Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms

[PeaceBaby]

Fi is subjective and irrational

How then can an Fi user even function?

Fi is "existing in the mind" and "without the faculty of reason" ...

Ooooh this is why we tread on dangerous grounds ...

sub⋅jec⋅tive
–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

ir⋅ra⋅tion⋅al
–adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

I do think TPs tend to be more objective/rational than FPs in the common usage of the terms, but in MBTI terms they're equivalent in subjectivity and rationality.

I did see this too, yet poki's conclusions are in contradiction. This is the crux I think - even though they are equal in MBTI terms, do Ti users see Fi users as equally rational? Me thinks not. How subjective!

 

[JocktheMotie]

I did see this too, yet poki's conclusions are in contradiction. This is the crux I think - even though they are equal in MBTI terms, do Ti users see Fi users as equally rational? Me thinks not. How subjective!

Well, you can operate on a rational basis, but not a logical one. I should probably edit that in. It's when you start interchanging rational with logical in MBTI [it tends to be interchanged in casual usage] and vice versa you can get in trouble and everyone gets confused. This is why agreement of terms is so important

 

[Poki]

How then can an Fi user even function?

Fi is "existing in the mind" and "without the faculty of reason" ...

Ooooh this is why we tread on dangerous grounds ...

sub⋅jec⋅tive
–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

ir⋅ra⋅tion⋅al
–adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.



I did see this too, yet poki's conclusions are in contradiction. This is the crux I think - even though they are equal in MBTI terms, do Ti users see Fi users as equally rational? Me thinks not. How subjective!

In a fantasy world, lol. Sorry I like your fantasy worlds, just poking fun at you.

You forget though you are both Fi and Te. We are in essence in contradiction with ourself just like I can be both rational or irrational. I choose what I want to be. On a personal internal level I am rational, but on an external level I choose to be irrational at times. So in essence I myself am in contradictory between what I do and what I will do for others.

Do you find yourself trying to be rational when it comes to others and not care so much when the judgement only affects you. Only you can answer this, but how much do you change when your decisions affect you vs when they affect others?

 

[garbage]

Objective/subjective in MBTI mean different things than the more casual usage of the terms. Fi and Ti are both rational. Fi and Ti are both subjective. Feelings/morals are personal, subjective. Logic is impersonal, objective. Fi users tend to be attracted to moral systems, while Ti users tend to be attracted to logical ones, and both users incorporate the values and principles of those systems into their own frameworks of judging analysis.

In fact, introversion, extroversion, thinking, and feeling in MBTI also have different connotations than the "normal" usage of the terms do, but the MBTI definitions and the "real" definitions are often conflated in discussions on these forums. As a result, quite often, more is read into the MBTI definitions than should be.

 

[Space_Oddity]

Sorry, maybe I just misunderstand, but your perception of Fi as something "subjective and irrational" implies to me that you think it's entirely individual for every person - something that doesn't have any solid basis. But I don't find this true. Fi is based on moral system, and personally, I do find moral system universal, and therefore (I assume?) objective. That is what made me comment about the "law of logic vs. law of love" - Ti users seem to perceive logic as something universal, but Fi users tend to perceive love and mercy as something universal. If Fi was something entirely "subjective and irrational", every Fi user would be entirely different and would have entirely different values and morals, but they don't. You might perceive Fi users as "living in their fantasy world" , but as for me, I perceive Ti users as "living in their fantasy world" as well. It's just a little different world

 

[Poki]

Sorry, maybe I just misunderstand, but your perception of Fi as something "subjective and irrational" implies to me that you think it's entirely individual for every person - something that doesn't have any solid basis. But I don't find this true. Fi is based on moral system, and personally, I do find moral system universal, and therefore (I assume?) objective. That is what made me comment about the "law of logic vs. law of love" - Ti users seem to perceive logic as something universal, but Fi users tend to perceive love and mercy as something universal. If Fi was something entirely "subjective and irrational", every Fi user would be entirely different and would have entirely different values and morals, but they don't. You might perceive Fi users as "living in their fantasy world" , but as for me, I perceive Ti users as "living in their fantasy world" as well. It's just a little different world

How can moral systems be universal? Something as simple as abortion can be argued on so many levels but you would have your own "personal" moral opinion of it. Sorry, couldnt think of a better topic, I dont want to go into the reasons or logic in regards to abortion. Though shall not kill, yet in some instances its ok. If morals were universal we wouldnt need judges or courts, or any of that.

 

[MacGuffin]

Fi is based on moral system, and personally, I do find moral system universal, and therefore (I assume?) objective.

You personally find something objective... lol.

 

[entropie]

I lately had an intresting meeting with the Dad of my girlfriend. We know each other already but he is in a kind of situation at the moment. His 90 year old mother become really bad at old age and did something evil with money and hurt him very very much with that. It's best described as she betrayed her own son.

He got very frustrated and angry about that, but he never showed. He's still a nice and friendly man on the outside, looking like nothing could move him. But then we measured blood pressure in a group *lol* ( it's a family of doctors, they do such things ). And he had a high blood pressure I have never seen in my life. He had a blood pressure of 250 mmHG what's like overkill and he was totally calm on the outside.

With that I will not say that Fi means to hide your emotions or to be not able to vocalize them; I rather think Fi people are the Ones who do need some time, some times a lot of time to settle with things that moved their lifes gravely.

I wouldnt say in any moment that this fail or anything else, to me it's the most basic expression of what humans are, namely humans.

I am quite convinced that, especially if someone hasnt experienced much of life yet and got many questions or hadnt had the chance to ever share his own feelings in a close way with another person, this can breed a lot of solitude.

But then again solitude rocks. My life would be empty without wumpscut

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PscqFGvRFPI"].[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Space_Oddity]

How can moral systems be universal? Something as simple as abortion can be argued on so many levels but you would have your own "personal" moral opinion of it. Sorry, couldnt think of a better topic, I dont want to go into the reasons or logic in regards to abortion. Though shall not kill, yet in some instances its ok. If morals were universal we wouldnt need judges or courts, or any of that.

Ok, I get what you meant now. But what I mean is that Fi users are very often inclined to have similar approaches and stances towards the same topics. I always feel my INFP friends are my "soul-mates", and when we discuss something, we very often agree. In fact, we usually agree. Even on controversial topics. It's as if we worked on the same inner principle. I experience something similar with my INTJ mum and friends, so I guess it really might be Fi/Te at work.

I realize now that when I wrote that "morals are universal" I probably had in mind Fi morals, but what I meant was for example that the idea of universal love is something included in every religion, no matter how it's misused.

You personally find something objective... lol.

The word "personally" was more of a filler, actually

 

[EJCC]

Simulatedworld...
1. I understand where you were coming from, with your first post. The thread you were responding to annoyed me, too - esp. the way his posts were phrased. But of course, for a poor ESTJ like me, trying to read VictorTater language is really, really hard. I just get impatient with it, and I think "Why can't you get your point across in a straightforward, matter-of-fact way?" But that's just me. To each his/her own.
2. I haven't read the entire thread, but I read a couple pages back when you were talking about how a lot of people still really like your posts (take note: I am one of those people), and that the people who would start avoiding you would be people you didn't want to interact with anyways, i.e. INFPs. But, just so you know, if/when people do choose to not interact with you after all this, it won't be because they're easily offended. It'll be because people thought you were being a jerk, and make a point of avoiding people who they consider to be jerks. And the standards held at INTPc would definitely not make them feel differently about your behavior.
3. I think that, when you posted that first post, you were just stating what a lot of people were already thinking, but didn't want to say - i.e. CERTAIN INFPs should stop doing that. I certainly thought that, too, but I didn't say anything, because 1. that would be a personal attack, and 2. the paranoia you mentioned is so deeply held by those select few INFPs that, imo, they're impossible to convince otherwise, and that's just who they are. Better to ignore all that, than to get involved in an absolutely pointless debate.
4. Finally, on to my question: Why make this thread? What purpose does it serve? Keep in mind that I'm not your enemy, and I'm not one of those people who's going to ignore you now - it's an innocent question, and I just want a little insight into your though process.

 

[Venom]

Ok, I get what you meant now. But what I mean is that Fi users are very often inclined to have similar approaches and stances towards the same topics. I always feel my INFP friends are my "soul-mates", and when we discuss something, we very often agree. In fact, we usually agree. Even on controversial topics. It's as if we worked on the same inner principle. I experience something similar with my INTJ mum and friends, so I guess it really might be Fi/Te at work.

I realize now that when I wrote that "morals are universal" I probably had in mind Fi morals, but what I meant was for example that the idea of universal love is something included in every religion, no matter how it's misused.



The word "personally" was more of a filler, actually

The Fi universal is that things should be decided outside of (this is going to hard to word)...other "facts". Here, I'll let Lenore Thompson say it for me:

"As an epistemological perspective, Fi leads you to take whatever a person thinks or believes as an expression of that person's unique nature--not to criticize it because it fails to live up to some externally imposed criteria like whether or not it's "logical" or "appropriate". As an ethical perspective, Fi leads you to act out of empathy regardless of the social status or "deservingness" of the beneficiary. Fi leads you to view all living things as equal in value, all needing to thrive in interpersonal harmony without giving up any of their uniqueness."

In other words, a Te world view might want to take consideration of a whole bunch of facts before ruling on a moral issue: "What will follow as a logical consequence of ruling this way?" "Did the person have a warning?" "Did the victim deserve it?" "How many people did this behavior harm?" "Did the perpetrator break a particular law on the books, regardless of whether that law is conscionable?"

The Fi world view can decide upon moral things without any of these pertinent facts. This is why non Fi users often feel like Fi users make court rulings without even hearing the case facts! To non Fi users its as if they are blind to cause and effect, "Mr Fi user! you do realize that ruling that way would create moral hazard, adverse selection and a host of other problems as a result of treating everyone equal/forgiving punishment?".

Its this metaphorical blindness to cause and effect that actual ends up being the Fi redeeming quality however. This is what allows them to simply call out unconscionable acts to our attention. The sort of acts that are simply inhumane regardless of the laws of the book, regardless of past transgressions, regardless of moral hazard, regardless of adverse selection, regardless of how 'effective' something might be. This is why selling body parts, capital punishment and exploitation of labor often come up on the Fi-radar the strongest: they are things that might be perfectly functioning in a society, be totally legal in some places and maybe even solve problems, YET at the end of the day still be unconscionable. Thats Fi.

These, "thats unconscionable" realizations are however quite rarely as important irl. This is probably why the Fi looks like they are crying wolf so damn much

 

[Poki]

Ok, I get what you meant now. But what I mean is that Fi users are very often inclined to have similar approaches and stances towards the same topics. I always feel my INFP friends are my "soul-mates", and when we discuss something, we very often agree. In fact, we usually agree. Even on controversial topics. It's as if we worked on the same inner principle. I experience something similar with my INTJ mum and friends, so I guess it really might be Fi/Te at work.

I realize now that when I wrote that "morals are universal" I probably had in mind Fi morals, but what I meant was for example that the idea of universal love is something included in every religion, no matter how it's misused.



The word "personally" was more of a filler, actually

Ok, so if someone doesnt agree with you then they are not as much of a "soul-mate". Could it be possible you limit your "soul-mates" based on similiar internal morals and have based "universal morals" on this? You control who you are around and in essence steer your "universal" morals based on this?

One thing I notice in Te is hesitation if you feel like someone is trying to unwillingly steer your logic. You close yourself off to maintain your morals or your decision. This may not be you, but people tend to surround themselves with like minded individuals.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sorry, maybe I just misunderstand, but your perception of Fi as something "subjective and irrational" implies to me that you think it's entirely individual for every person - something that doesn't have any solid basis. But I don't find this true. Fi is based on moral system, and personally, I do find moral system universal, and therefore (I assume?) objective. That is what made me comment about the "law of logic vs. law of love" - Ti users seem to perceive logic as something universal, but Fi users tend to perceive love and mercy as something universal. If Fi was something entirely "subjective and irrational", every Fi user would be entirely different and would have entirely different values and morals, but they don't. You might perceive Fi users as "living in their fantasy world" , but as for me, I perceive Ti users as "living in their fantasy world" as well. It's just a little different world

Umm, every person's Fi is uniquely individual. If it wasn't, every Fi would have to agree with every other Fi on every issue, which is clearly not the case. Fi is absolutely not universal or objective...but both Fi and Ti users do tend to make the mistake of believing their Fi/Ti to be objective/universal, when in fact neither is.

Not to mention, if every Fi person had the same universal ideas about ethics, that would really threaten the whole "we are all unique individuals who cannot be categorized by four letters" thing, wouldn't it?

By the way, Fi and Ti are subjective because they exist only within the user and independently of any external influence.

Fe and Te are objective because they depend on external conditions for their definitions of morality and logic.

You personally find something objective... lol.

 

[Space_Oddity]

...

Thank you for this explanation, Babylon Candle. I agree with everything, except for the last two sentences I know that Fi ideals are deemed "inefficient" or "impractical" in this society, but I believe it shouldn't be like this If people placed more value on what is "unconscionable", or at least the same amount of value as on what is efficient, the world would become a better place, in my Fi opinion. Of course certain amount of Te is necessary to balance out Fi, but it should also go the other way round, and sadly it usually doesn't.

 

[simulatedworld]

do you think Ti more frequently claims to be objective, despite the fact that both Ti and Fi are of subjective origin?

Yes, that is a common Ji mistake in general. Ti-ers often cannot see how their sense of natural logic is subjective any more than Fi-ers can see that about their sense of morality.

 

[entropie]

Thank you for this explanation, Babylon Candle. I agree with everything, except for the last two sentences I know that Fi ideals are deemed "inefficient" or "impractical" in this society, but I believe it shouldn't be like this If people placed more value on what is "unconscionable", or at least the same amount of value as on what is efficient, the world would become a better place, in my Fi opinion. Of course certain amount of Te is necessary to balance out Fi, but it should also go the other way round, and sadly it usually doesn't.

Indeed.

 

[Thalassa]

Yes, that is a common Ji mistake in general. Ti-ers often cannot see how their sense of natural logic is subjective any more than Fi-ers can see that about their sense of morality.

But many mature, educated Fi-ers know that their sense of morality is subjective. I would say the same of Ti-ers and their logic.

I think it's just as possible for an Fe-er to think their group's morality is the "right" or "done" way of doing things, just as a Te-er could assert that the efficient way of doing things is the "only" logical course of action.

People, especially when they are young and/or ignorant, are always going to be seeing the world from their own perspective.

 

[entropie]

That doesnt change with many even at older age

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

But many mature, educated Fi-ers know that their sense of morality is subjective. I would say the same of Ti-ers and their logic.

I think it's just as possible for an Fe-er to think their group's morality is the "right" or "done" way of doing things, just as a Te-er could assert that the efficient way of doing things is the "only" logical course of action.

People, especially when they are young and/or ignorant, are always going to be seeing the world from their own perspective.

I agree. I have noticed a HUGE difference from frequenting this place, just between 20,30, and 40 year olds in how much the different functions are pulled into play. I think a mature and developmentally functional person has learned to use most of the functions at least fairly well by the time he/she is an adult. But I think it's glaringly obvious that the devepmentally dysfunctional person illustrates a correlation between younger age and immature functions; they just haven't had as much time to work through issues, or develop those undifferentiated functions as much or as well.

 

[Poki]

In regards to Babylons post, that defines Fi in terms of whats its objective or what it tries to do though. Fi "leads", etc. It doesnt define Fi, but through what it does or aims to achieve. It defines it through "lack of Te". How does lack of Te make it a moral decision and if Te is not moral and Fi is moral where do Ti and Fe stand? It sounds like she is defining Fi from what it is not, but all Lenore seems to know is what Fi is not(Te) and what it aims to achieve. Maybe we should get SFPs to define what Fi actually is and how to use it and get NFPs to define what it does and is used for.

Yes, that is a common Ji mistake in general. Ti-ers often cannot see how their sense of natural logic is subjective any more than Fi-ers can see that about their sense of morality.

I know it is subjective, but I cannot see myself how my logic is subjective.