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

Baffled by Fi

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
LL... I cant make this any more succinct. I'm just going to quote what I wrote in that clusterfuck of the SimW thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ive had more than one INFP say they like it :). If this still doesnt help LL, my advice is to just switch to socionics, which is much easier to type based on action/behavior/motive. You can then "convert" back to MBTI. Its a lot easier for me to quickly recognize myself as EIE (ENFj) than as ENFJ because socionics has more precise function definitions/orders/behaviors (though I still identify with ENFJ more than any other type).
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
To explain:

Ti starts from objective first principles... but subjectively valuates each of those principles. For example, I consider social stability and cohesion to be the basis for any human society, so my logical determinations for social strategies are going to stem from this key conceptualization. Someone who considers voluntary affiliation to be that sort of basis will come to completely different determinations, though these may still logically connect. These determinations will arise from external logical patterns and connections, but they still relate to one another based on a prioritization that stems from theoretically subjective decisions (though Ti users will argue you to death on why their decision is the objectively true one... hint, guys - you're wrong, I'm right, deal with it). We argue these things to death because Fe desperately wants to get others to agree with us.

Fi does the opposite. It starts from the objective conclusion (manifested in several ways, for example, in the relative intelligence of Fi users, and in the "Fi mirroring" many people point out), and then winnows its way to the subjective valuation of each of these. The prioritization hierarchy (aka the tert/inf Te) becomes the endpoint of the Fi judging process, rather than the start of it like Ti. Since we're all human, and go through several of the same experiences, many of these valuations will converge in most xxFPs. However, there's no particular reason they have to, and they often do not.

The thing is, both of these have an emotive and non-affective component to them. The valuation/prioritization is the emotional part. This is demonstrated by the way you genuinely do evoke emotions from a Ti user - attack that person's core logic. "Your conclusions are idiotic" won't do a thing, because we'll simply assume the other person's stupid; however, "your points aren't even worth considering" will get a rise, only because the initial valuation principle will suffer from invalidation.

Notice where I'm getting to? This is exactly the same sort of reaction Ti users complain of about Fi users when their personal values are offended! Likewise, Fi users do have a non-affective aspect of their judging function - this is how they dauntlessly face all aspects of the world in the first place. Fi seeks these objective conclusions in the first place, without any regard to personal impact. It wants to universalize its valuation/prioritization through experience in much the same way Ti wants to universalize its possible range of conclusion through logical analysis.

They're really two sides of the same coin, one edge being "subjective" and the other "objective".

I always saw it as being that simple also. Ti has never seemed foreign to me anyway. I mean, Jung does say that everything that is true of Ti is true of Fi, except Fi is felt instead of thought.

I take your post to say that Ti has a pretty defined thought it's starting from, but Fi has a holistic, vague feeling that is has to deconstruct and then organize rationally. That's very much true, from my perspective, and it is in line with why INFPs may be called the "harmonizer clarifier", as much clarification needs to be done, and then the parts need to be harmonized to not threaten the whole of the feeling. On the other hand, the INTP is the "architect" working with much more precise materials to begin with.

In Gifts Differing, it says that a person prefers to use one kind of judgment when either could be used. That's such a simple statement, yet to me it really clarifies how a Thinking person is capable of personal feeling-reasoning and a Feeling person is capable of impersonal thought-reasoning when the realm they are dealing with is clearly one or the other. It's when the realm could swing either way that the preference is most clear. Which is why Thinkers may be artists and Feelers may be scientists, and not be inferior than their T/F counterparts.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
In contrast, I need a stable, supportive environment to hold strong values. If the external environment is not favorable, I start mirroring my environment, and I HATE that tendency inside myself.

Perfect example: At work, if I am in an environment that appreciates my contribution and really challenges me and gives me ways to grow, I'm the happiest lark that ever was, brimming over with ideas, exuding happiness for everyone.

However, if I am in a negative environment, I mirror my that environment.

Im shitty at typing people, but let me just say that I can easily relate to this very much. :hug: :hug:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Forgive my silly comment, but doesn't everyone have that?

When I ask people about my type, people tell me to use Fi and go inside myself to 'find the answer.' Well, damn, I find it hard to go in myself to find any answer. Or maybe I just don't realize it.

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.)

Ti 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.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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 basis of Ti's decision-making (which Ti-ers very rarely do.)

Ti 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.
You're making me want to read Jung a lot lately. It seems he was a lot more enlightening for you than other MBTI writings.
 

evilrobot

New member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
182
MBTI Type
nite
Enneagram
5w4
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.)

Ti 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.

It is important to make a distinction between functions that are the main focus of one’s personality and those one has aptitude in or “good use” of. Anyone can have strong usage of a function outside their “order” and use it as a means to an end, but that’s not the same as it being their priority function or the main prism through which they view reality.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You're making me want to read Jung a lot lately. It seems he was a lot more enlightening for you than other MBTI writings.

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.


It is important to make a distinction between functions that are the main focus of one’s personality and those one has aptitude in or “good use” of. Anyone can have strong usage of a function outside their “order” and use it as a means to an end, but that’s not the same as it being their priority function or the main prism through which they view reality.

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.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

The values are not emotionally based. Emotions may be a compass at times, and useful in gleaning self-understanding, but values are reasoned on in a rational manner. Feeling is not emotions, and Jung never implies that. I think it's safe to say that many Fi-dom may feel a conflict of their emotion and feeling at times; I certainly do. Other times, the line is blurred between the two.

But yes, feeling does have a distaste for impersonal judgment when personal judgment is an option. In situations where it is a clearly an impersonal issue, ie. math, Fi can use its critical thinking in an impersonal way, just as a Ti user can apply their logical reasoning in personal matters. They are both still using their Fi or Ti, whichever is their dom or aux function. Their perception allowed them to see what approach was necessary. It was this realization that assured me I am not Ti-dom, as I often tested INTP.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.

Where in the Psychological types do you find that?


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. .

Cite the page number where Jung either states or implies that functions are value systems.


It's truly extraordinary how many people on this forum have no idea what they're talking about in this regard..

I don't think you do either.



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.)..

Is this Jung's view, or your Neo-Jungian typological notion? If the former, cite textual support. If it is the latter, support your view with an argument. Either way, put some meat on those bones.

But yes, feeling does have a distaste for impersonal judgment when personal judgment is an option. In situations where it is a clearly an impersonal issue, ie. math, Fi can use its critical thinking in an impersonal way, just as a Ti user can apply their logical reasoning in personal matters. They are both still using their Fi or Ti, whichever is their dom or aux function. Their perception allowed them to see what approach was necessary. It was this realization that assured me I am not Ti-dom, as I often tested INTP.

Feeling has a distaste, as in feeling is a character? Anthropomorphizing typology much?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Psychological Types said:
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.

The Portable Jung said:
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."


Psychological Types said:
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.

Psychological Types said:
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.


The Portable Jung said:
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.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
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.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
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.......
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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?


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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
"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.

Psychological Types said:
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.

Psychological Types said:
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.

Portable Jung said:
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.






Psychological Types said:
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.




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.

.
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.

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.




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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.



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?

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.

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.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

Jung said:
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.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
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. :)
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
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. :)
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
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...
 
Top