User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 216

Thread: Baffled by Fi

  1. #61
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Thank you for your cooperation.
    Hello

  2. #62
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    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.
    The views on Fi that I have expressed in this thread are significantly different from those conveyed in the threads you're referring to.

    For one, in this thread no denigrative remark has been made about Fi exclusively let alone people whose temperament is greatly influenced by that function. In general, my commentary was on typology as a whole with no specific emphasis placed on a certain function. One of my claims was that temperaments alone entail no behaviors or personality features which contradicted simulatedworld's conclusion regarding this topic. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone who read my posts could perceive this remark or the theme of the message as antagonistic.

    Furthermore, as many other members who have posted in this thread may attest, very little, if any antagonism has occurred in the discussion above.
    "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/

  3. #63
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    No, despite what various people who haven't actually read Jung will tell you, having a conscience doesn't necessitate Fi, and Fi users don't have a monopoly on morality. Ti-ers either don't use Fi at all or very rarely tap into it, since doing so requires one to set aside the basic fabric of Ti's decision-making (which Ti-ers very rarely do.)

    is just as much of a "conscience" as Fi; its "moral" decisions are just based on an impersonal conception of consistency and congruence instead of actively personal feelings. A Ti+Fe person's morality comes from a combination of this and Fe's observance of externalized moral standards.

    I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying this, but the people who claim to use both Fi and Ti regularly have rarely actually read the original source material (Psychological Types) and don't understand that functions are pieces of one's value system from which the worldview is derived--not descriptions of particular actions. It's truly extraordinary how many people on this forum have no idea what they're talking about in this regard.

    You'll get people telling you that any time you make a logical/impersonal decision you're using Ti and any time you make an ethical decision you're using Fi, but that's not the case. Jung never definitely said that we do or don't use all eight functions; he said he was uncertain about whether the "shadow functions" are ever truly used, and that if they are, use of them would require tremendous energy and happen very rarely.

    So you don't switch between Fi and Ti routinely; you're either Ti+Fe (in which case you derive logic from an internal standard and ethics from an external one) or Fi+Te (in which case you do the opposite.)

    Now, as for what Fi actually is, it's a form of introverted Judgment based on personal emotional values which rejects the idea that internal value judgments should be made on an impersonal basis (and therefore flatly contradicts Ti), focusing instead on the user's feelings and what they dictate subjectively about morality and ethics.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Uhh yeah, by a long shot. He invented all the cognitive process labels.

    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.

    Again I will stress that "using a function" = being under the influence of a particular type of worldview. It does not = doing some particular action that people of that worldview are usually good at. This is REALLY important.

    So "using Ti", for instance, means holding the worldview that logic should be derived from an internal standard of innately consistent natural reason, and that logic exists and maintains its consistency independently of any external variables.

    "Using Ti" does not mean, "Durrr I solved a math problem by thinking logically." Fi+Te can solve math problems by thinking logically just as easily; unfortunately, almost everyone on this forum performs function analysis incorrectly by focusing on the action performed instead of the worldview/perspective that motivated the reasoning for that action.

    So when I tell an Fi-er, "You don't use Ti", a lot of the time they get upset and won't listen because they think I'm implying that they can't think logically, but that's not at all what I mean--all I mean is that they don't derive logic from a subjective internal standard. Fi-ers use Te to derive logic from objectively verifiable external conditions; "using Ti" or "using Fi" only refers to the ultimate source of your conception of logic/ethics.

    Reading Jung will show you that that's not at all what cognitive functions actually are.

    Which means they're not actually "using" that function. Doing something that people with that function are good at doesn't mean you're actually using that function. If you're not doing it because you value it innately for its own sake, because it constitutes a crucial piece of your total worldview, you're not using that function--your four regular functions are just doing things that people with functions you don't use are often good at. That's not "using" the other functions at all.

    Again Psychological Types makes this pretty clear in explaining the nature of cognitive functions. They are not skill sets; they are value systems. Some skills are frequently associated with some value systems, but using a given skill doesn't automatically imply subscription to the value system commonly associated with it.
    What you're saying definitely makes sense, but then you do seem to be treating "the functions" as totally separate things, which is what leads to the very sorts of assumptions your debunking.

    The way I understand it (largely from Lenore Thomson's explanations) is that an ego chooses its internal world, and then chooses Thinking as its dominant function. Hence, an "introverted, Thinking type". Since the external world is initially rejected, that explains why you get the earlier belief Seymour mentioned, that all three other functions are in the opposite orientation. But according to Lenore, it is Jung/Beebe's "Puer" complex that orients the Tertiary function to the dominant attitude. The auxiliary and inferior remain opposite, of course.

    So, Feeling is rejected or suppressed from his internal world, and the external world is rejected or suppressed for his Thinking. Feeling and the outside orientation end up paired together, hence, when he does need to make a feeling judgment, it will tend to be extraverted.

    Looking at it this way makes it easy to see that the "shadows" can come up a lot, because all they are is suppressed functions or orientations. The dominant introverted Thinker will generally turn to his auxiliary Perception when he need to engage the outside world. But there are times when he will directly turn his Thinking outward. This is not a desired situation, but it is often needed to back up his internal judgment. It will also come out and oppose others when the ego's dominant is threatened. So you can see here the beginnings of Beebe's archetype system. Likewise, in even more stress, when Thinking (or the tertiary perception) does not solve the problem, the person may turn his internal world towards Feeling. This will generally be very negative, though at times, it will transform the situation.

    The way I explain this,
    it is under stress that the normal inhibitions we have to using them are removed, and they erupt in an "emergency" and usually haphazard sort of way.
    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

  4. #64
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    It's a figure of speech. No need to nitpick.
    Its not nitpicking, the word choice in the context of this discussion has significant implications. If we are to regard a function as a character, we are attributing personality qualities to types. By doing so, we are giving affirmation to Keirsey's conclusion that a person's type is a significant part of their identity and knowledge of their type can allow us to predict his or her behavior.

    Conversely, if we do not regard a function as an entity that has a personality, we are giving sympathy to Bashtavenko's axiom of Principles of Typology; which is that the study of typology is altogether irrelevant to personality theory. In other words, according to such a theory, knowing a person's type tells us very little about their identity. Such an approach opens the door to a purely philosophical analysis of type. A result of this accomplishment is radical: type is reduced to a mere unconscious tendency which represents nothing but a person's habits of mind that are not easily altered by his experiences. As an additional implication of this discovery is that a person of a certain type in one culture will likely have a strikingly different personality from his counterpart who was born and raised in a significantly different cultural climate. Secondly, under certain circumstances, a person will exhibit behaviors that are very different from those associated with his type. For instance, an ISFP may be expected to be laid back and disorganized or so the Neo-Keirseyan theorists would lead us to believe, yet if he or she is to work in a very conservative, corporate environment, this person could well display character qualities that are associated with Te. Altogether, it amounts to a refutation of the conception of type as the essence of an individual's personality.
    "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/

  5. #65
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The views on Fi that I have expressed in this thread are significantly different from those conveyed in the threads you're referring to.

    For one, in this thread no denigrative remark has been made about Fi exclusively let alone people whose temperament is greatly influenced by that function. In general, my commentary was on typology as a whole with no specific emphasis placed on a certain function. One of my claims was that temperaments alone entail no behaviors or personality features which contradicted simulatedworld's conclusion regarding this topic. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone who read my posts could perceive this remark or the theme of the message as antagonistic.

    Furthermore, as many other members who have posted in this thread may attest, very little, if any antagonism has occurred in the discussion above.
    While I can't speak directly to proteanmix's use of the term, "SW", I think it reasonable to contextually presume that she wasn't referring to you, SolitaryWalker.

    Instead, I suspect she was referring to the other "SW": SimulatedWorld.

  6. #66
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    You still could conceive of it in materialist terms - Functions are simply common cognitive pathways or procedures at handling the signals sent through our brains. Instead of relating it to egos or other esoteric concepts, it's simply "a person generally uses these particular pathways when interpreting and acting upon information, either based on inborn preference, or response to environmental stimuli".

  7. #67
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The views on Fi that I have expressed in this thread are significantly different from those conveyed in the threads you're referring to.

    For one, in this thread no denigrative remark has been made about Fi exclusively let alone people whose temperament is greatly influenced by that function. In general, my commentary was on typology as a whole with no specific emphasis placed on a certain function. One of my claims was that temperaments alone entail no behaviors or personality features which contradicted simulatedworld's conclusion regarding this topic. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone who read my posts could perceive this remark or the theme of the message as antagonistic.

    Furthermore, as many other members who have posted in this thread may attest, very little, if any antagonism has occurred in the discussion above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    While I can't speak directly to proteanmix's use of the term, "SW", I think it reasonable to contextually presume that she wasn't referring to you, SolitaryWalker.

    Instead, I suspect she was referring to the other "SW": SimulatedWorld.
    Yes, SW=simulatedworld, not solitarywalker.

    And also I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    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...
    No one has been removed from the thread, but if this thread goes the direction of the other two threads on Fi I will be banning people and Public Enemy #1 has already been selected based on previous behavioral patterns.

    Carry on with discussion.
    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

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The dominant introverted Thinker will generally turn to his auxiliary Perception when he need to engage the outside world. But there are times when he will directly turn his Thinking outward. This is not a desired situation, but it is often needed to back up his internal judgment. It will also come out and oppose others when the ego's dominant is threatened. So you can see here the beginnings of Beebe's archetype system. Likewise, in even more stress, when Thinking (or the tertiary perception) does not solve the problem, the person may turn his internal world towards Feeling. This will generally be very negative, though at times, it will transform the situation.

    The way I explain this,
    it is under stress that the normal inhibitions we have to using them are removed, and they erupt in an "emergency" and usually haphazard sort of way.
    I do this pretty much all the time when others dont understand my decision trying to explain why I do what I do and why I made that decision. Like I am wanting you to point out a hole in my logic so I can fix it.
    Im out, its been fun

  9. #69
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You still could conceive of it in materialist terms - Functions are simply common cognitive pathways or procedures at handling the signals sent through our brains. Instead of relating it to egos or other esoteric concepts, it's simply "a person generally uses these particular pathways when interpreting and acting upon information, either based on inborn preference, or response to environmental stimuli".
    Physical materialism is probably one of the more 'scientific' ways of connecting Functional Typology to a more rigorous, absolute metric otherwise outside the compass of MBTI.

    Yet, does this action violate the scope of MBTI by extending it beyond a philosophical context, into what could be considered an empirical realm?

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    I do this pretty much all the time when others dont understand my decision trying to explain why I do what I do and why I made that decision. Like I am wanting you to point out a hole in my logic so I can fix it.
    So to reverse this Fi generally makes decisions based on feelings and when trying to explain or show can turn those feelings outward? I do seem to get the impression that people confuse this outward Fi with Fe. Possibly it makes them feel manipulated and gets tied to Fe and think this person is doing it to get a response as opposed to just Fi turned outward and used to show their internal world.
    Im out, its been fun

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