User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 216

Thread: Baffled by Fi

  1. #131
    Senior Member evilrobot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    nite
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    182

    Default

    The underyling assumption of simulatedworld’s arguments on functions is that Jung’s original text on psychological types is the absolute truth. If someone makes a statement seeming to contradict something Jung originally wrote, sw pounds them with Jung quotes and paraphrases like a Christian fundamentalist quoting scripture. This goes against the grain of Jung, who wasn’t dogmatic about his theories like Freud was. Jung also believed individuals are too complex to fit perfectly into typologies. In other words, Jung saw his typology theory as an approximation, not a gospel. It’s also nearly a century old, and if he were alive writing about it today, Jung likely would have his own revisions to make.

    Members posting on functions are usually referring to the revisions of Jung’s functions and overall system by Myers-Brigg (Gifts Differing) and Lenore Thomson (Pesonality Types: An Owner’s Manuel). I’m not saying simulatedworld is wrong to bring up Jung, who no doubt wrote some of the most profound and exotic function descriptions, especially compared to some of the generic mbti books, but to use Jung's original text like a fundamentalist is to engage in the selective literalism of a Christian fanatic with the Bible. Sw’s assumption is that because he knows Jung’s original text better than most people on this forum, and can split hairs with a fine razor over any word or phrase which seems to contradict it, his arguments are automatically correct.
    X___________________________________

    If things are not what they seem, and we are forever reminded that this is the case—then it must also be observed that enough of us ignore this truth to keep the world from collapsing. –Thomas Ligotti, The Mystics of Muelenberg

  2. #132
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ If you had read my posts in this thread in their entirety you'd know that I don't use a purely Jungian interpretation. But I've come to expect mouthing off before bothering to inform yourself from you, so I can't say I'm surprised.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #133
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Here's a great example of Tertiary-Ni causing an ISP to go off the rails:
    Very entertaining. Most unifying theories I've heard from ISTPs are complete gibberish. The men who miss nothing, who have an acute sense of what is in front of them, are unable to perceive the world around them.

    [youtube=HOXeYGWWqvU]Inferior Fi versus Tertiary Fe[/youtube]

    (0:01-1:32) Here, Joe Shea's enigmatic pining earns him a visit from Deke Slayton. Ironically, Slayton's concern is genuine but his affability and equivocation, otherwise invaluable for diplomacy, come off as oleaginous. Joe Shea calls him on it, repeatedly smashing through qualifying statements to reach the authentic position.

  4. #134
    Senior Member evilrobot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    nite
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    182

    Default

    In much of the heady debate between SolitaryWalker and simulatedworld, simulatedworld continues to insist on a very literal interpretation of Jung, apparently believing people are actually more or less pure function types, which solitarywalker rightly disputes. Personally, and I’m not just being ironic about this, I’d find it fascinating to view an alternate universe containing the pure types simulatedworld envisions—in a way it would be like glimpsing the collective archetypes themselves rather than just the images they generate—but I don’t think I’d want to live there.

    *

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ^ If you had read my posts in this thread in their entirety you'd know that I don't use a purely Jungian interpretation. But I've come to expect mouthing off before bothering to inform yourself from you, so I can't say I'm surprised.
    Sorry I “mouthed off” to you, sw. I forgot how sensitive you are. Do you deny, then, that your standard formula in many of these function usage arguments has been to split hairs over words or phrases and use Jung quotes and paraphrases to give you authority?
    X___________________________________

    If things are not what they seem, and we are forever reminded that this is the case—then it must also be observed that enough of us ignore this truth to keep the world from collapsing. –Thomas Ligotti, The Mystics of Muelenberg

  5. #135
    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 evilrobot View Post
    In much of the heady debate between SolitaryWalker and simulatedworld, simulatedworld continues to insist on a very literal interpretation of Jung, apparently believing people are actually more or less pure function types, which solitarywalker rightly disputes. Personally, and I’m not just being ironic about this, I’d find it fascinating to view an alternate universe containing the pure types simulatedworld envisions—in a way it would be like glimpsing the collective archetypes themselves rather than just the images they generate—but I don’t think I’d want to live there.
    Can you read? Really? I've agreed with him several times that shadow functions do get some use, just that they're atypical. You keep brutally misquoting me and inaccurately summarizing my points in this thread. Reading every twentieth word and trying to fill in the meaning isn't going to help you understand what I'm saying here.

    Also, I've gone into a number of typological implications that Jung never mentioned...which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the thread. Claiming that I use a strictly literalist Jungian interpretation is clearly absurd. Half of solitarywalker's posts in this thread have called me a "folk typologist" for breaking from Jung's method; if there's anyone who's displaying a purist, literalist interpretation of Jung it's clearly solitarywalker, not me. This is really turning into a pattern with you. Stop misquoting me and ascribing positions to me that I haven't taken; it's really obnoxious.

    Quote Originally Posted by evilrobot View Post
    Sorry I “mouthed off” to you, sw. I forgot how sensitive you are. Do you deny, then, that your standard formula in many of these function usage arguments has been to split hairs over words or phrases and use Jung quotes and paraphrases to give you authority?
    Yes. Your perception that I am splitting hairs over trivial distinctions is usually mistaken--these distinctions are often far more significant than you believe. As you yourself have admitted, some of the things I write on the subject are "so far over your head it's not even funny."

    And seriously, if you want to complain about splitting hairs, look how much whining solitarywalker did over my use of the terms "value system" and "worldview" even after I repeatedly clarified the context in which they were intended.

    Once again I'll point out that Te often thinks Ti is splitting hairs over trivial distinctions, when in reality Te just lacks the depth of precision that Ti has. This results in a lot of whining by NTJs about the degree of specificity that NTPs will insist upon in defining things, but try to consider that there might be a good reason for it that you haven't fully considered.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #136
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, Jung described features of the mind that are regularly exhibited by people ot the temperaments that he has described. These features describe mere tendencies rather than behavior that must and will be constantly displayed by people to whom they apply. For instance, the material Jung was quoted on in the Extroverted Intuition description cites mere inclinations that people have rather than behaviors by which their type is identified. Thus, the following type of thinking would be mistaken. 'Oh look, Jon matches this, this and that quality Jung says an Ne type has, but goodness I have never seen him acting like he does not at all notice physical objects, so he cannot be an Ne type!' In other words, if you interpret Jung as describing rigid and obvious habits of thought and action, then yes his theories have very little application to description of real people. However, if you interpret him as describing mere cognitive tendencies, then his insights are indeed quite applicable.

    It is a fact that all functions are grounded in a person's mental constitution or what Jung calls psyche. A function is extroverted if it is most easily stimulated by interaction with the world than through solitary activity, and introverted if vice versa.

    Altogether, we often see this type naturally engaging in what Neo-Bebeans call Fe activity. Altogether it is conceivable that they were genuinely stimulating Feeling-wise by the external world often rather than in the way that is the most natural to them (Fi). However, since Fi predominates, the Fe way will always be less natural for this type and shall always be met with far greater internal opposition than in the case of an Fe type.

    That's not what Ti is, you've been infected with the germ of Neo-Bebbean typology that you've been severely criticizing. You ascribed too many illegitimate behavioral tendencies to type. Ti is just a tendency to be stimulated to think or perceive structure in the world by inner mental content more so than the external world. In principle, its possible for a person with this firm cognitive habit to behave in a way we expect a conventional Te type American behaves.

    You could call Ti as a 'value system' of activating thinking in response to cognitive stimuli that are internal more than external, yet I still think that the term value is misleading in this context. First of all, its far too broad, as the conventional dictionary has 18 disparate definitions for this term, most of which refer to some kind of conscious cognition. Its manifest ambiguity would compel me to resist using the word as much as possible, let alone in a discussion of an abstruse philosophy of mind topic.

    Military and a fast paced busy city office work. Someone who has Te as the naturally supressed function could simply be forced to realize that operating in the Te way or receiving stimulation is simply the easiest way to prevail.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I would argue that Fi and Fe are far more different than you seem to believe. You can observe in real Fi dominant people that getting used to being stimulated toward emoting by internal means (Fi) builds up a stigma against being stimulated toward emoting by external means--the Fi user comes to believe that genuine feelings only come from the inside, hence the belief common among Fi users that "following your heart" is the most important thing and that the Fe style of emoting is disingenuous and superficial. If you don't really feel it from the inside, Fi users reason, it's not "real" feeling and thus doesn't deserve serious consideration.
    The whole concept of "stimulation" really clarifies it. I also wonder if Sim's concept of "value system/worldview" might have merit too, but I think the concept of stimulation of the psyche helps distinguish genuine "function" manifestation from everyday "undifferentiated" activity everyone does (kike everyone can "see", without necessarily "using Se").

    So not only is a function determined by whether the stimulation is coming from the external or internal world, but also whether the stimulation is in the form of thinking or emoting, or sensing or abstracting.

    So I posit that it is eight different complexes within each psyche that are stimulated by associated functions, which is what causes them to be differentiated.

    So the ego's main faculty will take on a "heroic" complex, and if it predominantly chooses Thinking, and internal stimulation, then this "hero" complex will be stimulated by Ti.
    The auxiliary will then take on a "parental" nature, and be stimulated by a perception function in the opposite orientation, and if is iNtuition, this "parent" complex will be stimulated by external abstraction
    A "child" complex will be stimulated by internal concrete data.
    Only semi-consciously, our deep soul will be stimulated by externally oriented emoting.
    Four negative versions of these complexes will be stimulated by the same four functions, but with the orientation reversed.
    Opposing Personality is stimulated by Thinking in the suppressed external orientation
    critical parent by the internal abstracting ignored by the good parent
    a negative child will be stimulated by external sensory data
    and a negative soul will be stimulated by the internal emoting rejected by the hero.

    This I believe is the heart of Beebe's teaching.

    I don't see that this explanation necessitates Fe being stronger than Te. You've made an assumption that one who tends to be stimulated to emote by internal means (an Fi user) must also derive external stimulation from Feeling more easily than he does from Thinking. Why?
    I don't think that's necessarily the case, but it's easy to see why that might occur. Think of four functions, without any "orientation", yet. An ego prefers two of them, and suppresses the others. The ego then chooses it's dominant orientation, and the auxiliary falls into the opposite orientation. If that ego chooses Feeling as the dominant, then that ego is foremost a Feeler. It happens to choose the internal world to receive the emotive stimulation from, and suppresses the external. But Feeling still remains preferred over Thinking. And the internal world is still preferred over the external. So it's true that the inferior Thinking in the opposite orientation may be weaker than Feeling in the opposite orientation and Thinking in the same orientation.
    I think if you look at people around you and the way they operate, you'll see that Fi dom/aux people respond with Te much more naturally than they do with Fe. I've outlined the reasons leading with Fi tends to lead to an anti-Fe worldview, but I'm sure you'll start whining about folk typology because I'm using my observations of and interactions with real people instead of sticking strictly to Jung.

    Nonetheless, Te tends to lead to the view that logic comes from external stimuli, which is actually more compatible with Fi than is Fe, for reasons outlined above. Your reasoning seems to go: "Because Te is more different from Fi than is Fe, it must be lower in the cognitive hierarchy for an Fi dom/aux person", but I don't see what necessitates this. You can interact with real Fi dominant people and note that they almost always identify with Te over Fe--to the Fi dom, Fe seems disingenuous and runs counter to the near-ubiquitous Fi value that the only legitimate feelings come from the inside.
    The "tandem" (in this case, the "spine") by which Fi and Te "work together" is really tied more to the complexes I articulated above. Since the anima/animus associated with the inferior is considered ego-syntonic, then the Te it is stimulated by will ultimately carry a more positive connotation within the psyche. Yet, this will only be semi-conscious (especially before midlife), and it will basically be the most consciously suppressed (the other four are totally in the unconscious, remember). Hence, seeming the weakest, while the others may surface more strongly at times. This seems to be part of the basis of Lenore's "lasagna" stack, with the tertiary and inferior on the bottom.

    So an Fi dom. will usually be sort of put off and intimidated by Te, because it lies in a vulnerable area for him. Then, in various situations, his mature, confident heroic Fi might degrade into its aggressive shadow, Fe which also "backs up" the heroic function and fills in its blind spots. After all, there is only one Feeling function. This ego has just chosen to suppress stimulation from one possible source. Yet the other source is still there, just below the consciousness in the psyche, and ready to erupt when the values of the hero are thwarted, or need reinforcement. Hence, Fe might seem to be stronger than Te. He consciously suppresses one, while the other is unconscious, and just comes up unconsciously.

    So this is the key to all of this, and the way to resist falling into the dreaded "folk typology". We cannot make the "eight processes" into totally separate objects. That is the very mistake of the folk concept. There are four functions that stimulate an ego and its complexes in either an internal or external direction. The orientation stimulation is received from naturally lies in the ego, not the functions themselves.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #137
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why don't you trying paying attention to context to discern which meaning was implied instead of assuming that all possible meanings are equally likely? That might make the wording a little clearer..
    I assumed that the most conventional definition of the word is used because you failed to specify that you were using the word in an idiosyncratic manner.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So why isn't it folk typology when you discuss ways in which Te cognitive tendencies manifest themselves in people's behavior?..
    Because I make an explicit distinction between Te itself and the way it often manifests in behaviors. I would be guilty of a typological fallacy of behavioral observation as folk typologists usually are if I conflated those notions; however, I did not.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Right, but my point is that the conceptual merit of Jung's work is relative to one's perspective..?..
    The merit of an author's work does not depend on the perspective of his reviewer for legitimation. A work of conceptual integrity would still be a work of conceptual integrity if noone even recognized it as such. A person's certain bias or perspective, as you put it, may prevent him or her from understanding the virtues of a meritorious work, however, this fact alone does not show that the work in question is implausible.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Perspective is never irrelevant--you may find his work plausible, but that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't is automatically wrong.?..
    If I can provide a sound argument for my view, it does indeed follow that anyone who holds a view contradictory to mine is mistaken.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Many people find his theories totally implausible and they're not all definitively wrong simply because you disagree..?..
    They're definitely wrong because I have an argument to refute them with. Its one thing to simply state your disagreement with their view and another to vindicate your views with a sound argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This is littered with Ti bias. The only objective way to establish logical consistency is through empirical evidence, for which Jung has very little (if any.) Your Ti-oriented idea of logical consistency is far more subjective than you seem to think (typical of Ti types.)..?..
    What bias these statements contain is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether or not they are supported by a scientific bias.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's interesting--why hasn't neuroscience or any other objectively measurable scientific field adopted typology yet? Why is it not taken seriously by the scientific community, if its plausibility can be objectively proven? .)..?..
    Because Jung's work has been regarded as mystical and highly speculative, secondly, the notorious MBTI inkslingers have thoroughly vitiated his scholarly reputation. He is often seen as the grandfather of MBTI. Now, can you even begin to imagine any notion that is perceived as even remotely relevant to such rubbish as taken seriously by genuine scholars?


    On that note, in Principles of Typology, I have rendered Jung a great service. First of all, I have framed his views in a very systematic as well as a verbally precise manner, thereby giving them their philosophical justification. Secondly, I have extricated his work from the folk typological bilge by showing that his work is not at all similar to that of contempory authors of MBTI books. Thirdly, I have shown how in principle his ideas could be justified by science.

    The fact that scholars have not studied his work carefully does not show that it lacks merit, rather it shows that Jung has been severely misrepresented. In part due to his own rather circumlocutious, vague and unsystematic style of exposition and also due to the low quality work of those who are mistakenly regarded as his successors.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's You cannot directly observe how another person's mind works except through his behaviors and words..)..?..
    The trick is observing the words that best display their cognitive habits. Jung was performing the right technique when he was analyzing poetry, philosophy and biographies in his search for type. The MBTI writers were wrong to analyze people's behavior at common-place social gatherings.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This is ridiculous. How exactly do you go about directly observing the inner workings of another's mind without using with behaviors to infer what you think is probably going on? ..)..?..
    Read above.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Jung was also not in the business of belief that he could directly observe the mental tendencies of others without using their behaviors and speech as windows through which to infer mental tendencies. Your implication that you can simply directly observe the cognitive tendencies of others without observing behavior and attempting to infer the motivation for it is absurd...)..?..
    This is the key term for you to focus on: cognitive behaviors.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    A person working in isolation is still receiving an extraordinary amount of information from the outside all the time....)..?..
    Yes, but this does not mean that his extroverted faculties are working to the extent that they need to be in order to be fully usable. An extroverted cognitive function is by definition stimulated by action rather than passive activity. Merely receiving information will not be enough to ensure that it is engaged to produce its full potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It's impossible not to be..
    A person working on isolation is generally forced to rely on the introverted faculties far more than on the extroverted. Hint: in order to receive information from the outside, you don't need to use an extroverted function. You need to use an extroverted function only to be stimulated to engage in a certain cognitive task from without rather than from within.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The implication that a person working in isolation is somehow not receiving external stimuli is ridiculous.
    It certainly is ridiculous, I wonder what inspired you to include it in the discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm still waiting on an explanation for how your typological method is able to directly observe cognitive tendencies without using behavior or speech as a medium of inference of those tendencies..
    Observe cognitive tendencies by watching a person's activity where their mind is highly active instead of their mundane daily behaviors. Read their poetry, self-portraits or fantasy essays.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You'll have to share with me where you attained such extraordinary psychic abilities...
    No psychic abilities.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I never suggested that you did; rather, I offered that clarification in order to support my claim that Ni is not required for internal abstract reasoning. This can be done by Ne+Si just as easily....
    The trouble is that its terribly difficult to sufficiently activate Ne for a person committed to a solitary task.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...which can be used to infer what I said about Si depending on past impressions of meaning. Whatever sensations have made an impression upon the Si dominant's mind in the past are likely to be recalled and trusted above other cognitive faculties. ....
    You need to use intuition to recall those impressions, just like you need to use intuition to perform any cognitive task, from the minute to that of Napoleonic complexities.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Sorry if I don't buy your pretentious dismissal of any idea you don't like as "folk typology." It's clear that you regularly engage in the practice of inferring typological ideas beyond those which Jung explicitly stated, and yet you conveniently dismiss any such ideas on anyone else's part, when you don't like them, as "folk typology."....
    The difference is that I support my views with a solid rationale. I don't have to adhere to the original Jungian views in order to avoid being called a folk typologist, I only need to ensure that my views are adequately supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Did you ever consider that some of these so-called "folk typologists" are doing the same thing as you by trying to identify cognitive tendencies in others?."....
    Good, they've matured past the behaviorist stage in their inquiry. However, where they look for these cognitive tendencies also matters a great deal. Are they looking for these habits of mind in the behavior of their alcoholic uncle Joe that they've seen at a family party when they were five? Are they looking for them in the behavior of Dr.House or Dr.Seus? Or, alternatively, are they genuinely examing the cognitive behaviors of people who were expressing their thoughts at leisure and were not forced to obey any external standard? If it is the latter, then their typological inference would indeed carry far more weight than that of the people in the former camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ... The only real difference seems to be that they are not delusional enough to believe they can directly observe cognitive tendencies without studying behavior and speech as a means of inferring those cognitive tendencies--but you apparently are.?."....
    I don't think I am directly observing cognitive behaviors either. What led you to believe that this is what I was doing?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ... You don't even have any method of taking in information about other people except through observation of their behaviors and speech patterns. How is it that you are able to study their cognitive tendencies without paying any attention to this?
    .?."....
    Cognitive behaviors.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ... Well at least we agree on that..?."....


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ... Even sitting alone at a desk involves taking in a constant stream of information from the external world...?."....
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ... It's impossible for a conscious person to stop taking in external information; the brain does this all the time with or without his consent....?."....
    Exactly and this vindicates the claim that every person relies on Introverted perception quite significantly when engaging in a solitary task. He simply is not active enough to sufficiently engage the extroverted faculties.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...What exactly constitutes "insufficient stimulation from the outside"?....?."....
    The stimuli needed to get one's extroverted faculties to produce the output that he needs in order to rely on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...A person would have to stop taking in external information in order to be insufficiently stimulated from the outside--all he needs to do is look around him and consider possible observable connections between things in order to have fuel for Ne to work."?....?."....
    Extroverted functions will need a lot more stimulation than that to ignite. For the meantime, the person you have in mind would have to rely on Introverted Intuition.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I don't understand why you think sitting alone at a desk causes a person to stop taking in external stimuli to the degree that his extroverted functions cease to function.."?....?."....
    The activity is almost by definition low on stimuli. Generally an extrovert tends to be drained altogether by such an activity unless he happens to have a rich inner life or a captivating mental task to be occupied with. Much of this is because of the nature of his cognitive functions as cognitive functions define his temperament. The extroverted function does not cease to function, but it would be inactive to the point where it appears as if it has stopped functioning.







    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I've agreed with you on that several times now..."?....?."....


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...What exactly constitutes "Fe activity" if, in order to avoid the dreaded "folk typologist" label, we are to study only cognitive tendencies and not surface behaviors?..."?....?."....
    Becoming motivated to emote in response to external stimuli with little reference to the content of one's private thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...How might one engage in "Fe activity"....
    By conditioning oneself to emote in response to the external emotive prompt while paying little attention to the private inner mind-states.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I would argue that cognition akin to Fe is severely opposed by the tertiary Te process, as that is the ENFP's preferred method of making extroverted judgments. "....
    In that case Ne-Fi activity that is very reminiscent of Fe should also be severly opposed by that Te process, yet it isn't. Its not because Ne-Fi are above Te in the hierarchy of cognitive efficacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Why have you assumed such similarity between Fi and Fe? Have you not observed in your own experiences with others that the values typically held by Fi dominant vs. Fe dominant people seem to wholly contradict each other regarding which sources of Feeling stimulus are worthwhile?"....

    Because the function is the same, just the attitudes are different. What the two have in common is that Feeling is the most efficacious cognitive faculty of their psyche, that is by far more important than the natural sources of stimulation for both of these.







    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I would argue that Fi and Fe are far more different than you seem to believe. You can observe in real Fi dominant people that getting used to being stimulated toward emoting by internal means (Fi) builds up a stigma against being stimulated toward emoting by external means--the Fi user comes to believe that genuine feelings only come from the inside, hence the belief common among Fi users that "following your heart" is the most important thing and that the Fe style of emoting is disingenuous and superficial. If you don't really feel it from the inside, Fi users reason, it's not "real" feeling and thus doesn't deserve serious consideration.?"....
    I see the differecen between the two functions, yet what reason does this give me to believe that the discrepancy is wider than the one between Fe and Ti and or Fi and Te?



    I don't see that this explanation necessitates Fe being stronger than Te. You've made an assumption that one who tends to be stimulated to emote by internal means (an Fi user) must also derive external stimulation from Feeling more easily than he does from Thinking. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I think if you look at people around you and the way they operate, you'll see that Fi dom/aux people respond with Te much more naturally than they do with Fe.
    I don't see that. What evidence is available to support that claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I've outlined the reasons leading with Fi tends to lead to an anti-Fe worldview,.
    What reason is there to suppose that this antithesis surpasses the one between Thinking and Feeling or other functionally opposed faculties?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Nonetheless, Te tends to lead to the view that logic comes from external stimuli

    which is actually more compatible with Fi than is Fe, for reasons outlined above. Your reasoning seems to go: "Because Te is more different from Fi than is Fe, it must be lower in the cognitive hierarchy for an Fi dom/aux person", but I don't see what necessitates this. You can interact with real Fi dominant people and note that they almost always identify with Te over Fe--to the Fi dom, Fe seems disingenuous and runs counter to the near-ubiquitous Fi value that the only legitimate feelings come from the inside.,.
    How did you arrive at this view?


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Fi are almost ubiquitously against the Fe approach--they do not consider external stimuli toward feeling to be of any worth if these stimuli are not reflected internally..,.
    Where do you see that? If that is true, you should also conclude that Te people are naturally opposed to Ti people and vice versa, Ne people to Ni and Se to Si. Can you furnish the adequate evidence to support all of those claims? You have to support them all or the underlying principle collapses.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...On the other hand, they do consider external stimuli toward thinking to be of worth, given that they do not have a strong internal voice telling them that only internal stimuli toward thinking are worthwhile--so Te actually contradicts Fi's directives less than Fe...,.

    Now, that is folk typology. This paragraph contains no arguments, no references to purely cognitive behaviors, just expositions of behaviors of people who supposedly have this or that Jungian type.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...k, agreed. But through observation we can determine that most Ti users tend to adopt certain types of value systems in regards to logic, most commonly that logic is based on an internal and unwavering standard (as you have shown aptly describes your own value system above.)...,.
    Yes, they tend to, however, this claim is significantly different from 'they do'.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...It's amazing how everything becomes "folk typology" to you as soon as it involves heavy interaction with other people. Maybe there's something to this behavioral observation method that you simply don't grasp. Just how introverted are you, exactly?.)...,.
    Expositions of typology that focus on people's trivial daily behaviors and make no reference to purely cognitive tendencies tend to be labelled as folk typology, especially if they also lack the rigor of argument. There is nothing wrong with observing behaviors, as long as you separate the typologically relevant ones from the irrelevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Well, since the dictionary doesn't say anything about "worldview" necessitating a component of conscious judgment, then yes, I am prepared to claim that a microbe has a worldview.?.)...,.
    It implies the existence of a conscious component within the definition by defining worldview as a perspective according to which a person interprets the world. Interpretation is by definition conscious, an unconscious creature cannot interpret anything or contemplate how something it has observed should be understood, it can only respond on impulse.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...This is the last time I'm going to respond to your complaints about my use of the terms value system/worldview, though. I've made my case and I'm going to continue using those terms..?.)...,.
    So much for the worse for you.






    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Then how can you know that a Ti person is ever truly motivated by Te? Oh, I forgot--you have a magical psychic method of observing the cognitive tendencies of others unbiased by behavioral or speech tendencies. Of course...?.)...,.
    That is a tough question. We would have to conduct a closer reading of the works in which they have had the freedom to be true to their unconscious tendencies and see whether their structure recognizing faculties are more easily stimulated from within than from without.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Learning to use Te will require the Ti user to admit that logic isn't always dependent upon his own self-contained idea of absolute consistency,...?.)...,.
    That may be one step of their training to use the cognitive faculty that is at least somewhat unnatural to them.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...I really don't care how many different connotations it's capable of carrying; you should pay attention to context and recognize the one I'm using in this case for what it is. As long as just one of those possible definitions conveys the meaning I want in this case, I can and will continue to effectively use that word.,...?.)...,.
    If you're using a non-standard the definition, the onus is on you to make that perspicuous.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...If they have "an overall perspective from which they see and interpret the world", then yes, according to the dictionary, they do have a worldview. A cat's worldview is pretty simple, and mostly includes things like "Eat food when hungry" and "Sleep when tired.".,...?.)...,.
    A cat is an at least somewhat conscious creature, so it has some interpretive abilities. Hence, its capable of making conscious judgments.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...And no, the cat's worldview cannot be compared to the complex worldviews and ideologies of humans, but that doesn't really matter--again, the dictionary clearly states that any overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world constitutes a worldview..".,...?.)...,.
    The trouble is that the word worldview has no place in a definition of a type as it implies interpretation of the world which smuggles the notion of a conscious assessment into the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...So anyone who sees and interprets the world from any perspective, no matter how primitive or simplistic, has a worldview. Case closed...".,...?.)...,.
    The microbe doesn't, it just acts on instinct.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...Indeed, so if Te is not necessary for thinking out loud and sharing one's thoughts with others, what makes you think Ti is necessary for rigorous logical thought?...".,...?.)...,.
    I don't think that Ti is necessary for rigorous logical thought.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #138
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Therefore, an ENFP will not use Fe unless circumstances have forced him to abandon his natural preference for Te in making extroverted judgments..
    There are good reasons to believe that the Fe process is more preferred than the Te process because it is quite similar to the Ne-Fi process which externalizes Feeling.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The fact that Fe is similar in functional identity to Fi does not circumvent the ENFP's preference for Te when extroverting judgment...
    It does because Fe is not opposed by Fi on the functional level, yet Te is.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Look around you and study real live ENFPs and watch what they do when make extroverted judgment decisions--they are rarely using Fe....
    How they make decisions is irrelevant to whether or not they are using Fe. What is relevant is whether or not they are stimulated by the external world to engage in Feeling. To say that to use Fe is to make a decision is to employ the folk typological method that you've criticized before. Its akin to this: wohoo, I solved a math problem therefore I used Ti. Wohoo, I made a decision in consensus with the group, therefore I used Fe!






    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why is this a mistake? You state above that "...functions are more definitive of a person's cognitive constitution...", but why is this necessarily the case?....
    An attitude by definition states where the faculty functions and not how it functions. Where something is stationed is irrelevant to the question of the identity of the thing in question, how it works certainly is.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why is this a mistake? You state above What if the dom/aux attitudes actually tend to lead to value systems that contradict use of the opposite attitudes of those functions??....
    There is no reason why such a significant opposition should arise due to natural cognitive preferences and nothing besides that is relevant to a typological inquiry.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If that is the case, why do I as an ENTP behave more similarly to ESTPs than to ENTJs???....
    Behave where? Their cognitive behavior isn't much different from one another. Both tend to be astract thought and focus on structure of reasoning rather than emotive valuations. Other behaviors aren't relevant. You've just lapsed into folk typology again, congratulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why do we take more similar approaches to learning and interacting with others....
    What basis is there for this judgment?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'd argue that the fact that ENTP and ESTP are both dominant in Extroverted Perception and auxiliary in Introverted Judgment creates more similarities between us than the fact that ENTP and ENTJ both prefer iNtuition and Thinking as their primary cognitive processes.....
    You're overlooking the humongous Intution-Sensing divide, one the significance of which not even Keirsey missed! Even he stated that this amounts to the biggest discrepancy between people.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Besides, if this reasoning holds true--that functions which are opposed to the dominant in terms of functional identity as well as attitude must always be weaker than functions which are opposed to the dominant only in terms of attitude--then why isn't every Ti dominant's auxiliary function automatically Te?.....
    Because of the distinct strength of the auxiliary Ne. Ne is very strong because Thinking is mostly focused on the inner life, thus, it simply does not have enough energy to dominate both the inner world and the relations to the outer world. Thus, Ne is given an opportunity to rise. I don't see how my reasoning entails that Te must be second in the hierarchy. It clearly entails that Te must be strong, yet there is no reason to suppose that it must be strong enough to be the second in the order of efficacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If the INTP makes most natural use of the Thinking function, why should Ne be his auxiliary function? ].....
    Because the weight of the first function is placed on the inner realm, it can't dominate both the external and internal faculties simultaneously. That is why if the dominant function is a judging one, the auxiliary must be a perceiving one.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Ne is different from Ti in terms of both functional identity and attitude but Te is different from Ti only in terms of attitude, so by your reasoning,,].....
    See my response to your previous excerpt for the exception to this rule.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Ti and Te are more different than you seem to believe. They do not deal with the same type of cognitive task (one is introverted judgment and the other extroverted judgment) and thus do not make the same kinds of decisions in practice.,,].....
    They do indeed deal with the same cognitive task and that is of unconsciously striving to perceive structure in the external world. The only difference is how they are stimulated to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You seem focused almost exclusively on Jung's ideas in theory, but if you want typology to accomplish something useful in terms of interaction with others, you need to pay more attention to how cognitive tendencies actually manifest themselves in practice, in terms of the value systems and behavioral tendencies they tend to produce in others..,,].....
    That's fine as long as these behaviors are cognitive rather than grounded in physical action.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I have to wonder why you even bother stating your type as "INTP"--Jung never made use of any such four-letter type labels, as these are purely a product of the original "folk typologists", Myers and Briggs. Why would you descend so low as to describe yourself using terminology that is clearly rooted in folk typology?..,,].....
    I've slightly modified Jung's system and define INTP in a way that is different from that of the folk typologists and MBTI enthusiasts.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    There are good reasons to believe that the Fe process is more preferred than the Te process because it is quite similar to the Ne-Fi process which externalizes Feeling.



    It does because Fe is not opposed by Fi on the functional level, yet Te is.



    How they make decisions is irrelevant to whether or not they are using Fe. What is relevant is whether or not they are stimulated by the external world to engage in Feeling. To say that to use Fe is to make a decision is to employ the folk typological method that you've criticized before. Its akin to this: wohoo, I solved a math problem therefore I used Ti. Wohoo, I made a decision in consensus with the group, therefore I used Fe!








    An attitude by definition states where the faculty functions and not how it functions. Where something is stationed is irrelevant to the question of the identity of the thing in question, how it works certainly is.



    There is no reason why such a significant opposition should arise due to natural cognitive preferences and nothing besides that is relevant to a typological inquiry.




    Behave where? Their cognitive behavior isn't much different from one another. Both tend to be astract thought and focus on structure of reasoning rather than emotive valuations. Other behaviors aren't relevant. You've just lapsed into folk typology again, congratulations.



    What basis is there for this judgment?



    You're overlooking the humongous Intution-Sensing divide, one the significance of which not even Keirsey missed! Even he stated that this amounts to the biggest discrepancy between people.



    Because of the distinct strength of the auxiliary Ne. Ne is very strong because Thinking is mostly focused on the inner life, thus, it simply does not have enough energy to dominate both the inner world and the relations to the outer world. Thus, Ne is given an opportunity to rise. I don't see how my reasoning entails that Te must be second in the hierarchy. It clearly entails that Te must be strong, yet there is no reason to suppose that it must be strong enough to be the second in the order of efficacy.



    Because the weight of the first function is placed on the inner realm, it can't dominate both the external and internal faculties simultaneously. That is why if the dominant function is a judging one, the auxiliary must be a perceiving one.



    See my response to your previous excerpt for the exception to this rule.





    They do indeed deal with the same cognitive task and that is of unconsciously striving to perceive structure in the external world. The only difference is how they are stimulated to do so.



    That's fine as long as these behaviors are cognitive rather than grounded in physical action.





    I've slightly modified Jung's system and define INTP in a way that is different from that of the folk typologists and MBTI enthusiasts.
    Fe from an Fi user to me seems like it maintains its subjective nature and strives to keep that subjective nature even when turned external. Fe from an Fe user remains objective, even when turned inside.

    Its the same way with Ti. Ti turned external is still subjective, while Te turned internal is still objective.
    Im out, its been fun

  10. #140
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    Fe from an Fi user to me seems like it maintains its subjective nature and strives to keep that subjective nature even when turned external. Fe from an Fe user remains objective, even when turned inside.

    Its the same way with Ti. Ti turned external is still subjective, while Te turned internal is still objective.
    You've got to keep in mind that neo-Jungian typology contains two distinct definitions of objective. One describes something that is purely physical as opposed to mental, or external to the mind and the other describes something totally different. It describes a simple distance from a person's biases. Only the first definition pertains to the distinctions you've cited, the second does not.

    Fe in itself may be objective even when turned inside out, however, when Fe collaborates with an introverted function, a whole new cognitive effect is created: one that is in itself more reminiscent of Fi than Fe. This does not mean that Fe in itself changed, rather in combination with an introverted function, it contributed to a creation of a whole new cognitive entity.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Easily Disturbed By Things Going Wrong...is this Fi? or a J trait?
    By Thalassa in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 05:55 AM
  2. [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
  3. [Fi] Fi building
    By BlueScreen in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 03:09 PM
  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