Uumlau answers your questions about Fi

[PeaceBaby]

Undeveloped Fi is not self-aware, and is not aware that it's not self-aware. It conveniently alters its beliefs to justify its wants ("Cheating is bad...... except, now cheating is okay because I'm lonely, and I don't need to tell my partner either because that's what they get for making me feel lonely.") It believes that it's right, and that the world is wrong for not bending to its whims. ("Why are people so <<enter complaint here>>, why can't they be more like me?") It's also unaccepting and is unusually obsessed with dichotomizing everything while also being closed off to nuances that threaten it's dichotomies.

@bold: do you really believe that Udog? Do you see the moral core as that malleable?

@purple: if you're not for me you're against me? Prone to said logical fallacy?

Do you think an immature Fi user is the same thing as an undeveloped Fi user?

Can a person be Fi dom and be undeveloped? Immature yes I could buy that, but undeveloped?

 

[Udog]

@bold: do you really believe that Udog? Do you see the moral core as that malleable?

Yup. How things resonate internally is a big factor with Fi, and extreme shifts in mood can lead to extreme changes in position unless the Fi user is aware of this trap.

EDIT: This is in regards to immature or undeveloped Fi. Fi aux are also more prone to this, as Fi isn't their primary function.

@purple: if you're not for me you're against me? Prone to said logical fallacy?

Sort of. Good vs Evil. Mean vs Nice. Smart vs Dumb. Maturity is more of a function of the grace with which types these of things are wielded... I think some of this is inherent to Fi.

Do you think an immature Fi user is the same thing as an undeveloped Fi user?

Can a person be Fi dom and be undeveloped? Immature yes I could buy that, but undeveloped?

Maturing and development go hand in hand, although I do imagine if we dig into it there are nuances between the two. And yes, I can definitely see an Fi-dom being undeveloped. We must be undeveloped before we are developed, right?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Edit: OK, I see where you are going with your post Udog. Maybe we all need to agree on a common vocabulary to introduce as little extra confusion into an already confusing topic.

---

To me axioms (Fi axioms?) are like internal commandments; they are a compass of guidance upon which I can found a moral firmament.

If one were wrong, all one's life ... that's a devastation difficult to contemplate.

Let's use a simple black and white example (and I'm not saying specifically this example is an axiom): an axiom that stealing is wrong.

I don't just say - today I believe stealing is wrong; tomorrow, stealing is right. I might be forced to change my behaviour if my family was starving and somehow, I had to find food. But it would never make it right. It might make it even justifiable, but still it would not make it right.

Your internal compass would not let you believe it so; if so, it would be a grand illusion to distract you from your own truth.

 

[Udog]

I have a feeling this may be controversial, but I think that extreme core Fi malleability is a sign of undeveloped Fi. I also think that rock solid, immovable Fi is ALSO a sign of undeveloped Fi, though.

To me Fi axioms are like internal commandments; they are the manual, instructions and a compass upon which I can found a moral firmament.

If one were wrong, all one's life ... that's a devastation difficult to contemplate.

This is a problem that INFPs can run into. What if one of your axioms *is* wrong? Would you be willing to face that devastation? Or would you cling to your axiom at all costs... and "fight" to the bloody end, WINNING by any logical means, brute force tactics, or olive branch extending compromises, over whoever challenged it?

Or have you designed your axioms such that they are 100% guaranteed to be correct?

Let's use a simple black and white example (and I'm not saying specifically this example is an axiom): an axiom that stealing is wrong.

I don't just say - today I believe stealing is wrong; tomorrow, stealing is right. I might be forced to change my behaviour if my family was starving and somehow, I had to find food. But it would never make it right. It might make it even justifiable, but still it would not make it right.

Your internal compass would not let you believe it so; if so, it would be a grand illusion to distract you from your own truth.

Yes, this is a good example of an Fi value in practice within an Fi-dom... I can relate to this.

 

[Udog]

PB, to explain how I use the terms:

Immature = childlike, short-sighted, and responsibility avoiding.

Undeveloped = lacking refinement and experience.

It's not possible to be developed and immature, but I can see an argument made for any of the other combos being possible.

 

[uumlau]

I have a feeling this may be controversial, but I think that extreme core Fi malleability is a sign of undeveloped Fi. I also think that rock solid, immovable Fi is ALSO a sign of undeveloped Fi, though.

Agreed.

The common feature of both: neither is learning, growing, becoming.

Mature Fi endeavors to understand, as opposed to simply feel (malleable Fi) or judge (rigid Fi).

 

[PeaceBaby]

Even a structure built to the highest standard, with the best materials and soundest, strongest foundation can fall.

So, malleable and immovable Fi are both deemed undeveloped. What's to argue?

---

Even the definition of axioms and what constitutes one changes over time. They are ultimately challengeable and fallable. However, that being said, one must assume a set and move forward with them, or no measurable growth or progress can be made either.

In a world that is morally wishy-washy as it is, is there no merit in holding at least to a few key axioms? Has individuality made them all irrelevant and out-dated?

In the modern understanding, a set of axioms is any collection of formally stated assertions from which other formally stated assertions follow by the application of certain well-defined rules. In this view, logic becomes just another formal system. A set of axioms should be consistent; it should be impossible to derive a contradiction from the axiom. A set of axioms should also be non-redundant; an assertion that can be deduced from other axioms need not be regarded as an axiom.

I think part of the issue for me is defining what an axiom is ... I see it as the trunk of the tree.

 

[uumlau]

I think part of the issue for me is defining what an axiom is ... I see it as the trunk of the tree.

Yeah, I'm evil like that. I switch out entire trees.

Ni doms often complain about being misunderstood. This is one of the primary reasons: we see all these different ways of looking at the world. We will prefer a small set of these ways, but the others are still in our heads.

Imagine having to try to explain that.

My answer is to choose a single perspective for a single explanation and keep it clear. I think I might be using my Ni with Fi (not in a "loop") to switch out the perspectives and try on others. My Fi then decides which perspectives it "likes".

Another way of putting it is that my Fi decides what kind of person I would like to be.

I suspect that these particular Fi decisions of which I speak are your Fi axioms, PB.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Continuing:

So, what is an "Fi axiom"?

...

I was going to outline some nuances but really, your experience is your experience and I appreciate you sharing it. To me, saying I am going to dance is not an axiom. Saying I will take action even if I am afraid is sort of closer ... but it goes farther than that.

Here's an assertion I accepted for a long time: "The more you do something, the less afraid of it you will become." Just has never been proven true for me in my world. In fact, sometimes the fear just gets worse because the more expertise you gain you better understand ALL the things that could go wrong. A better assertion for me in this situation is "Feel the fear and do it anyway." (Get on that airplane, get on that stage...) But that even defies a certain wisdom that the emotions are trying to impart. It's not listening to the core whisper ... it is missing something, something key. I need to get to the core ... to the trunk of that tree. Then that wisdom will open like a leaf, to the truth. Everything leads to a greater truth (that would be an axiom). So what is the truth about this situation for me?

Immature Fi is controlled by your emotions.
Mature Fi "controls" your emotions (through acceptance and understanding and wisdom and a bunch of things that don't quite fit into words)..

To me there's another step. Mature Fi does not control your emotions. Heaven knows I've controlled mine plenty over the years. I used to see my massive self-control as a true aspect of maturity too. But mature Fi controls your reactions ... it permits the emotions their right to exist. Acknowledges, accepts, whatever you want to call it. Mature Fi is like the carbon filter in a fish-tank, processing and keeping the water pure.

Perhaps I just regard what I am doing as being at a very much deeper level than what she is doing, and had we words and objective things to point at, we'd be able to show how it's different perspectives and not so much different Fi-techniques..

I know you didn't mean that badly, but it doesn't read well either.

It also might be the INTJ in me. I just swap out "rules" on the fly, all the time. It's what I do. The "rules" have no value beyond their utility. As long as the new set of rules work, and handles something new that I couldn't before, I go with the new rules..

I have to admire that in a way; my rules are not as quickly interchangeable as yours. Thus I will sometimes try longer to fit a square peg in a round hole. But my "rules" are part of who I am - they have shaped my life, I don't just swap them around ... it just sounds so easy ... so disposable. It's like your values exist outside of your core framework. Mine form parts of the key operating system.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yeah, I'm evil like that. I switch out entire trees.

Ni doms often complain about being misunderstood. This is one of the primary reasons: we see all these different ways of looking at the world. We will prefer a small set of these ways, but the others are still in our heads.

Imagine having to try to explain that.

My answer is to choose a single perspective for a single explanation and keep it clear. I think I might be using my Ni with Fi (not in a "loop") to switch out the perspectives and try on others. My Fi then decides which perspectives it "likes".

Another way of putting it is that my Fi decides what kind of person I would like to be.

I suspect that these particular Fi decisions of which I speak are your Fi axioms, PB.

Edit: I suppose I see each axiom as a tree with many branches in the forest of me.

And, I can't claim to have any forests that I swap out, not at all.

And then I live in my forest, for better or worse it seems. Feeling good or bad for me is irrelevant. Staying true to the axioms is. That doesn't mean I won't face them or change them. It's not easy though.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Just a quick note, if I may:

Peacebaby's previous post or two:

It's like your values exist outside of your core framework. Mine form parts of the key operating system.

I like this. I think I fall somewhere between you two in using Fi. Peace's is her key operating system. Uumlau's is a dynamic system that can vary. Mine is part of my operating system (but definitely comes after Fe) and gets laid down over time and as I gain life experience. It truly is unconscious; I don't know it's happening and I don't really know how to describe it well. But I do know it's there, and it seems to get stronger as I go through life.

 

[Seymour]

Hmmm yes, I can't claim to have many trees that I swap out, not at all.

Edit: I suppose I see each axiom as a tree with many branches in the forest of me.

And then I live in my forest, for better or worse it seems. Feeling good or bad for me is irrelevant. Staying true to the axioms is. That doesn't mean I won't face them or change them. It's not easy though.

I fall much closer to PeaceBaby on this issue, I think. I wouldn't say how I feel is irrelevant, exactly (since I may feel emotional upset that indicates I'm out of sync with my values), but I definitely can't just change things according to mood.

I've also found that at times I've felt forced to go for extended periods of time out of sync with one of my values. I think that's a draining and humbling experience for an Fi-dom.

Uumlau's is a dynamic system that can vary. Mine is part of my operating system (but definitely comes after Fe) and gets laid down over time and as I gain life experience. It truly is unconscious; I don't know it's happening and I don't really know how to describe it well. But I do know it's there, and it seems to get stronger as I go through life.

I feel that Fi values tend to be formed fairly organically out of experience. I don't think I consciously chose a lot of my values (although I do choose how they should be lived out). I think Fi tends to evaluate in real time, but those individual evaluations tend to accrete larger values through repetition and building resonance.

When I am forced to re-evalute and (painfully) change, that involves a more of a conscious process (and perhaps engaging other functions, too).


BTW... I definitely see Ni's tree swapping behavior with Ni-heavy folks... it's sometimes disconcerting to feel like everything is fair game, and that your conversational partner is busy pulling up the planking under your feet.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ agreed; not irrelevant, because Fi wants to feel good; these feelings are like homing beacons, signals.

I don't feel bad though and then swing-out to another forest; I look back at the trees in my forest and see which one I'm neglecting or damaging or which need to be chopped down and replanted. I think I even grow new ones, have sunny spots and contemplative spots in the forest too ...

I've also found that at times I've felt forced to go for extended periods of time out of sync with one of my values. I think that's a draining and humbling experience for an Fi-dom.

+100

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I feel that Fi values tend to be formed fairly organically out of experience. I don't think I consciously chose a lot of my values (although I do choose how they should be lived out). I think Fi tends to evaluate in real time, but those individual evaluations tend to accrete larger values through repetition and building resonance.

When I am forced to re-evalute and (painfully) change, that involves a more of a conscious process (and perhaps engaging other functions, too).

I used to struggle with knowing if I was more Fe or Fi, because when I discovered functions, I found it difficult knowing myself that way contextually. I spoke with Eric B about it a fair amount (he is awesome, btw), and I realized that I have so many values and principles tied up around birthing and child-rearing, that I thought I was Fi. However, on further contemplation, I realized that previous to becoming pregnant, I had no real ideas or convictions about it at all really. All I knew is that I wanted to be a working woman and I was very goal-oriented. Then when I got pregnant the first time, I started realizing my Fe loyalties as I grew to love the baby within me; everything I thought I had wanted fell by the wayside and I became totally about and for my family. I sort-of ceased to exist in that; my focus totally became others. In focusing on others, I came to realize over time that I had developed values surrounding the actions of caring for others over the years. For example, in seeing how my children responded to spanking versus non-spanking, I developed a core value of non violent positive parenting. Based on how my babies thrived and how good it felt to nurture them, I became pro-breastfeeding. All these values started becoming present in me. For a while, I became a zealot about it (and some would say I still was prolly), but I think that was just weak Fi; wanting to apply my principles to others, but I came to realize others have a right to do what they will, which I perceive is stronger Fi.

Anyway, had I not had kids and been a zoologist in a zoo, I'm sure my principles would be more aligned with animals. Same for working in an orphanage in Chile, etc. My thrust is Fe, but Fe repetitions become Fi.

Does that sound right?

 

[sculpting]

Yup. How things resonate internally is a big factor with Fi, and extreme shifts in mood can lead to extreme changes in position unless the Fi user is aware of this trap.

EDIT: This is in regards to immature or undeveloped Fi. Fi aux are also more prone to this, as Fi isn't their primary function.

I can comment to the under-devloped version of Fi-valid only for me, not ENFPs in general, as some seem to be very good with Fi-This extreme change in position is very true for me-but it feels more like "rocking" back and forth between Fi and Te. Normally I will always pick the Te answer-which is often based upon some vague Fi premise. But under massive stress-when the Ne bell is hit exceptionally hard-I will rock back and forth between Fi and Te. I really cant find the right answer. My opinion will change by the hour even until I can make the emotions settle and pain abate. It feels truly crazy. My mind feels torn. It is terrifying.

Externally I have noted in my past, tendencies to enjoy the Ne moment over the nagging Fi-but I always pay later with extreme guilt.

Sort of. Good vs Evil. Mean vs Nice. Smart vs Dumb. Maturity is more of a function of the grace with which types these of things are wielded... I think some of this is inherent to Fi.

In myself I identify this as very poor resolution of Fi. The judgments it makes are childlike and simplistic. I will apply internally to myself, quite harshly, but am exceptionally hesitant to make judgment calls about other people's moral behavior-I cant trust the Fi judgment to be valid. I can make generalities-stealing is bad, lying is bad, hurting others is horrifically wrong. But I would be hesitant to say "Udog that thing you said to PB was wrong as it violated her sense of individuality and blah blah blah" blah blah blah because I dont understand what sophisticated Fi values look like or what would offend PB. I know you should not hurt PB, You shouldnt lie, steal or be rude to PB. Beyond that? i dunno...

 

[uumlau]

I just wanted to say to everyone involved, here, that this is one of the coolest threads in which I've participated in a very long time. I think we're all sharing our understandings in a way that we all gain a piece of wisdom that we didn't have before.

(I don't have anything else to add at this time, but I will, later on.)

 

[PeaceBaby]

I had an "a-ha" moment myself there - very, very cool indeed.

I know you should not hurt PB, You shouldnt lie, steal or be rude to PB. Beyond that? i dunno...

That's right, treat the PB right! Or else ...

Oh sorry, a dark side moment there.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

In myself I identify this as very poor resolution of Fi. The judgments it makes are childlike and simplistic. I will apply internally to myself, quite harshly, but am exceptionally hesitant to make judgment calls about other people's moral behavior-I cant trust the Fi judgment to be valid. I can make generalities-stealing is bad, lying is bad, hurting others is horrifically wrong. But I would be hesitant to say "Udog that thing you said to PB was wrong as it violated her sense of individuality and blah blah blah" blah blah blah because I dont understand what sophisticated Fi values look like or what would offend PB. I know you should not hurt PB, You shouldnt lie, steal or be rude to PB. Beyond that? i dunno...

Well, I'd call this healthy Fi. It's more Fe that outwardly judges. I got that covered. I would have no problema calling someone out on their rudeness, and circumstances depending, get highly irritated at Fi for keeping everyone equal when some are obviously more to blame than others. Fe and Fi go head-to-head in this sort of scenario.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Is Fi useful for problem solving?

 

[Udog]

Even a structure built to the highest standard, with the best materials and soundest, strongest foundation can fall.

Especially if the building site was of poor quality... but life experience up to that point made it appear to be the best quality available.

I speak as someone who has had one of his "axioms" laid to waste, and yeah, it was indeed devastating. But you know what? I survived... and I grew stronger because of it. Once I rebuilt enough of myself to properly function beyond a "mindless autonomous robot", I was able to see how clinging to my axiom caused me make all sorts of harmful (to me) judgments and mistakes.

To me, a rigid axiom has danger of becoming a prison.

Even the definition of axioms and what constitutes one changes over time. They are ultimately challengeable and fallable. However, that being said, one must assume a set and move forward with them, or no measurable growth or progress can be made either.

In a world that is morally wishy-washy as it is, is there no merit in holding at least to a few key axioms? Has individuality made them all irrelevant and out-dated?

I think part of the issue for me is defining what an axiom is ... I see it as the trunk of the tree.

And branches are the various theorems? So what is the root of the tree? Aka, what goes into creating an axiom?

Honestly, the axiom structure doesn't resonate with me that much. I guess whatever I have provides direction rather than answers. Perhaps my Fi just isn't all that developed, though.

Is Fi useful for problem solving?

What kind of problems? Without knowing more, I will simply say "Yes". For me, Fi usage is especially critical in the early stages of problem solving. (Understand/Determine the problem, Develop requirements for a solution.)