Uumlau answers your questions about Fi

[WoodsWoman]

U - it seems sort of Heisenberg-ian?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Hi uumlau,

Just noticed your reply. Hope you are well; we haven't chatted in a bit!

However, I think you still misunderstand the rules swap out, as I describe it. It's OK, everyone does, from what I've seen: only those very adept with Ni catch on quickly, which is how I primarily spot INxJs in real life. The net effect is probably the same as what you're thinking of, but the means is very different. All of the "rules" are up for grabs, even when adjusting for a "nuance."

@bold: Perhaps it's my sensitivity having worked with many NT's over the years ... but this has a back-handed negative connotation that would (at this point in my life) leave me rolling my eyes at you IRL.

I know you don't mean it that way, but it has a smack of arrogance that I bristle against. As a corollary, I don't say that only those most adept with Fi could comprehend my metaphors, do I?

Nevertheless, thank you for your clarification. I was using your example of swapping out trees very literally (using the single tree metaphor). It does sound to me like you would go to those lengths, however, if you felt it necessary?

Describe to me how your tree changes as a result of these nuances ...

Hmm, that doesn't resonate for me. It's too ... detailed. For me, it's more like my avatar (currently ball of light/flame held in left hand - the theme should be familiar, by now).

Well, my visual representation of Te would be the following:

Now please note I have chosen an Estwing, highly regarded as the best brand of hammer; nevertheless to me it's not much more detailed than that.

Oh heck, at this point in my life this image is better, and more representative:

Wearing the Te toolbelt, got my Te tools - using the right tool for the right job, always handy and standing at the ready.

What would be a visual metaphor you choose to represent Te? My guess is that it will be a more sophisticated representation, is all.

The closest anything analytical comes to this? Not trees or axioms, that's for sure. I can get axioms out of it. I can get rules out of it. But none of these things describe it. It's like a quantum state. Observations affect it. Try to pin it down as this or that, and it will either "comply" and become this or that, or it will stubbornly be something else, neither this nor that.

The uncertainty principle - Fi certainly seems ephemeral and skitters away from these attempts to pin it down ... the closer you get the farther away you become.

 

[gromit]

The uncertainty principle - Fi certainly seems ephemeral and skitters away from these attempts to pin it down ... the closer you get the farther away you become.

UGHHHHHHH... it doesssssssssss...

 

[uumlau]

@bold: Perhaps it's my sensitivity having worked with many NT's over the years ... but this has a back-handed negative connotation that would (at this point in my life) leave me rolling my eyes at you IRL.

Well, such is necessary in order to establish my NT credentials. We couldn't have you mistake me for an NF, after all.

I know you don't mean it that way, but it has a smack of arrogance that I bristle against. As a corollary, I don't say that only those most adept with Fi could comprehend my metaphors, do I?

It's an Ni thing. You wouldn't understand.

More seriously, it's a common complaint of both INTJ and INFJ that we just aren't "understood," and it was in that context I made my statement. I can have a very difficult time understanding other Ni doms, especially if they lack a certain degree of articulateness. I can focus and figure out what they mean, but I essentially have to figure out how they could have arrived at a statement by reverse-engineering their reasoning with my Ni.

Take that normal level of difficulty of communicating ideas, then apply it to actually explaining Ni, and the likelihood of comprehension -- any comprehension by anyone -- decreases exponentially.

That said, I do not attribute the failure to others' ability to comprehend, but to my own failure to accurately communicate the idea. It's my responsibility to explain, and while I have some degree of aptitude doing so, I am always wary of the possibility of being unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, thank you for your clarification. I was using your example of swapping out trees very literally (using the single tree metaphor). It does sound to me like you would go to those lengths, however, if you felt it necessary?

Yes. It's exceedingly unlikely. It's just Ni, not an Infinite Improbability Drive.

Describe to me how your tree changes as a result of these nuances ...

The quantum tree changes its state to accommodate the new level of understanding. Sometimes the change in state can feel very different, even if the objective state measurements differ very little quantitatively.

Well, my visual representation of Te would be the following:

[Cool Te images]
What would be a visual metaphor you choose to represent Te? My guess is that it will be a more sophisticated representation, is all.

I mention it in another thread Oro created w/r to a thought experiment of visualizing Fi and Te. Fi is as in my avatar, and Te, well, after a lot of, um, extroverted thinking, I came up with:

The uncertainty principle - Fi certainly seems ephemeral and skitters away from these attempts to pin it down ... the closer you get the farther away you become.

UGHHHHHHH... it doesssssssssss...

 

[PeaceBaby]

Swapping realities:

The quantum tree changes its state to accommodate the new level of understanding. Sometimes the change in state can feel very different, even if the objective state measurements differ very little quantitatively.

Little swaps at a time -

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41j2cGOrvQU"]Parallels[/YOUTUBE]

Big swap -

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gNOuJzfg_E"]Yesterday's Enterprise[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Arclight]

The "unicorn" bit is more about the very strong desire to be happy, and a tendency to indulge in fantasy when real life happiness is scarce. Your "happy puppy" theme is very much the same thing.





I think of "Fi values" as being overarching axioms, analogous to "parallel lines don't intersect." The Fi feelings/readings/interpretations all derive from these very particular axioms. The really funny part is that you "just know" that an axiom has been violated, but it takes a while to figure out "why." It all interlinks in a subjective way, and it takes time to parse through and interpret it and verbalize it coherently (with Te for example). All of the Fi judgments of good/bad/right/wrong are based on the Fi axioms, thus they are entirely derivative. That's part of the reason why you need to drop your prior concepts of right/wrong when reevaluating Fi axioms.

Now, you can't just choose your Fi-axioms willy-nilly. If they're inconsistent, you'll make yourself completely miserable. E.g., "Axiom 1: I should be able to eat anything I want whenever I want. Axiom 2: I want to be healthy and slim and sexy." I wouldn't recommend adopting either axiom, of course, I'm just demonstrating in a very obvious way how Fi-choices can be very bad without even being particularly evil.

Te has a very important role, here. Te is able to objectively determine that your axioms suck. It's no good at figuring out what they "should be," but it's great for telling Fi to go back to the drawing board and try again. It can help you see the implications of a set of values before deciding to adopt them. Ne, for xNFPs, can serve a similar role, if well-trained, for more quickly identifying potential downfalls than the slightly-too-objective Te.

Now for an example of a real Fi value of mine. There's a gazillion ways to phrase it. (Wow, "gazillion" doesn't make my spell checker barf!) One way to phrase this particular value, which I've referenced before, is that "love is more than a feeling."

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm_-sW4Vktw"]Ne moment ... [/YOUTUBE]

More precisely, love is an ability, a choice, an act of will. It's bigger than that, though. Every feeling is as much a choice or an act of will as love: it's just easiest to see with love.

So, whenever I see a love story where two people just "fall in love" and enter into all sorts of tragedy because they let that love dictate asinine choices, it makes me cringe. It violates this core Fi value of mine. That is not to say I do not understand how they feel, or how it all happens. It is that it makes me upset to see such poor choices being made, that they could be so much happier by making ever so slightly different choices (which is where the Fi "nuances" to which Satine was referring come in). They could still completely acknowledge and fulfill their love, and well ... not fuck it up.

I should note that this is a particularly INTJ Fi value, in that it values the Te analytical side to make sure that you don't let your feelings make you do something stupid. INTJs tend to take it too far, and just not listen to feelings very much. My personal axiom, restated again, is more akin to "listen to your feelings, then come up with a plan to make your dreams come true." (It's all the same axiom, stated in lots of not-quite-complete ways.)

A somewhat contrary, but equally valid Fi-value would be "I will follow love wherever it takes me." In this case, one is not as worried about messing up, and more worried about missing opportunities. One with such a value, and holding other consistent values, would still feel bad about messing up, but always retain the hope that the next time will be better. It's a good value for gaining experience, while the "don't mess up" INTJ version is more risk-averse.

Then things can be adjusted and nuanced even more, taking a bit of both: e.g., "don't take steps that unnecessarily eliminate opportunities for love" combined with "don't take steps that will obviously result in catastrophic failure with respect to love." As things become more nuanced and precise and personalized, it becomes much more difficult to describe.

As a final example, one of my other Fi rules is, "always express warmth and kindness when it is genuinely felt, don't hide it." After having seen how other INTJs interact with me, I've felt their tentativeness as rather icily cold: I hadn't realized that's how it came across. It was like seeing myself from the outside, and I didn't like what I saw. I resolved that I wouldn't do that anymore. The only thing holding me back was my natural shyness: I didn't want to offend by being "too affectionate" or "too forward." I realized that, as an INTJ, I really needed to err in the other direction: I'm in absolutely no danger of being perceived as too affectionate or too forward.

All of these Fi-rules are very fundamental. They don't get very specific, e.g., "always take out the trash without being asked to do it." That might be a "rule" that is implied by one of the core axioms, but it would never be a core axiom/value itself. The Fi rules address fundamental attitudes toward life. It's all about who you are, what kind of person you are, what kind of choices do you make. What is it that makes you you? The rules get changed when you realize that you don't like something about yourself, and you want to change yourself. I decided to be more warm. It was an act of will. A choice. I saw that it would make me become more like I want to be.

Upon adopting the axiom and living with it and believing it, you learn whether it is right for you. it's possible to make a wrong choice. It is possible that there are implications that you did not foresee. It is possible that you cause yourself a great deal of pain. The pain, in particular, is why processing Fi requires a degree of resiliency (if not stubbornness, PB ): you need to face the pain to figure out what the heck is going wrong, because it's not obvious. You've chosen a bad axiom, but you don't know which one is wrong! They all work together, and it's slow work figuring out where the wrong choice lies.

And one last reminder: I'm using MBTI terms to express things that I've learned the hard way. I did not use MBTI to derive these conclusions, I'm just using MBTI as a common language to show others "where to look." I wouldn't use MBTI as a starting point for deriving the conclusions I make, but it's rather useful as a shorthand for conveying some very abstract ideas.

ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * gives you a standing ovation*

 

[skylights]

this thread is lovely, even the debating at the beginning, it was interesting to see someone else's Fi clearly in action, then deconstructed somewhat. and i think it gave rise to many, many good points. as someone with aux Fi, it's really interesting read both dom Fi and tert Fi descriptions, and see the subtleties.

in any case, if i can interject a quick idea... i think Te can change Fi theories, but Ni is what changes my Fi axioms. it's the same sort of knowing as Fi, but wiser, and more rare. unlike with Fi, which just takes a while, i have a very difficult time putting Ni into words at all. it's almost as if it comes from the places in me into which i can't even see.

maybe i'm just rambling, but i picture it like a klein bottle - Ni delves so deeply that it ends up coming out on the other end. it follows the pattern all the way and ends up being universal. i think i need that sort of sweeping mystical power, that directly connects the (props for whoever described them as elusive) nuances of Fi within me to the universe outside, to undergo such a change.

because typically Fi is keeping a check on Ne -- but in this instance Ni uses the back door to check Fi.

or perhaps i do not understand Ni at all, lol.

 

[uumlau]

Then perhaps it's apropos that my first gift to my ENFP gf was

Not candy. Not flowers. Not a card. Not wine.

A Klein bottle.

 

[Aleksei]

Dear Uumlau,

Why is my Fi telling me to kill Justin Bieber?

Sincerely,

Confused in San Juan.

 

[Arclight]

I posted this in another thread. (it's mildly edited for the purpose of this thread)

I was pointed to this thread because of some of the obvious similarities in the way some brains seem to work.

I started out with a single thought on a subject ( a persons behavior) each bit of new information does not cancel out the old information, but rather builds upon it.. each branch a new idea, each new idea adding more information. But each new idea must be compared and sequenced and cannot stand alone. So my thoughts become very confused as the ideas grow and am left feeling something like this

It's not that I can't handle it, it's just easier to tell a one paragraph story as opposed to a 1200 page book.

At the same time my confusion grows one way, something emerges from the other direction.
That looks like this

As I take in more information I become overwhelmed. but something I don't control eventually starts to filter it, and a picture begins to emerge

And a picture is worth a 1000 words.

If I am to understand the branching of thought and each idea building on the other to be Fi.

What is the Picture forming from the other direction? It's like as one cup fills, simultaneously, another empties.

The picture is like a glimpse at something the branching is building. But it goes back in the other direction towards the single branch and original idea.
But more distilled and refined.

I am sure I am not making any sense and I am just going to stop now.

 

[Ginkgo]

I can "do Ti", but I don't have the "Ti values" of requiring logical self consistency. Rather I choose to adopt logical self-consistency for a short while, as needed. I can "do Fi", but it is more personal: rather than choosing to adopt a framework, I go inside myself and open a door. It's kind of like opening the door to a furnace, where one is almost afraid to touch it, for fear of burning oneself. All the other judging functions purposefully avoid this door: Te and Ti ignore it as much as possible. Te excels at ignoring others' "furnaces", while Ti excels at ignoring one's own. Fe mostly ignores one's own, while preoccupied with others: Fe deals with the pain of emotionality indirectly, from a distance.

Yes!

I like this thread.

Alright, well, the way I learned to characterize Fi, since it is so commonplace for me, is by looking at it's "devilish" antithesis, Ti.

Ti focuses on the definitions of things because vocabulary consists of models. It notices nuances between said things, because it's all about framing an argument with logical perfection, rather than framing an argument that can be consensually observed as true, which is Te's business.

Fi is about feelings, and also about images to me. Those images and how I describe them can often contradict what a Ti oriented person might argue, but they still hold personal relevancy to me. The world takes on its own breath of life, which cannot be described perfectly, but I still try. How does something emanate its own uniqueness? All objects are observably different and special.

Everything is about connotation. What something means, and how it feels to me. Every experience is not commonplace because of the images in my mind and how I categorize them.

Sometimes this results in a habit to be unique for its own sake. Just to stand out from the crowd and differentiate myself because that's how I judge things. Fe oriented people differentiate whole demographics, or social groups, on the other hand. I see that Fe users tend to want to be the friend, while Fi users want to have a friend.

I've overcome some of these obstacles. Yes, I view my own perception of things as something of a barrier because I know there are others who view things in a separate but equally functional way. Being less self aware, and more astute to the group of people has its perks, and more aware of the commonplace can be a blessing.

Sometimes I want to access other people's furnaces. I want to see their pleasures and their pains. In fact, it's the easiest way for me to communicate. I often see that Ti/Fe oriented people are deflective because they're so focused on me, or so focused on the consistency of someone's argument, or my concern for them is redirected to someone else. It makes it so difficult to help some people, and they even view me as a threat at times, like a foreign entity being attacked by antibodies. It makes me frustrated.

It makes me even more frustrated when someone's individual rights are smothered by the moral majority. I know that this is the seed of anarchy, and one aspect of anarchy is being able to exercise as much freedom as possible, which is a common aspect of fascism (from the perspective of the fascist). So I know that my inclinations have a dark side somewhere in the body of it all.

So, you could say that because Fi allows me to see the special virtues and vices of all people, especially myself, it also allows me to see that I am imperfect for that very reason.

EDIT: I notice that because Fi coins its own symbols in the images that they give off, they can allow the user to evaluate a situation. Hence, the "value" part of this function. Some people who don't experience enough to "see" reality may have flailing values. A good example would be Lex Talionis' inability to evaluate intelligence. That sort of evaluation only comes through seeing people perform in different ways under different contexts, all under the pretense of intelligence. You could tell that many of the NTJs in that thread had a subjective idea of how intelligence should work. I'm assuming this is because of how it is commonly conflated with other ideas and misconceptions, like a high I.Q., a high GPA, nerdy glasses, or whatever other stereotype they want to ascribe to it. I'm not really sure if this is more due to Fi, to Ni seeing intuitive patterns, or more to do with the information the NTJs were exposed to.

See, a person is like a sculpture. Their personality may depict the shape and mold of the person, but their experience and choices makes up their content, what kind of substance they are made of. The final product is hard to see as due to any one cause.

"What makes the sculpture look the way it does?"

"Maybe it's the shape?"

"I think it's the colored paint."

"Nah, it's the clay texture."

The truth is, it's all of those things. So a person's behavior and the person itself is somewhat of a tautology.

 

[onemoretime]

Does Fi tie someone to a certain physical place? Just a thought I've mulling around...

 

[Ginkgo]

Does Fi tie someone to a certain physical place? Just a thought I've mulling around...

Anything can tie someone to a certain physical place. The first thought that comes to mind is Si, as it's supposed to be nostalgic. The "feeling" of it being nostalgic, coupled with Fi, may incline a person toward being tethered to that situation if it feels good.

But you know, Fe could tie someone to a physical place if that's where the social group resides. I'm reminded of nationalism.

To be honest, you should ask that person what ties them there. What motivates them?

Maybe a Te/Ti person would be fond of a local library, or somewhere else for academic or intellectual challenges.

In thinking about typological causality, you realize that anyone could be motivated by anything to perform a particular action. So you realize that typology isn't as relevant as what that person would have to say, or what they're actually thinking.

Typology is n amateurish branch of psychology, and psychology is the study of the psyche, which is the study of the soul. How do you empirically test the soul? How can you really categorize another person's soul? It's almost metaphysical in nature, since consciousness is separate from the physical world.

I prefer looking at tendencies within the physical world, such as behaviors.

 

[skylights]

Then perhaps it's apropos that my first gift to my ENFP gf was

Not candy. Not flowers. Not a card. Not wine.

A Klein bottle.

winz

 

[skylights]

Does Fi tie someone to a certain physical place? Just a thought I've mulling around...

Fi + Si --> very much, i think, especially the feeling of a certain place.

all the things it represents, its beauty, how you felt when you were there.

if it's torn down or changed, you can only go to it in your mind.

i still go back to many physical havens in my mind.

some still in reality.

 

[Poki]

Fi + Si --> very much, i think, especially the feeling of a certain place.

all the things it represents, its beauty, how you felt when you were there.

if it's torn down or changed, you can only go to it in your mind.

i still go back to many physical havens in my mind.

some still in reality.

I think that Se with Fi is more about bringing that experience to where you are at. Therefore making it in the moment. Just a quick thought.