User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 216

Thread: Baffled by Fi

  1. #51
    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 Psychological Types, page 534
    Introversion or extraversion, as the typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process, establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and thus determines not only the style of behaviour but also the quality of subjective experience.
    "An essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process" which "determines...the quality of subjective experience" = value system.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Portable Jung, page 207
    The extravert’s feeling is always in harmony with objective values...even when it appears not to be qualified by a concrete object, it is none the less still under the spell of traditional or generally accepted values of some kind. I may feel moved, for instance, to say that something is "beautiful" or "good", not because I find it "beautiful" or "good" from my own subjective feeling about it, but because it is fitting and politic to call it so, since a contrary judgment would upset the general feeling situation. A feeling judgment of this kind is not by any means a pretense or a lie, it is simply an act of adjustment.
    Here in the bolded part he's saying that Fe users don't use Fi. Their feeling is always objectively defined, "even when it appears not to be qualified by a concrete object."


    Quote Originally Posted by Psychological Types, page 450
    Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously.
    This is kind of vague, but seems to point to the idea that the shadow functions are either rarely used or not used at all. Again, he never explicitly says either way whether we use the shadow functions, but he seems to imply that if we do, it's awfully difficult and unusual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychological Types, page 534
    One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature.
    Out of context this may sound like he's saying that people only use all introverted or all extroverted functions, but that's not what it means. He's describing individual functions when he says "one cannot be...", so from this we can derive that one cannot be, for instance, an introverted Thinker unless all of his Thinking happens in an introverted fashion--ergo, Ti users do not use Te.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Portable Jung, page 209
    But one can feel "correctly" only when feeling is not disturbed by anything else. Nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking.
    Here he describes how Thinking and Feeling, when oriented in the same direction, are wholly contradictory attitudes, necessitating that their orientations be opposite each other. Fi cannot work correctly with Ti in its way because these two functions represent worldviews which are too diametrically opposed to inhabit the same individual.

    So from this I derive that Fi+Te and Ti+Fe cannot inhabit the same person because one (Fi+Te) represents a worldview that derives ethics from a subjective internal standard uninfluenced by external objects, and logic from an objective external standard according to what can be empirically verified...and the other (Ti+Fe) does the exact opposite.

    The very definitions of logic and ethics upon which their whole worldviews are built are completely inverted. Fi considers morality such a personal and inward process that any suggestion that "true" morality could be dependent upon objective context (Fe) is seen as absurd and nonsensical. Conversely, Ti is so fundamentally aware of its own idea of "natural logic" that the idea that logic might be subject to any sort of indefinite external variables is seen in a similar light--Ti users simply "know" a priori what is innately logical or not logical and no external empirical standard can change or influence that.

    On a more practical basis, if we could all tap into the shadow functions so easily and routinely, I doubt that we would have so much friction between Fi and Ti types--look at these Ti vs. Fi threads. The very bases from which we derive our conceptions of logic and morality are profoundly averse to each other at the most fundamental level--we are literally speaking different languages and neither side will ever fully understand the other.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #52
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    It's truly hilarious to me that like 95% of the forum thinks they use all the functions, but this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what functions actually are.
    Ti based functioning can co-exist with Fi. It'd just lead to alot of cognitive dissonance within an individual. I don't really agree at all with the assessments being given but I'm not really in the mood to debate about it, however those individuals that often claim to be have relatively good use of both functions tend to find a way of adapting between the two system.

    Regarding the whole Jung claiming shadow functions aren't used. Yes, he may be the person that started it all off, however it's obvious that he doesn't have absolute authority over the entire thing of how development could play out.

  3. #53
    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 Kai View Post
    Ti based functioning can co-exist with Fi. It'd just lead to alot of cognitive dissonance within an individual. I don't really agree at all with the assessments being given but I'm not really in the mood to debate about it, however those individuals that often claim to be have relatively good use of both functions tend to find a way of adapting between the two system.

    Regarding the whole Jung claiming shadow functions aren't used. Yes, he may be the person that started it all off, however it's obvious that he doesn't have absolute authority over the entire thing of how development could play out.
    If you have an actual argument for use of all eight functions, I'd love to hear it.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #54
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If you have an actual argument for use of all eight functions, I'd love to hear it.

    My entp says she has tasted Fi but it took several hours of fairly intensive NLP work to get there. SW if you are interested in really trying to move into the mindstate of the other functions, NLP may be the best tool kit. Google "meta-programs". It's kinda messy but you can see the function-program trends.

    Once I tasted Ti for a day or two. Ti was a singularity. It felt very distinct from my surroundings, fairly isolated, even a tiny bit repulsed by others trying to encroach upon it. Granted 1) it was cheated Ti and is not representative of what a real Ti user would feel and 2) This is from the perspective of an Fi user.


    In comparison, Fi feels like it flows out of my body and does not end. (NeFi?) It flows into other people, engulfs them, I never look at them, as I do not have to. That thing some Fi users do-telling you how you feel? I dont do that, but it comes so natural. By flowing into people around us, we become part of them, reflecting them. It is alien not to be part of some sort of continuum. That was the weirdest thing about the Psuedo-Ti state. The isolation...

    Okay,from the perspective of Te, that all sounds fucking crazy and I currently appear to have several layers of elmer's glue like Fi all over my hands. It's gonna take months to wash this crap off...ewwwwwwwwwwww.......

  5. #55
    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 Happy Puppy View Post
    My entp says she has tasted Fi but it took several hours of fairly intensive NLP work to get there. SW if you are interested in really trying to move into the mindstate of the other functions, NLP may be the best tool kit. Google "meta-programs". It's kinda messy but you can see the function-program trends..
    What is NLP?


    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    Granted 1) it was cheated Ti and is not representative of what a real Ti user would feel
    Exactly. Our regular functions can vaguely imitate the shadows, but we'll never really experience them firsthand because our regular functions necessarily block them out.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #56
    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
    "An essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process" which "determines...the quality of subjective experience" = value system..
    The term essential bias does not have the same meaning as the term value. In this context, the definition of the term value you were referring to is described in statement 11 of the dictionary.com entry.

    "Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself." (Value | Definition of Value at Dictionary.com:)

    In other words, a value is a moral principle which guides a person's worldview, which is how you seem to be using the word.


    Bias by definition is a certain disposition, or a tendency towards one way of thinking or acting over another. In some contexts biases include values or moral principles, but in many others they do not. It is a mistake to assume that when the term value is used, a reference is made to a moral principle.

    A more careful reading of Jung's descriptions of individual types show that he was not referring to moral principles that guide the person's worldview. The 'essential bias' conditioning the person's subjective experience was an unconscious, cognitive bias towards thinking and emoting in a certain fashion rather than towards selecting this or that 'value' or a moral principle.

    We observe this in the fact that Jung's type descriptions focus more on unconscious cognitive tendencies that people have rather than values they consciously adhere to. Consider the description of the Extroverted Sensing type for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychological Types, P.365
    The bondage to the object is carried to the extreme limit. In consequence, the unconscious is forced out of its compensatory role into open opposition...The pathological contents have a markedly unreal character, with a frequent moral or religious streak. A pettifogging captiousness follows, or a grotesquely punctilious morality combined with primitive, "magical" superstitions that fall back on abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions which have been driven into harsh opposition to the conscious attitude.

    Here Jung is clearly describing how a person inevitably behaves because of some cognitive imbalance in his mind rather than how he chooses to behave on principle or what the values of his worldview are.

    Now, consider a similar description of the Extroverted Intuitive type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychological Types, P.370
    He exempts himself from the restrictions of reason only to fall victim to neurotic compulsions in the form of over-subtle ratiocinations, hairsplitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation aroused by the object.
    Again, the message is clear: the focus of the discussion is on a person's cognitive tendencies rather than values or consciously selected decisions. Almost nowhere in type descriptions of in other parts of the book does he pay any heed to values as defined above. Jung was interested in understanding how the human mind works, especially the unconscious. The endeavor of describing how people 'work' is relatively new and hasn't been popularized until Briggs and Keirsey. Before the exposition regarding type descriptions, Jung wrote extensively on the type problem in poetry, biography and philosophy. This shows his focus on cognitive tendencies people have in intellectual endeavors, rather than their value-choices or what they do in general. This is the prominent distinction between Jung and modern folk typology theorists , Jung focused on understanding the tendencies of the mind, they focused on understanding people's conscious choices.

    One may protest 'what good is understanding the mind if it does not lead us to understand people, after all it is the human mind we are dealing with!'. Jung merely observed some basic cognitive tendencies people have and tried to focus on them. Doing that is one thing, but seeing how those tendencies fit into the bigger, complex picture of human behavior is something we aren't yet ready to do. That is the business of psychology as such a study would require an empirical investigation to discover how factors external to these tendencies Jung discovered impact the person's mind. Nowhere in his writing did Jung say that his type descriptions actually describe real people. In fact, one of the quotes you cited demonstrate his belief that type description is one thing and a description of a person is another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Portable Jung, P.534
    One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature..
    What this means is that no person is introverted as a type by definition incorporates only its own element. Introversion incorporates no extroversion and Fe incorporates no Fi. To paraphrase another one of Jung's claims, no man is either extroverted or introverted completely, as such a man would be in a lunatic asylum.






    Quote Originally Posted by Psychological Types, P.370
    Here in the bolded part he's saying that Fe users don't use Fi. Their feeling is always objectively defined, "even when it appears not to be qualified by a concrete object."t.
    You missed the distinction between type description and person description because you were expecting Jung to do the same kind of work as Keirsey and other heroes of folk typology. You were expecting him to be talking about people when he was describing a type and thought that when he was talking about Fe, he was talking about some person who has personality qualities associated with Fe.

    But wait a minute, Jung describes real human behavior in his type expositions, and even uses pronouns such as 'he, she, it'. This was a literary convenience and the use was more figurative than literal. His point was to describe the nature of the type by forcing the reader to imagine how a person dominated by this cognitive tendency would behave. That is why his characters are exaggerated to the extreme.

    In other words, open the psychological types to page 354 and look at the section title more carefully and the context it is placed in. It reads as 'Extraverted Feeling type', not Extraverted Feeling person. This was stated in the context of a book the 330 opening pages of which were concerned with analysis of cognitive habits and tendencies rather than human behavior. As a result we get the following truism: Extraverted Feeling by definition does not use Fi, as it is not Fi. The same could be said about any other type or function.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Again, he never explicitly says either way whether we use the shadow functions, but he seems to imply that if we do, it's awfully difficult and unusual..
    No, read the quote again.

    "Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously."

    Simultaneously is the key word. Your interpretation would have been tenable if he left that word out and said that its almost impossible for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions, period. As the quote stands, one may infer that it is difficult, if not impossible to develop them all at the same time, but it may be possible to develop them non-simultaneously, or one at a time. That is why we often notice elderly people excelling at learning behaviors that are associated with their inferior function. Earlier in their lives they could not develop their inferior functions simultaneously as their dominant, but eventually they got around to doing so.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    He's describing individual functions when he says "one cannot be...",..
    Aha, thank you! Here you stated that he is describing 'individual functions', not people. There is a huge difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    so from this we can derive that one cannot be, for instance, an introverted Thinker unless all of his Thinking happens in an introverted fashion--ergo, Ti users do not use Te....",..
    No, from this we can derive that a type that is a Ti or something that is simply a Ti function cannot at the same time be a Te function. This notion is trivial, if not simplistic: its heuristic value is analogous to an insight about logic positing that two non-overlapping entities cannot share an identity and its analogous to a proposition about anatomy that if something is a toe, it cannot also be a tooth.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Here he describes how Thinking and Feeling, when oriented in the same direction, are wholly contradictory attitudes, necessitating that their orientations be opposite each other.....",..
    Yes, there is an antithesis between functions of Thinking and Feeling.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Fi cannot work correctly with Ti in its way because these two functions represent worldviews which are too diametrically opposed to inhabit the same individual......",..
    As a general rule, one function dominates and the other becomes subservient. This does not mean, however, that the subservient function has no influence at all, its merely much less efficacious than the dominant.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So from this I derive that Fi+Te and Ti+Fe cannot inhabit the same person because one (Fi+Te) represents a worldview......",..
    No, these are merely cognitive tendencies that represent no worldview. A person's world depends on more than mere cognitive habits, as much of it is a result of his non-typological personality features and life experiences. His type may cause him to be inclined to accept a certain worldview, but type alone won't compell him to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    that derives ethics from a subjective internal standard uninfluenced by external objects, and logic from an objective external standard according to what can be empirically verified...and the other (Ti+Fe) does the exact opposite.......",..

    At best, one could claim that these cognitive processes tempt a person to reason in such a manner. However, there is no reason to conclude that both of them cannot inhabit the same person. There is no reason to reject the thesis that both inhabit the same person, but one is by far more pronounced than the other.

    If you're going to claim that in a mind-state where Ti-Fe dominates, the Te-Fi process does not exist at all because it contradicts the Ti-Fe process, you should also claim that where Intuition dominates, there is no sensing. As a result, you'd arrive at an absurdity that some minds do not rely on senses at all and no part of their cognitive notions has derived from the senses. Similarly, you'd have to concede that where a Feeling type dominates, there is no Thinking at all because it is the opposite process. If you aren't prepared to do that, you can't claim that there is no Te-Fi process in a Ti-Fe dominated mind on that basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The very definitions of logic and ethics upon which their whole worldviews are built are completely inverted.
    Thinking alone has nothing to do with logic, nor does feeling have anything to do with ethics. At best the former temperament may lead a person to develop an interest in logic and the latter in morality, however, whether the person actually does develop such interests depends on more than just type.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Fi considers morality such a personal and inward process that any suggestion that "true" morality could be dependent upon objective context (Fe) is seen as absurd and nonsensical..
    No, Fi alone does not do any of that, nor does Fe. An Fi dominated person may be by his nature strongly inclined to favor the former approach over the latter, however, in appropriate circumstances he may choose the latter. Fe, Fi and other types are mere cognitive tendencies, not immutable personality features. The latter interpretation has never even occurred in Jung, its chiefly a folk typological invention, primarily Keirseyan and Neo-Keirseyan. To this day, it trashes forums, typology blogs and conventional type profile descriptions.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Conversely, Ti is so fundamentally aware of its own idea of "natural logic" that the idea that logic might be subject to any sort of indefinite external variables is seen in a similar light--Ti users simply "know" a priori what is innately logical or not logical and no external empirical standard can change or influence that...
    Really? Even a Ti user who has been abandoned on an unvisted Island at the age of two who as a result never even learned to speak?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    On a more practical basis, if we could all tap into the shadow functions so easily and routinely, I doubt that we would have so much friction between Fi and Ti types--look at these Ti vs. Fi threads. ...
    Has it ever crossed your mind that this is a result of more than just type? This forum is an offshoot of INTPc which almost by definition is the arena for young, truculent pseudo-intellectuals to match witts. MBTIc was created as a result of the great 'NF' purge or a systematic attempt to expell people who appear to be maudlin.

    As a result, two cultures have formed, one of people who support the INTPc values and the other of those who insist that its crucial to ensure that this forum does not adapt the old INTPc regime. Yes, these attitudes were influenced by type, but not only type. As a result, what you perceive to be a Ti-Fi conflict, which without a doubt exists, has been greatly intensified by the history of our community. No doubt that there is a natural antithesis between Thinking and Feeling, but this is no reason to conclude that in a mind where Thinking dominates, Feeling does not exist at all.

    You've drawn such a conclusion on the basis of your heedless interpretation of the following Jungian statement. "Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously."

    You've mistaken the proposition of 'difficult to develop simultaneously' for 'difficult to develop altogether'.

    You're quite correct to note that one reason why our forum members tend to misunderstand one another frequently and often develop hostile relations is because they can't tap into their inferior functions. Since it is extremely difficult to develop many functions simultaneously and young people tend to focus on developing their primary functions, it is almost impossible for them to attain proficiency with the inferior.

    This is a reflection of the Jungian insight that its difficult for people to develop functions simultaneously rather than affirmation for your unfounded view that its not possible to develop all functions period.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The very bases from which we derive our conceptions of logic and morality are profoundly averse to each other at the most fundamental level--we are literally speaking different languages and neither side will ever fully understand the other.
    Circumstances may force us to behave contrary to our type and thus exhibit behaviors associated with other types rather than ours. However, on this forum, we tend not to see this as people here tend to act leisurely.

    Furthemore, as a person ages, he becomes more in tune with types or functions that he is less naturally in tune with.
    "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/

  7. #57
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Keep in mind, simulatedworld, that if you are going entrely by Jung, he only has a four function model. He seems to believe that as a part of differentiation a function (like feeling) becomes introverted or extraverted, but there are really only four functions.

    Also, keep in mind that in Jung's model, all the functions except for the primary function are of the opposite attitude. So, an INFP would be: Fi Ne Se Te.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Generally speaking, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the maintenance of the psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual invariably behaves in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological processes may be observed that involve the mechanism of introversion. We call a mode of behavior extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under the conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply "happen to one." These things need not be mere slips of the tongue or pen or other such oversights, they can equally well be half of three-quarters intended, for the less differentiated functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. A classic example of this is the extraverted feeling type, who enjoys and excellent feeling rapport with people around him, yet occasionally "happens" to express opinions of unsurpassable tactlessness. These opinions spring from his inferior and half-conscious thinking, which, being only party under his control and insufficiently related to the object, can be quite ruthless in its effects.
    This means the idea of judging axes (like Ti/Fe and Te/Fi) could only exist in judging-doms, and perceiving axes (like Si/Ne and Se/Ni) could only exist in perceiving-doms.

    It's fine if you want to adopt a really strict originalist Jungian model, but some of the details are quite different from most of the modern, 8 processes models. (Bashtavenko comes the closest to Jung's model of any of the modern authors I've found, although he does follow the MBTI-style introverted/extroverted alternation of processes.)

    Also, I agree with Solitary Walker that Jung was drawing intense caricatures of the functions in isolation. They never exist in isolation, but like every caricature, Jung's type descriptions are helpful for showing the essential, defining aspects of something so we can recognize it elsewhere.

  8. #58
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    OK, my understanding of Fi:

    The Introverted Judging functions (Ti and Fi) are about understanding the world - coupled with Extraverted Perception, they enable people to be "in tune" with what gives rise to the world naturally. Both are holistic, experiential and individualistic by nature.

    Fi places its focus on the innate emotional needs that give rise to situations - it enables people to judge for themselves the "goodness" or the "badness" of any action, moment to moment.

    • Unlike Fe, you're not just judging behaviour against how other people would react - it feels far more absolute and transcendent than that.
    • Unlike Ti, it doesn't cause you to see the world in terms of impersonal variables - however, they are both holistic, experiential and unique to that individual, and as such can be easily confused (more-so than Te and Fe), especially if you're a dunce who thinks that Thinkers don't have feelings.
    • Unlike Te, you're not seeking repeatable procedures or exerting power over the world - you're acting in symbiosis with it, in a natural "back and forth" conversation. And unlike Te, you're focusing on the feelings and the emotional needs that are expressed by living things - emotions that are often hard to prove empirically, which can only be understood from an Fi perspective (i.e. an experiential, holistic one).

    There we go, no walls of text.
    Hello

  9. #59
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default Official Admin in thread warning

    Although this thread is still related to the OP, I would like people to know that I'm going to be actively banning people from this thread, beginning with simulatedworld.

    SW, you have either started or dominated a handful of threads where any productive discussion about Fi has been pulverized beyond anything useful. You have made your opinion and views glaringly apparent on the matter and anything else at this point is viewed as active trolling, baiting, and antagonizing of other members. For anyone else who decides to jump on the sinking ship you will be consigned to the same watery grave.

    Thank you for your cooperation.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  10. #60
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Ummm, I really don't think this thread has spiralled into antagonizing Fi-ers. If anything, this is one of the more productive Fi threads. Everyone seems to be be remaining pretty neutral, and the discussions here have yielded some great insight. Why the hell are you banning people? This sounds to me like some ridiculously undue censorship, and it all seems pretty non sequitur...

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