## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Orobas
When you approach another person you have never met-how do you know what portion of the above applies to them?

How can (if you wanted to ) you transfer your understanding of the collection of fuzzy notions to another? How would you share this knowledge? What unifies all of the ideas?
Well, I'm attempting to transfer my understanding/approach in this thread, for example. I'm not sure what other words I can use to convey things. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'what unifies all of the ideas'. I don't think I need a wholly unified system, in the sense that I think you're referring to it - ONE system that predicts and accounts for everything. My ONE system - my 'ONE' unification of ideas - is a composite of various systems. It's the composite that creates the whole. I'm trying to say that I use a variety of systems and while there's 'truth' in one, in terms of what it's trying to capture, there's untruth in the sense that one individual system isn't factoring in other things. The other things are accounted for in another system/approach. Or in a third, or a fourth.

Now it's not like I walk around every day thinking of things in this light - I mean, I'm trying to illustrate this here, even though I've never thought of it this way before. But am trying to describe what I *think* I must be doing.

Well, I'm attempting to transfer my understanding/approach in this thread, for example. I'm not sure what other words I can use to convey things. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'what unifies all of the ideas'. I don't think I need a wholly unified system, in the sense that I think you're referring to it - ONE system that predicts and accounts for everything. My ONE system - my 'ONE' unification of ideas - is a composite of various systems. It's the composite that creates the whole. I'm trying to say that I use a variety of systems and while there's 'truth' in one, in terms of what it's trying to capture, there's untruth in the sense that one individual system isn't factoring in other things. The other things are accounted for in another system/approach. Or in a third, or a fourth.

Now it's not like I walk around every day thinking of things in this light - I mean, I'm trying to illustrate this here, even though I've never thought of it this way before. But am trying to describe what I *think* I must be doing.
How do you apply this to specific problems directly requiring your attention? I suppose a specific example might be the relation in your response previously. How can you identify which aspects of which systems are applicable to an individual problem, if there is nothing universal that links them?? Sometimes in midanalysis, will you find yourself switching systems? It sounds as though you are okay with the systems not always being consistent within themselves, as long as portions being applied are applicable to the particular problem under study?

(I am in no way limiting this just to systems on this particular topic-mbti and pshychology at all-I would suggest you have just composed a beautiful description of Ni contexts-each "system" is a new perspective-a new context perhaps??)

EDIT-also please note-I am in no way critiquing the way you describing approaching the world or how you think. I suspect there are great strengths inherent in this approach. It differs from what I do, but I suspect it can be incredibly valuable and powerful as a way to solve problems.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this! For starters, I don't even know what 'determining the coherence of a given feeling' even means.
It was an analogy. By way of explanation, how do you determine a truth? There's some procedure of categorisation, isn't there? And it depends a lot on what you already know, whether or not the new idea coheres with the existing body of knowledge. There's a fine tuning of the idea according to expression of principles. And how does an Fi person weigh feeling?

So, Te is evaluation of statements as true (matches the external world) and false (doesn't match), and Fe is another kind of evaluation, but one that still uses that same trick of matching, but the exact evaluation is...... Well, it does include positive and negative evaluation but it's not "true" and "false". It is instead..............

.....something produced by Ti? A adequate categorisation of the positive and negative, the proper word.

Et voila, we have the Fe value system.

Or...?

4. Originally Posted by Orobas
How do you apply this to specific problems directly requiring your attention? I suppose a specific example might be the relation in your response previously. How can you identify which aspects of which systems are applicable to an individual problem, if there is nothing universal that links them?? Sometimes in midanalysis, will you find yourself switching systems? It sounds as though you are okay with the systems not always being consistent within themselves, as long as portions being applied are applicable to the particular problem under study?

(I am in no way limiting this just to systems on this particular topic-mbti and pshychology at all-I would suggest you have just composed a beautiful description of Ni contexts-each "system" is a new perspective-a new context perhaps??)
Gah..I feel like my head is going to explode. It's just the nature of some of these questions - I almost can't even comprehend them, so I don't even know how to answer them. I don't think I can give you a specific example as to how I solve a problem or whatnot. I am being totally honest in that I really don't find any of this complicated in real life - I mean, I don't. You can take away from that however you choose, but I don't think I have a surefire way of solving problems. It's dependent on the problem at hand and I go from there. My notion of a person or idea or situation adjusts as more data comes in. I'm not affixing a given System/theory to a given person or situation-- my idea and concept of any overarching system/idea changes as I gain new info from the 'real world'. And yes, I would ideally like to come to some surefire definitive answer when it comes to most things - I probably aim for that - but the nature of many complex problems (psychology, for example) is such that one definitive answer might not, well, exist.

Originally Posted by Kalach
So, Te is evaluation of statements as true (matches the external world) and false (doesn't match), and Fe is another kind of evaluation, but one that still uses that same trick of matching, but the exact evaluation is...... Well, it does include positive and negative evaluation but it's not "true" or "false". It is instead..............

.....something produced by Ti? A adequate categorisation of the positive and negative, the proper word.
I finetune my idea of mbti or whatever other internal concept/framework I've decided/concluded upon based on new incoming feedback/info. New people/situations/whatever add more data -- to either support existing ideas, or to make me realize I need to finetune existing ideas or re-work everything completely.

As for what I evaluate...honestly... gah. I don't know what the hell I evaluate. If based on mbti, I'm supposed to be evaluating something, then I'll let you decide what I'm evaluating. (This is kind of tongue in cheek... but really.. these sorts of discussions sometimes make me feel like I have to explain everything about myself in a way such as to agree with the prescribed mbti function order that I must have according to theory).

5. Damn you, Kalach! You beat me to this. I was wondering if this is something of a Ti/Te thing. Just as (as it’s been expressed in this thread) Fi likes to have states of being acknowledged, whereas Fe’ers have expressed they think whatever feeling they are having in the moment isn’t of much consequence- Ti sees a nuance in the construct being discussed that Ti’ers want to acknowledge, and Te’ers think it isn’t of enough consequence to make a big deal of? (That’s kind of what you were saying, right?)

I agree with everything cascadeco has written. I find mbti useful, but constantly notice that it isn’t all encompassing. I’ve noticed a trend in Ti-heavy INFJs more or less agreeing on this point**- which in itself is an example of how it’s consistencies can shed light on useful information about understanding people. It’s just that there are inconsistencies that are distracting, and I can understand application of the word ‘dangerous’- though I’m also having a hard time explaining why. For me, it has to do with the tendency in our society to mistake all the speculation we’ve accumulated thus far as indisputable ‘facts’ about the human mind.

**To be clear: not all Ti-heavy INFJs, but the people who regularly comment in this direction are often Tish INFJs.

Gah..I feel like my head is going to explode. It's just the nature of some of these questions - I almost can't even comprehend them, so I don't even know how to answer them. I don't think I can give you a specific example as to how I solve a problem or whatnot. I am being totally honest in that I really don't find any of this complicated in real life - I mean, I don't. You can take away from that however you choose, but I don't think I have a surefire way of solving problems. It's dependent on the problem at hand and I go from there. My notion of a person or idea or situation adjusts as more data comes in. I'm not affixing a given System/theory to a given person or situation-- my idea and concept of any overarching system/idea changes as I gain new info from the 'real world'. And yes, I would ideally like to come to some surefire definitive answer when it comes to most things - I probably aim for that - but the nature of many complex problems (psychology, for example) is such that one definitive answer might not, well, exist..
So each new person system can have a totally different set of rules form different systems applied to that individual? Do you find you seek some sort of universal truth-something more basic, more absolute perspective, if not on this topic but on other topics? That perhaps by taking the basic aspects of the systems you understand, with enough reperception, you can find something that is more absolute?

( I am sorry these questions seem so bizarre..I recall being surpised at reading protean and other Fe users descriptions of how they understand people. Questions like these are how I understand people....Sorry if they seem really weird. In the same way-the confusion you are feeling-the "huh" is what I feel when I get Fe feedback...I dont really understand how to respond to it ir what to say...it is very alien to me)

Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate
I agree with everything cascadeco has written. I find mbti useful, but constantly notice that it isn’t all encompassing. I’ve noticed a trend in Ti-heavy INFJs more or less agreeing on this point**- which in itself is an example of how it’s consistencies can shed light on useful information about understanding people. It’s just that there are inconsistencies that are distracting, and I can understand application of the word ‘dangerous’- though I’m also having a hard time explaining why. For me, it has to do with the tendency in our society to mistake all the speculation we’ve accumulated thus far as indisputable ‘facts’ about the human mind.

**To be clear: not all Ti-heavy INFJs, but the people who regularly comment in this direction are often Tish INFJs.
Why is this bad-what risks come to mind as a result of misassumption regarding the mind? Do you find it dangerous in that people may be hurt somehow? If the ideas are incorrect-the speculations incorrect-it seems they would only go so far in adoption before being quelled due to lack of supportive data or being rejected by other people's thoughts on the topic...thus I dont understand the feeling of danger?

7. Hope no one minds if I butt into this conversation.

Originally Posted by BlackCat
My thoughts on Fe vs Fi-

When it comes to "rules," Fe users seem to be more concerned about rudeness than social efficiency. I think that this roots from Fe and Te. I think that both Fe and Fi are concerned with harmony, but the roots of desiring this harmony are what occasionally conflict. It seems like Fe users have this Ti standard of what's "appropriate" while Fi users have a Te standard of "whatever works" and this can conflict.
You know, it's funny. I was just writing in another thread that at its core Fe was all about social efficiency and maximizing positivity for the sake of achieving an end goal - the idea being that happy people are productive people.

I can't speak for other INFJs, but I do have a strong sense of what's appropriate, but it occurs to me now to a certain extent the "rules" of appropriate behavior mostly apply in situations that require a lot of extraverted effort - large group settings or first time introductions. In contrast, when I'm around people I know very well, or when I have the opportunity to observe a small group of people, it's much easier to make split second decisions about the best way to move forward. Essentially, manners and etiquette provide a solid default for how to behave when you aren't able to figure out the best way to accomplish your goal. Rules of "approriate" conduct keep everything running smoothly enough that to avoid failure, even if the end result is only mediocre.

But when you have the ability to read the environment, you can set aside the default and choose the behaviors that best fit the particular situation. I can usually tell within 20 minutes of spending time with someone whether they are the kind of person that I can be wildly inappropriate around or whether they need to be handled with kid gloves. It seems to me that it's the NiFe combination that makes it easy to read a person and figure out how best to respond to set them at ease.

In a larger group of strangers, we cannot possibly take in enough information to tailor our responses to suit everyone. So we rely on the rules to keep things moving along. But at the same time, social harmony isn't necessarily the end goal. If a new alternative comes along and it presents a very good chance of achieving greater success, then we are OK with sacrificing social harmony in the short term so long as we see a strong possibility of even greater social harmony in the longer term. If the "whatever works" strategy only works in the short term, then it serves no lasting purpose.

I don't know how the other functions influence that process. Any thoughts?

8. Originally Posted by Orobas
So first-wouldnt this be how you break the system-by pushing it to it's limits to see when it no longer provides a a sufficient answer to the problem at hand?

I am afraid that because I attempt application-and you guys see a big Si lattice-the assumption is that nothing else exists. I dunno though. Is it simple enough to simply state Jungian functions cant describe the world? That's obvious right?
Well, at the end of the day, I'm all about the application of the theory. My inclination is to do exactly as you describe - to attempt to push the system to it's limits and to get things to fit this logical framework that I understand. However, I can very easily understand how someone else might view this as the child that is trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, put the triangle peg into the circle hole and so forth. It may appear clumsy and inept. I will tend to overuse it anyway because it is the richest method or framework that I have at my disposal. I will take it with a fairly large grain of salt though because in practical terms, it can be very hard to assess another individual's type and even if I can, people are different.

Originally Posted by BlackCat

Basically, my thoughts on this issue-

1. Fi is only discussed in terms of NFPs. These posts about Fi and complaints about Fi reek of FiNe or FiSi.
2. A lot of the issues I observe in these threads seem to come from Fi vs Ti -OR- Fe vs Te. Not just Fi vs Fe.

My thoughts on Fe vs Fi-

When it comes to "rules," Fe users seem to be more concerned about rudeness than social efficiency. I think that this roots from Fe and Te. I think that both Fe and Fi are concerned with harmony, but the roots of desiring this harmony are what occasionally conflict. It seems like Fe users have this Ti standard of what's "appropriate" while Fi users have a Te standard of "whatever works" and this can conflict.

It really doesn't seem to be as complicated as you guys make it to be imo. The issues themselves are complicated because it goes against our nature to understand the other side, but where it's coming from isn't that complicated.
I agree that's a pretty good analysis.

Originally Posted by BlackCat
I'm sure more SFPs and S's in general would be interested in these threads if there was a concrete set of questions we could answer, then get input on those. It makes my head explode trying to figure out how to contribute to these threads most of the time.
I can understand why that would be the case.

There is really one essential question. How are Fe and Fi different and how can those differences lead to conflict?

Subsequent to that then there is a question as to what can be done to bridge those perspectives.

9. Originally Posted by Orobas
So each new person system can have a totally different set of rules form different systems applied to that individual? Do you find you seek some sort of universal truth-something more basic, more absolute perspective, if not on this topic but on other topics? That perhaps by taking the basic aspects of the systems you understand, with enough reperception, you can find something that is more absolute?
Yeah, that might be accurate. Each person is a 'system', in a way, to figure out. But, again, I'm not saying there aren't patterns and commonalities between people and which can create larger groups. And yes, as I started to mention in my last post, I think I'm always trying to find some absolute truth and such -- it's just that sometimes that truth itself is so nuanced that that's where again, the 'truth' = multiple systems/approaches in conjunction with one another, or chopped up piecemeal, not just one.

( I am sorry these questions seem so bizarre..I recall being surpised at reading protean and other Fe users descriptions of how they understand people. Questions like these are how I understand people....Sorry if they seem really weird. In the same way-the confusion you are feeling-the "huh" is what I feel when I get Fe feedback...I dont really understand how to respond to it ir what to say...it is very alien to me)
It's ok, I just find some of the questions to be...irrelevant to how I approach to the world; therefore I don't have a single answer that fits them. But they're clearly relevant to how you do or might, which is why you ask them and are seeking the feedback.

10. Originally Posted by Orobas
Why is this bad-what risks come to mind as a result of misassumption regarding the mind? Do you find it dangerous in that people may be hurt somehow? If the ideas are incorrect-the speculations incorrect-it seems they would only go so far in adoption before being quelled due to lack of supportive data or being rejected by other people's thoughts on the topic...thus I dont understand the feeling of danger?
I don’t want to derail- so I’ll just quickly say they aren’t quelled. There’s ways of finding supporting data, and being convinced the data is conclusive when it isn’t (self-serving bias). There’s a lot of criticism out there for the DSM IV (the diagnostic statistic manual, used for diagnosing mental health disorders). There are values of society at large that effect the judgment of those conducting the research- values about what it means to be a happy, functioning individual- which don't necessarily represent sound quality of life for the individuals the research is supposed to help. And yeah, people are hurt by it.

Granted, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s ‘dangerous’ when it happens in the confines of this forum. But it’s something that pops out at me when I see it happening nonetheless.