orientation, it becomes easier to see how that same ego could switch the orientation of the functions at times, for various reasons. This discussion has the "eight functions" as these monolithic solid entities that cannot all "coexist" with each other, but the functions are not entities; the ego is, and the functions are only utilities of the ego. So what you're saying is like saying if I normally use a hammer to drive nails, I can't ever use it to remove them. (i.e the other side of the head). Then, you make them into two separate tools; one to drive nails, and the other to remove them, and you can only use one.
So the ego will tend to prefer a particular orientation for a particular function, but can switch it, especially under stress, when the preferred combination is not solving the problem.
 
Top