• 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.

Fi vs. Ti (thanks to Virginia Woolf)

INTPness

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2,157
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Good answers from everyone. Thanks.

My daughter and I had an interesting discussion last week about swearing .... since I rarely use the F word, she can remember the times very distinctly that I have. This annoys me because although I try to have 100% control, that word does sometimes come out. And not only that, my high level of self-control makes the times I do "slip up" very well remembered. So compounding the issue too is that I think our very attempts to live to a certain standard make it so much more evident when we do not.

Yeah, this is interesting. Those instances are remembered by your daughter only because she was SO CERTAIN in her own mind (probably 99.9% or 100% sure) that she would never hear the word come out of your mouth. So, it was a shock when it did. It's a doubled-edged sword for you INFP's. On one hand, you tend to behave yourselves and you have a moral code - and those are good things - and then people hold you in high esteem and have a high image of you and they even think, "Oh, he or she would never do that or they would never hurt me or betray my trust. I would bet my last dollar that they would never do anything hurtful." And then when it happens it's a complete shock.

If you're dealing with someone who has no moral code, then you learn that "they very well could do something hurtful". It's totally possible. But, with the INFP you tend to really, truly believe that they have near-perfect behavior because that's what they have exhibited.

I should floss my teeth every day. And I try to. Yet sometimes I forget, and sometimes I decide I just don't feel like it.

This explains your halitosis. :D
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
It's a doubled-edged sword for you INFP's. On one hand, you tend to behave yourselves and you have a moral code - and those are good things - and then people hold you in high esteem and have a high image of you and they even think, "Oh, he or she would never do that or they would never hurt me or betray my trust. I would bet my last dollar that they would never do anything hurtful." And then when it happens it's a complete shock.

:yes:

as an ENFP i'm a little less controlled - as an EP and as a young'n i have "flavorful" language in general - but my overall style is fairly loose, warm, and open. but like i'd mentioned before, i personally find that this kind of dichotomy in behavior manifests in argument. when i find myself feeling threatened, i tend to shift into using Te to bolster, deliver, and protect Fi, which, as i have learned from those around me, is extremely startling to someone who has never seen me apply that sort of impersonal engagement with people. one of my close friends described it as "kind of terrifying, but kind of awe-inspiring as long as it's not directed at me!", lol. people assume what i'm saying at the time carries more weight than it actually does (in fact, the truth is, it usually carries LESS weight than my average speech), because the tone i take on is so radically removed from my usual style of operating.

it's rather different for someone who uses Fe because they tend to exert interpersonal dynamic control on a regular basis, or with a T who tends to be more impersonal in general. when it comes to lowering of priority of Fi in a dom/aux, there is a potential doubled surprise factor.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I don't know if that's the fault of mistyped people or what.. but the idea that Fi is truly subjective and internal in all of the senses of those words (and arbitrary) upsets even me. Some people seem to associate Fi with their emotions. Except that's not Fi in any MBTI description. Even when authors disagree on many things, they don't get that one wrong at least.

Fi attaches itself to plenty of ideals outside of their imagination or emotions. Ideals, along with archetypes. Unless you're willing to say these too are irrelevant to the outside world, they do fall under the definition of outside influence.

So, you are saying that there exist ideals by which a person can judge Fi, and call them out on using "bad" Fi? Well, if that's the case, then it's not that different from Ti. I've just never heard it described that way. It has always been emphasized that it was both internal and subjective, which would imply that values were just randomly internalized, though not necessarily selfish.

Only an unhealthy Fi-user does whatever they feel like. My values force me to do things I really don't want to do on a everyday basis. I hold my values above my own personal needs and desires. And it is very important for Fi-users (well doms/auxs anyway) that their actions remain consistent with their values because to fail to do so, is to tear apart their very foundations of self.

My point wasn't that Fi users don't have values that force them to do what they don't want to do. It's just that I don't see how they could be pressured to abandon a value that was either self-destructive, or harmed others, if they had internalized some kind of value that made them this way. Of course such a hypothetical Fi user would be unhealthy, but the question is... is there any process by which an Fi user can recover from an unhealthy state with corrupt values to a healthy one with good values?
Besides, I find many 'logical' people remain rational about something until it directly effects them and then they throw logic out the window. Being a logical person doesn't mean you are consistent and reasonable.

Why are you assuming I would think that? I just meant that logical people can generally be made to see, eventually, that something they believe is not logical. Not that they never throw it out the window. They can at least be made to understand things against their will, and against their own value systems.
You assume logic will always arrive at the right decision; you too are a Feeler, so you believe that there are exceptions to the rules and should understand this is not true. You also assume that logic is always the most useful way to analyse a situation - that every problem has a simple straight-forward answer every sensible person could agree with. Of course this is not the case. There are completely different approaches to logical thinking that will arrive at entirely different conclusions when considering the same problem. How do you know which is 'right'? There is always a degree of subjectivity necessary in even the most rigid, impersonal, analytical thinking. How can you ever trust anyone to make the right decision? Some time or another, people will have to think for themselves.

You think I'm venerating logic now, when I expressly stated that I think feelings are valid, as long as they are capable of accommodating others. I think that Fe is a good way of making decisions, because it involves paying attention to what the people around you feel, and trying to align yourself with that. Without that process, it seems like feelings could easily become completely divorced from their impact on other people, or any standards outside of themselves. I think that feeling decisions are very valuable, because they can be merciful, helpful, protective, and healing in a way that thinking decisions cannot be. When feeling decisions are NOT any of those things... well, then, they are often terribly corrupt, and FAR worse than any logical decision.

Think for themselves? That would be Ti. I think the expression you were searching for was "trust their own feelings." :wink:
This is like asking how do Fe-users know when not to be a mindless sheep and stop following an immoral cause. Like Fe, Fi doesn't exist in a vacuum - it has other functions, including Te, to help it make decisions and test its conclusions. All of the functions have blind spots, thats why they need balance to operate - Fi is no different to any of the rest in this regard.

Well, that's easy. I stop following an immoral cause, either as soon as other people start realizing it's immoral, or as soon as I find an opposing cause that convinces me that it is in the right, and I decide to switch sides. Although I admit, not every FJ would do the latter, some would only do the former.


Looks like you've been solidly answered by Kdude and Southern Kross, Athenian. Can't speak for everyone else but when Fi manifests, right and wrong become crystal clear. Whether it's everyone else's perception of right and wrong is debatable.

Fi only tells you what YOU think is right and wrong. It doesn't tell you what anyone else will think is right or wrong. It may be crystal-clear to you, but but that doesn't mean it's actually right. One would hope that it is most of the time, though.
To provide some concrete examples of Fe gone wild, refer to Salem, the attempted genocide of Jews, the treatment of heretics all over Europe, the attempted genocides in Bosnia and Somalia and the Crusades. Also, discrimination as it relates to gender, race or sexual preference.

At least in those instances, the Fe users didn't hurt those that were within their own group. They only hurt those they perceived as "other." With corrupt Fi users, you don't know who they're going to target.
There are no bullet-proof checks and balances to either Fe or Fi. We can only rely on an individual's moral compass.

Unfortunately, many individuals have a moral compass that is an awful lot like Captain Jack Sparrow's compass that never pointed north.

:yes: excellent points, i totally agree



that does not, however, mean there is never any adjustment of Fi values. what you'll see happen is that our worldviews will expand to accommodate previous misconceptions. for example, i used to think Fe/Ti users when, they drew away in argument, were trying to block me off. i have generally always thought walling off someone you love is a "bad" thing values-wise - because in my world, blocking someone off is either for the purpose of hurting them or a very final sort of "i cannot handle being around you" decision. there is very little that is altruistic or temporary about it. but when a Fe dom friend explained to me that she draws away for the dual purpose of protecting herself and also not doing anything to me that she would regret in anger, i had to shift my understanding. it still seems strange to me, but i suspend judgment of the behavior until i fully understand the intention. i do still think that hurting people is generally bad, and i will be very surprised if that belief ever really changes. still, while perhaps the value is rooted, it can always expand and contract, and be reshaped to meet reality.

Well, the value that hurting people is bad, is a good one. But couldn't another value that wasn't so good become rooted? Or is there some sort of failsafe against that?

I think you seem to be saying that you believe Fi can be reprogrammed through Ne and Te, but that it would just take a lot more work than with most other functions, right? If that's the case, I think that's reasonable.

^ and above, this is where the idea of Fi being personal and only subjective would be transcended to something greater, a larger more comprehensive and universal wisdom that persists throughout time and space. Fi logic. Fi's not small, for in the composition of each individual world it all comes together to form something very big.

Just a slice from a bigger "truth pie" ... where there's room for multiple purposes and individual truths. And that's why all of us are made a little different, to access our little slice of that big pie.

I can't quite put my feelings into words atm. Sorry if this comes off as a bit pretentious.

I think that's ultimately why Fi unnerves me. I don't believe in the very structure that its existence assumes. I don't believe in the idea that there is a universal moral wisdom that persists through time and space. For me, morality is relative to time and place. I believe that different circumstances and assumptions can change what is considered moral. It seems like there are certain circumstances in which one is subject to a different kind of morality than they normally would be. Also, I believe that morality is exclusive to human beings (or at least living things), and that morality cannot exist in the absence of beings whose capacities are designed in a certain way that enables them to assess it.

Although, I suppose that if one believes that there is a universal wisdom, whether there is or not, that they will look for it to manifest in something before they believe in it, or that what is manifest can change their perception of it, rather than relying totally on what's inside.

Interesting. Thanks, everyone. :yes:
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
So, you are saying that there exist ideals by which a person can judge Fi, and call them out on using "bad" Fi? Well, if that's the case, then it's not that different from Ti. I've just never heard it described that way. It has always been emphasized that it was both internal and subjective, which would imply that values were just randomly internalized, though not necessarily selfish.

It's hard for me to talk about Fi without talking about perceptions. Perhaps "raw" Fi is subjective (well, naturally, it would be, being introverted), but the isolated nature of it is lost on me somewhat. My experiences - and a wealth of other material - shape it further.

Secondly, I'm not sure how SFP and NFP go about it differently. If I was to take Thomson's descriptions, she ascribes a lot of universalistic tendencies to both. This is something I've been confused on somewhat. I think her definitions might lean more towards Ne and Fi in tandem (I could be very wrong too). I'm going to quote passages from her book. I hope you don't mind. It saves me time and takes the responsibility away from me of claiming any authoritative approach here. I think it sums up where Fi goes wrong along with it's better aspirations.

Moral choices prompted by Introverted Feeling are not derived from legal principles or the social obligations that accrue to our roles in the world. They're derived from the subjective experience of being human, our will to deal with a situation in terms of human ideals. Decisions made on this basis are frequently misunderstood as a product of emotion or a deliberate rejection of structural authority.

[..] IFPs, who depend on this function as their primary means of reasoning, need enough objective experience to recognize the moral potential of their judgement. Without it, they don't appreciate the differences between the purely circumstantial values and values that link them with the larger human enterprise.

[..] It gives us the capacity to see a situation whole, apart from the assumptions we've absorbed from a particular community-- and to determine, from that broader perspective, the integrity of our actions. Extraverted Feeling, with its emphasis on prevailing social behaviors, can't provide this wholistic aspect of decision making.

[..] But Introverted Feeling can also precipitate feelings of self-doubt, because the type's ideals generate expectations that are larger than an Extraverted life can accommodate. IFPs may, for example, have the sense that they don't fit in, and they can be lonely underneath their "live and let live exterior". They feel called to do something meaningful and good, something that will bring their values into the fabric of the community, and if they have no way to do this, they don't know how to define themselves.

[..] When Extroverted Perception is minimally developed, IFPs use it only to support their Introverted motives and don't get much experience outside the situations that engage their judgement. They need enough Sensation or Intuition to recognize the difference between subjective preference and unconditional human values. Otherwise, they're inclined to use their lens like a magnifying glass, emphasizing the importance of their own experience at the expense of everything else. Or they'll depend on others for objective structure and social relationship, "going along", with required Extraverted activities without being fully engaged by them.

[..] One of Jung's enduring ideas is that the unconditional aspects of human reality are normally mediated by cultural images and rituals, which tie prevailing social assumptions to larger human truths. When collective images no longer make this connection for people, individuals are forced to appropriate those larger truths for themselves. IFPS, in some respects, are living illustrations of how this psychological process works.

[..] Indeed, IFPs feel precisely this kind of tension when they try to adapt the objective world to their inner one. It's as though some unformulated answer that would reveal the interconnectedness of the universe were trapped inside them, and all of the questions people ask are too small, can't contain what they have to give. This is one reason why IFPS turn to archetypal imagery---media figures, Gothic or Arthurian romance, goddesses--to represent their deepest values. These all-encompassing images resonate with their inner sense of passion and idealism. But archetypes that have no organic connection to real experience are so all-encompassing that everyday life falls short of them.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Apologies for the wall of text :blush:

My point wasn't that Fi users don't have values that force them to do what they don't want to do. It's just that I don't see how they could be pressured to abandon a value that was either self-destructive, or harmed others, if they had internalized some kind of value that made them this way. Of course such a hypothetical Fi user would be unhealthy, but the question is... is there any process by which an Fi user can recover from an unhealthy state with corrupt values to a healthy one with good values?
Yes, I understood you :) . What I didn't make clear (apologies for this) is that I feel that there would be no reason for a Fi-user to cling to a destructive value if they weren't basing it on their own personal needs and desires. In other words, if we (and by this I mean doms/aux - I can't speak for the others) are effective in separating our values from our emotions of the moment and letting the values take precedence, we should be able to maintain the necessary distance to recognise if they are corrupt. Fi doms certainly have momentary slips and allow emotions to lead us to take destructive action, but because we spend so much time testing our values with external systems, we rarely get stuck in this mode. Our values are part of an on going process, not a solid, immovable position we adopt - even if it sometimes seems that way.

So to answer your question from an INFP perspective, we can change those corrupt values if they are not shown to be congruous with reality. Counter-arguments that we can't explain away will persuade us to change our minds just as they do with Ti.

Why are you assuming I would think that?
I only meant to demonstrate that Te and Ti can be just as untrustworthy. You feel uneasy about the seemingly unstable, unpredictable nature of Fi, but these are actually things that are intrinsic to all human beings. You find comfort in being able to clearly see how Te, Ti and Fe come to conclusions but because the Fi conclusions seem arbitrary, you, quite naturally, have trouble putting your faith in it. I wanted to explain that even when the process seems to make sense, it doesn't mean it deserves your trust in it. Also I wanted to say that Fi is only doing what other judging functions do already, making decisions based on subjective reasoning, but it is simply taken to a greater extreme. A degree of trust in a person's good sense is often necessary regardless of type. I understand your apprehension with Fi, I only only wanted to make you see that you already put your faith in unreliable processes, so doing so with Fi isn't really all that outlandish.

I think that Fe is a good way of making decisions, because it involves paying attention to what the people around you feel, and trying to align yourself with that. Without that process, it seems like feelings could easily become completely divorced from their impact on other people, or any standards outside of themselves.
Sometimes this is necessary. For example, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. Some people say to me, "but think about how the victims' families feel. How would you feel if it was your loved one that was murdered? You would want the murderer dead just as they do". However, I believe that what I would feel in that moment is not to be trusted and must remain completely irrelevant to the process. I think killing people is wrong and will not let temporary feelings persuade me to believe otherwise; just as justice must not be clouded by emotions in order to remain consistent. For the same reasons, I disregard the feelings of the victims' families on this matter - I think they are wrong regardless.

Well, that's easy. I stop following an immoral cause, either as soon as other people start realizing it's immoral, or as soon as I find an opposing cause that convinces me that it is in the right, and I decide to switch sides. Although I admit, not every FJ would do the latter, some would only do the former.
I don't wish to get into a Fe/Fi argument but this is just as unstable to me as Fi is to you. What if everyone else is in passive agreement and there is no disssent? How can I rely on your to do what is right, even when everyone else is saying that its wrong? And consider who are those people that are convincing you that its immoral - what made them question the status quo in the first place when everyone else is going along with it? Subjective values are necessary in such cases.

Fi only tells you what YOU think is right and wrong. It doesn't tell you what anyone else will think is right or wrong. It may be crystal-clear to you, but but that doesn't mean it's actually right. One would hope that it is most of the time, though.
Yes, fair point. As I said earlier this is the difficulty of Fi - it is so hard to justify in ordinary terms.

At least in those instances, the Fe users didn't hurt those that were within their own group. They only hurt those they perceived as "other." With corrupt Fi users, you don't know who they're going to target.
So its better to hurt the 'other' than be unprejudiced in whom one hurts? :huh:

I think that's ultimately why Fi unnerves me. I don't believe in the very structure that its existence assumes. I don't believe in the idea that there is a universal moral wisdom that persists through time and space. For me, morality is relative to time and place. I believe that different circumstances and assumptions can change what is considered moral.
I too believe that there is a great deal of relativity involved in morality, but this only exists if we look too closely at specifics. If we step back we can see there are universal principles that transcend even cultural differences: that cruelty is wrong; that lying for selfish reasons is wrong; that it is important to accept differences in others as long as they do not unreasonably impinge on the rights of other people etc etc. Sure, there is a degree of discretion necessary in how we apply these values but so is there in the justice system - its the best you can do with something so complex as morality.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
i have a wall of text too :blushing:

dom Fis let me know if i am wrong here... i think i am somewhat corrupted with Ne... i have done my best to remove it but it's a bit like swimming out of water...

I think you seem to be saying that you believe Fi can be reprogrammed through Ne and Te, but that it would just take a lot more work than with most other functions, right? If that's the case, I think that's reasonable.

well, i believe for me it would take the most work and energy to reprogram Ne. but Fi would be second, yes. i do think you can escape their pitfalls and lean on the other functions, thus allowing a too heavily-used function to "heal". perhaps that is part of the virtue of being well rounded.

Well, the value that hurting people is bad, is a good one. But couldn't another value that wasn't so good become rooted? Or is there some sort of failsafe against that?

I think that's ultimately why Fi unnerves me. I don't believe in the very structure that its existence assumes. I don't believe in the idea that there is a universal moral wisdom that persists through time and space. For me, morality is relative to time and place. I believe that different circumstances and assumptions can change what is considered moral. It seems like there are certain circumstances in which one is subject to a different kind of morality than they normally would be. Also, I believe that morality is exclusive to human beings (or at least living things), and that morality cannot exist in the absence of beings whose capacities are designed in a certain way that enables them to assess it.

Although, I suppose that if one believes that there is a universal wisdom, whether there is or not, that they will look for it to manifest in something before they believe in it, or that what is manifest can change their perception of it, rather than relying totally on what's inside.

perhaps things will be easier to understand if we temporarily suspend picturing Fi in such a holistic way?

for the moment let's try to move away from seeing it in a light of "unchangeable universal moral rules" and simply try to understand it as illogical internal prioritizing. it is not bound by logic or by external rulesets, thus it relies on a person's sense of identity, as developed by all their functions, their past experiences, and their current experiencing, to make decisions about what is important.

personally, in terms of general values, i don't know that i really believe in universal, unchanging morals. i do think that there is a commonality that lies within everything in existence, and then within all living beings on the earth, and certainly amongst all humans, and those commonalities allow for the creation of general rules - for example, those studied in psychology and sociology - that are somewhat akin to the laws of physics. for instance, never have i heard of a human who does not desire, in some capacity, happiness, safety, intellectual stimulation, positive social interaction, and the right to make their own decisions, and thus we can derive certain general rules that many people hold as values.

and while certainly someone could come to destructive Fi conclusions - just as someone can wield destructive Fe - i think essentially the fact that Fi introverts Feeling is exactly what creates its own failsafes. that is, Fi works because it rests on the concept that whatever harms you, or the planet, or whoever, also ultimately harms me, because i internalize Feelings. thus if i harm you, i harm myself. therefore i do not want to harm (though i may slip up in anger or fear).

failsafe 1 - self-harm via self

as Fi dom/aux we do not have your capacity for Ni time-hopping or Fe environment-structuring; rather, the way i sort of understand it is that we create a set of guidelines for how to live life, based on what feels best to us inside - based on our identity. perhaps part of the failsafe is that Fi is the function we use to deal with ourselves... one can't easily develop a Fi value that is universally harmful because it's inherently irrational to the function and detrimental to our own internal wellbeing. which is not to say that no one ever has, simply that it would be incredibly self-destructive.

failsafe 2 - self-harm via environment

then, if we liken Fi to a set of internal guidelines - just because they are not contingent upon the immediate situation in the way that Fe is does not mean they cannot be changed. if the data we receive in - if our Ne and Se experiences - radically change, at some point we will need to shift our Fi values, because the way we are feeling inside will almost inevitably also change based on our environments (you know how it is commonly believed Fi users are very "sensitive"... well, that is because we are highly responsive to external information...)

so a second aspect of the failsafe against harmful Fi values could be that Fi relies to some extent on Se and Ne for information on how it should proceed. no function works in a vacuum, so it's unlikely that an externally harmful Fi value will go for long without needing to be adjusted for its own user's sake. even though most Fi dom/aux are willing to lay our personal safety on the line for our Fi values to some extent, we do it because we believe we are making the sacrifice to gain a greater good. if there is no external input saying one has in fact achieved something beneficial, then it is unlikely one would continue to act in that way.

instead

the major problems i experience in regards to Fi arise not in values themselves but in the interpretation surrounding them... defining harm is much trickier than stopping it. those Fi users who i disagree with most vehemently are those who have decided that different things are harmful than those i have decided upon. it is hard to know, sometimes, what exactly it is that creates lack of wellbeing.

i suppose this post in general makes Fi sound very me-centered - and in some ways it is - but that is not to be taken as a declaration that Fi users are not interested in others nor that we do everything we do for the sake of ourselves.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
^ I like the idea you have expressed here about "Fi failsafes" skylights - some of the discussion seems to revolve around this idea that Fi exists in some sort of isolated la-la mamby-pamby land, choosing values that serve and please only the self, impervious to any kind of rationality, outside influence or critical evaluation. I doubt that's true for most people, of course bearing in mind the following disclaimers: people who are immature Fi users, people who have emotional baggage, people (who at their current stage of development) are not self-aware and just plain regular folks who slip up on occasion. Everyone is learning and growing all the time; we don't just pop out of the womb fully developed after all.

:)

Reduced to the simplest way I can express it, being sensitive to the internal landscape of others means that if I hurt you, I hurt myself too. So why would I want to? I mean, if that's not logical, I don't know what is.

Think of it another way: I perceive the world in a feeling kind of way continually, 24/7 ... if anything, I get too much of this input and feedback from the outside world, not too little. Not to mention my own internal idealistic ruminations about all the stuff I should be doing, to help myself, my family, the whole world. It's a lot of feelery data to process and structure and align.

Does that help at all?

-----

Above, fidelia wrote about Fi users:

However I think they would be more okay with knowing that truth, without worrying about how to prove it to someone else in a quantifiable manner.

It's more like we have to be content with just knowing the truth, because expressing that internal knowing in any kind of quantifiable, verifiable way seems near impossible. And believe me, it can be very frustrating to lack a way to prove a knowing, a truth.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Counter-arguments that we can't explain away will persuade us to change our minds just as they do with Ti.

Good, I think that means I can trust TJs and other FPs to help Fi users out when their values are too far from reality.
I only meant to demonstrate that Te and Ti can be just as untrustworthy. You feel uneasy about the seemingly unstable, unpredictable nature of Fi, but these are actually things that are intrinsic to all human beings. You find comfort in being able to clearly see how Te, Ti and Fe come to conclusions but because the Fi conclusions seem arbitrary, you, quite naturally, have trouble putting your faith in it. I wanted to explain that even when the process seems to make sense, it doesn't mean it deserves your trust in it. Also I wanted to say that Fi is only doing what other judging functions do already, making decisions based on subjective reasoning, but it is simply taken to a greater extreme. A degree of trust in a person's good sense is often necessary regardless of type. I understand your apprehension with Fi, I only only wanted to make you see that you already put your faith in unreliable processes, so doing so with Fi isn't really all that outlandish.

I suppose the extreme is what bothers me. There is so much subjective reasoning as it is, that it seems creepy to allow it to take root on purpose and make it the decisive factor. I get this mental image of someone feeding and encouraging an infection or cancerous growth that threatens to consume and envelop everything, replacing it all with itself. But then, I suppose that's because there's something within me that yearns to be free from those subjective judgements, to see things more as they really are, even if it is unpalatable to me, or to every value I can imagine. Perhaps that drive isn't there for Fi users. That desire to see things free of morality, subjectivity, even logic, or anything else human... on a huge, vast, global scale that dwarfs humans and their values, even if I can appreciate them. Even if I usually do try to confine it within a human context, this other part of me is so much stronger that I feel compelled to protect it.
Sometimes this is necessary. For example, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. Some people say to me, "but think about how the victims' families feel. How would you feel if it was your loved one that was murdered? You would want the murderer dead just as they do". However, I believe that what I would feel in that moment is not to be trusted and must remain completely irrelevant to the process. I think killing people is wrong and will not let temporary feelings persuade me to believe otherwise; just as justice must not be clouded by emotions in order to remain consistent. For the same reasons, I disregard the feelings of the victims' families on this matter - I think they are wrong regardless.

Well, I do agree with you that the feelings of the victim's families are irrelevant to the question of whether the death penalty should be permitted. However, I do propose other questions. Namely, what quality of life would one experience with life imprisonment, and is it really preferable to the death penalty? In some ways, it seems more cruel to force them to live with their guilt day after day. Also, if we as a society agree that they are too dangerous to allow on the streets again, then why do we have a responsibility to provide for them for the rest of their lives? By not killing them, we are forced to bear the financial burden of taking care of them, when they clearly have done something that makes them less worthy of being cared for than an innocent person.

There's a less reactive argument for the death penalty (not that I agree with it, I'm actually unsure, but those are good points).
I don't wish to get into a Fe/Fi argument but this is just as unstable to me as Fi is to you. What if everyone else is in passive agreement and there is no disssent? How can I rely on your to do what is right, even when everyone else is saying that its wrong? And consider who are those people that are convincing you that its immoral - what made them question the status quo in the first place when everyone else is going along with it? Subjective values are necessary in such cases.

If there is no dissent, how can it be wrong? Or at least, how can anyone be held responsible for it if is, since there's no way of seeing that it's wrong without a way of contrasting it with something else? I don't judge historical figures on my own morality, or that of today, but that of their own time and place... because that's all that they knew. I really don't believe that someone can "just know" that something is morally wrong. I think there is a difference between doing something you know is wrong, and doing something that's wrong because you don't know any better.
Yes, fair point. As I said earlier this is the difficulty of Fi - it is so hard to justify in ordinary terms.

Hmm... perhaps it is necessary to avoid the use of ordinary terms.

So its better to hurt the 'other' than be unprejudiced in whom one hurts? :huh:

At least it's more predictable, and allows the society to continue functioning on some level due to that predictability. LOL, I suppose predictability sounds like a shoddy ethical argument, doesn't it?
I too believe that there is a great deal of relativity involved in morality, but this only exists if we look too closely at specifics. If we step back we can see there are universal principles that transcend even cultural differences: that cruelty is wrong; that lying for selfish reasons is wrong; that it is important to accept differences in others as long as they do not unreasonably impinge on the rights of other people etc etc. Sure, there is a degree of discretion necessary in how we apply these values but so is there in the justice system - its the best you can do with something so complex as morality.

I would say that many cultures that accept cruelty to those who are different (in terms of religion), or those deemed inferior (such as women or slaves). Ironically, that would be an Fe problem... but still, the fact that such cultures exist makes me doubt the existence of a universal morality. If there are entire cultures of people who behave in what is (to me) an obviously immoral fashion... how can one believe in a universal human morality? Naturally, I have to choose to judge them by their own standards of morality for my own peace of mind... because to do otherwise would require me to condemn them as bad people, when in reality I feel that they just live in a bad culture and are misguided.

well, i believe for me it would take the most work and energy to reprogram Ne. but Fi would be second, yes. i do think you can escape their pitfalls and lean on the other functions, thus allowing a too heavily-used function to "heal". perhaps that is part of the virtue of being well rounded.

perhaps things will be easier to understand if we temporarily suspend picturing Fi in such a holistic way?

for the moment let's try to move away from seeing it in a light of "unchangeable universal moral rules" and simply try to understand it as illogical internal prioritizing. it is not bound by logic or by external rulesets, thus it relies on a person's sense of identity, as developed by all their functions, their past experiences, and their current experiencing, to make decisions about what is important.

personally, in terms of general values, i don't know that i really believe in universal, unchanging morals. i do think that there is a commonality that lies within everything in existence, and then within all living beings on the earth, and certainly amongst all humans, and those commonalities allow for the creation of general rules - for example, those studied in psychology and sociology - that are somewhat akin to the laws of physics. for instance, never have i heard of a human who does not desire, in some capacity, happiness, safety, intellectual stimulation, positive social interaction, and the right to make their own decisions, and thus we can derive certain general rules that many people hold as values.

Oh! Well, if you look at Fi that way, it's far less frightening. Just an application of emotional principles derived from experience with human morality. Although, you may be right about Ne changing your perspective, because I don't clash with ENFPs nearly as much as INFPs. I think that perhaps dominant Ne makes it easier for you to see the big picture, and thus avoid many of the pitfalls of Fi.
and while certainly someone could come to destructive Fi conclusions - just as someone can wield destructive Fe - i think essentially the fact that Fi introverts Feeling is exactly what creates its own failsafes. that is, Fi works because it rests on the concept that whatever harms you, or the planet, or whoever, also ultimately harms me, because i internalize Feelings. thus if i harm you, i harm myself. therefore i do not want to harm (though i may slip up in anger or fear).

failsafe 1 - self-harm via self

as Fi dom/aux we do not have your capacity for Ni time-hopping or Fe environment-structuring; rather, the way i sort of understand it is that we create a set of guidelines for how to live life, based on what feels best to us inside - based on our identity. perhaps part of the failsafe is that Fi is the function we use to deal with ourselves... one can't easily develop a Fi value that is universally harmful because it's inherently irrational to the function and detrimental to our own internal wellbeing. which is not to say that no one ever has, simply that it would be incredibly self-destructive.

failsafe 2 - self-harm via environment

then, if we liken Fi to a set of internal guidelines - just because they are not contingent upon the immediate situation in the way that Fe is does not mean they cannot be changed. if the data we receive in - if our Ne and Se experiences - radically change, at some point we will need to shift our Fi values, because the way we are feeling inside will almost inevitably also change based on our environments (you know how it is commonly believed Fi users are very "sensitive"... well, that is because we are highly responsive to external information...)

so a second aspect of the failsafe against harmful Fi values could be that Fi relies to some extent on Se and Ne for information on how it should proceed. no function works in a vacuum, so it's unlikely that an externally harmful Fi value will go for long without needing to be adjusted for its own user's sake. even though most Fi dom/aux are willing to lay our personal safety on the line for our Fi values to some extent, we do it because we believe we are making the sacrifice to gain a greater good. if there is no external input saying one has in fact achieved something beneficial, then it is unlikely one would continue to act in that way.

instead

the major problems i experience in regards to Fi arise not in values themselves but in the interpretation surrounding them... defining harm is much trickier than stopping it. those Fi users who i disagree with most vehemently are those who have decided that different things are harmful than those i have decided upon. it is hard to know, sometimes, what exactly it is that creates lack of wellbeing.

i suppose this post in general makes Fi sound very me-centered - and in some ways it is - but that is not to be taken as a declaration that Fi users are not interested in others nor that we do everything we do for the sake of ourselves.

Well, with the emphasis upon the impact of information gathering, and the idea that even Introverted feelings are still designed in such a way that they can respond to human beings... makes everything make a lot more sense.

^ I like the idea you have expressed her about "Fi failsafes" skylights - some of the discussion seems to revolve around this idea that Fi exists in some sort of isolated la-la mamby-pamby land, choosing values that serve only the self, impervious to any kind of rationality or outside influence. I doubt that's true for most people, and bearing in mind the following disclaimers: people who are immature Fi users, people who have emotional baggage, people (who at their current stage of development) are not self-aware. Everyone is learning and growing all the time; we don't just pop out of the womb fully developed after all.

:)

Reduced to the simplest way I can express it, being sensitive to the internal landscape of others means that if I hurt you, I hurt myself too. So why would I want to? I mean, if that's not logical, I don't know what is.

Think of it another way: I perceive the world in a feeling kind of way continually, 24/7 ... if anything, I get too much of this input and feedback from the outside world, not too little. Not to mention my own internal idealistic ruminations about all the stuff I should be doing, to help myself, my family, the whole world. It's a lot of feelery data to process and structure and align.

Does that help at all?

-----

Above, fidelia wrote about Fi users:



It's more like we have to be content with just knowing the truth, because expressing that internal knowing in any kind of quantifiable, verifiable way seems near impossible. And believe me, it can be very frustrating to lack a way to prove a knowing, a truth.

Well, I think this all helps a little bit. I've been overlooking the fact that Fi is still capable of empathy, even if it is directed inwards. I assumed that empathy required you to direct your feelings out towards the person. But I suppose you could also look inwards at what it was that evoked the empathy within you, and still have it be no less intense (though it might not be obvious).
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Good, I think that means I can trust TJs and other FPs to help Fi users out when their values are too far from reality.

This is true. But I think any type can help another.

I do think FPs tend to value Te though. It helps classify many of the things we're seeing. Hell, I didn't even bother writing a wall of text for you. I just quoted an INTJ instead. :laugh:
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
After reading Peace Baby's post, a question popped into my mind, but you answered it somewhat here. I was going to ask, "what happens when an Fi user does something that violates those universal, Fi principles? When an Fi user cheats on their partner or doesn't treat someone kindly or otherwise causes pain or hurt?" And the part of your post that provided insight to the answer for me is the bolded part.

This reminds me of INFP Ian Curtis (singer of Joy Division). It seems his extramarital affair (along with his epilepsy) tore him up pretty bad emotionally, leading to a severe depression & then suicide. So an FP who's massively screwed up may disintegrate mentally and abuse substances or even self-harm to deal with a violation of their own values. I have an ESFP friend who is a physical & emotional wreck as a consequence of bad moral decisions, or at least I see a correlation....what makes it worse is she DOES try to justify it as "I did what I thought best at the time", when I know deep down she knows better & it does eat at her.

Some MBTI profiles talk about Fi types taking a sort of ascetic attitude in life because of this sensitivity - they're almost "pre-punishing" themselves because of their hyper-awareness of their own transgressions.

Many INFP profiles in particular mention the common inner turmoil that they experience, and I'd venture to say that this is somewhat typical for all FPs. The ideals can be so high that this turmoil is near constant, and things eat at you that don't seem to affect others as deeply. There can be an emotional desire vs. moral feeling struggle that extends into areas others don't seem to see any reason to struggle.... What's sort of "normal" to others & not even seen as questionable can be a moral dilemma to the FP. I guess that's why our values can seem like mine bombs at times....

The multiple times I have seen an Fi user violate these "treat everyone good and fair" principles have always been the result of a "made sense at the moment" situation. It made sense at the moment, but it was a devastating blow to the other person.

I see this more with SFPs.....they seem to learn more directly from experience, where I am personally more "hypothetical" & prone to try & cover every angle in advance. Experience is not necessary for me to evaluate something & at least have an idea of how I would feel, although it certainly will be refined by actual experience. ExFPs may be less ready to form any judgment prior to experience though, being Pe over Ji. INFPs seem the least connected to the reality of experiences, for better or worse (which seems to intensify our quixotic nature). So what can make FPs seem thoughtless is actually a failure to evaluate at all as they're putting off judging in favor of gathering more info for criteria - in this case blame it on Pe, not Fi.

So I fancy that I have more foresight & tend to overthink & sometimes be paranoid about how my actions will turn out (to the point of being inhibited), but when I do manage to be totally obtuse, it's usually from sheer oblivion to what is often expectations that others find obvious but that seem arbitrary to me. Stuff that I was not even aware can be considered significant & I violate it unknowingly - it's the flipside of the "what is normal" point above, or what I call the "Fe memo" that somehow never made it to my inbox. As Jung says, "Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values."

I think what maybe compounds this problem is that the friend/partner of the Fi user sees them in almost an angelic way. The Fi user truly exudes this aura that they would never hurt a soul and so, over time, the other person buys into that. The Fi user has a way of gaining one's TOTAL and complete trust. And then suddenly, when the Fi user does something really hurtful it causes a lot of damage.

I've had this issue, not with hurting people, but with people assuming I am such an angel that I must be uptight & judgey & "too perfect" (which is undoubtedly annoying to them...no one likes "too perfect"). The reality is, I'm really relaxed & somewhat bumbling in my cluelessness in life. I stick my foot in my mouth & get egg on my face all the time (and it's NOT cute). I mean, it's really unfair to be put on such a pedestal, and it's not even flattering.... You can't get mad at someone else because they're not perfect like you thought they were. All this does is reinforce FP paranoia about needing to be perfect anyway - it's like the worst nightmare to have our suspicions confirmed that we need to be perfect to deserve love or whatever. What I'm hearing here is FPs shouldn't get as much slack because we have high standards we strive to live up to - but because you expect others to let you down, then they're not as hurtful when the do? That's really weird to me....

But, really, how does the Fi user feel when they themselves have a "made sense at the time" moment and cause damage? Is it extremely deep feelings of remorse or is it just "well, hey, it made sense at the moment, what else can I say?

Well see above....It can certainly wreak havoc on the FP's mind & even body.
I'd also add it depends on whether or not I feel the person is overreacting or not. I'd feel bad if they feel bad & would seek to remedy it & avoid it in the future, but I'd also feel misunderstood if they ascribed me bad motive where I had none. Motive can be huge with FPs, so I'd ask for some compassion towards ME when I screw up but have honest intentions.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Something else I've wanted to address in general, and this seems as good a place as any.....
I've noticed that "subjectivity" is referred to quite negatively in regards to the cognitive functions, and I think that is a great misunderstanding or unfair judgment.

Let's remember that "objective" in the Jungian sense does NOT mean "without bias". It simply means the focus of the reasoning is on the object - external factors are used as the basis of reason. In other words, the bias of the external world & its standards is very much influencing these extroverted processes, and as mentioned, it can result in mob mentalities that have very twisted moral reasoning. So subjective thinking is really FREED from the influence of the object, as it resists its influence. If Fi is the most subjective thought process, it is also the most INDEPENDENT thought process, the least touched by external biases, which is important when those biases are damaging to core concepts of goodness. I'm not suggesting this is superior, but its extremely important for BALANCE, & why all of the functions are important. Fe & Fi often deal with the same issues as they both valuate, but they're coming from different ends in regards to lines of reasoning, and sometimes they wind up at the same place (quite often actually), and other times they are something like a check & balance; and when you add Ti & Te into it, then your bases are covered in regards to sound judgments.

For Fi, there is a resistance to be affected by external feelings, which allows its feeling to be untouched in sense. There is a purity & simpleness to its basic concepts of value because they're left uncomplicated by external forces ; what seems black & white standards of good & bad to others (Fi values) is really so basic & focusing on the core of matters that its also broad & has much fluidity (no doubt, the effects of Pe on the mindset also). This is likely why FPs have a childlike quality at times to their demeanor, an idealistic naivete that's hard to kill.

I'd compare Fi values to a liquid that adapts to different containers' shapes easily until a container is unable to hold it properly, and then & only then does it spill over, leak out, or bust through. It seems gentle until the container is not suitable & then its force is apparent; that is Fi and the external world. It flows in & out without much ado, adapting to moral codes around it as long as they can contain its own. A mature FP easily sees the significance of Fe standards, because they simply relate it to their inner ideal. The tendency, being Pe types, is to wait & see anyway - which is why Fi may seem rigid if you forget its not paired with Pe & using Pe when focusing on the object. Evaluations are sort of suspended until external angles are exhausted, and values remain in conceptual form, adaptable to specific situations, but not hard & fast rules.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
1,844
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Think for themselves? That would be Ti. I think the expression you were searching for was "trust their own feelings." :wink:

Interesting. Thanks, everyone. :yes:

Oh yeah... think for myself. I tend to not like external systems/beliefs to try
to influence my thoughts/feelings. I try to see/feel things for myself.
I think sometimes I probably push people away by doing this. Don't mean to but I resist it and the influence. Bothers me when I'm lectured on why I should be doing something also. Matter of fact happened the past couple days and wooo hooo I needed to be left alone, that's how mad I got. I respect Fe and I even try to understand how alike we as "feelers" really are in terms of our values. Maybe not how we go about it but the end result.

I believe from seeing my Fe parent (Most likely ESFJ. Sometimes think my parent is an INFP stuck in their Tertiary Si/Opposing Fe after Eric B pointing something out that actually does fit. But then what am I if so? o_O but anyway) we may be like two cats with our tales puffed up at the others ways but in the end our values are reaching for something similar that if we can open our minds we can look at this and honor it.


Apologies for the wall of text :blush:


Yes, I understood you :) . What I didn't make clear (apologies for this) is that I feel that there would be no reason for a Fi-user to cling to a destructive value if they weren't basing it on their own personal needs and desires. In other words, if we (and by this I mean doms/aux - I can't speak for the others) are effective in separating our values from our emotions of the moment and letting the values take precedence, we should be able to maintain the necessary distance to recognise if they are corrupt. Fi doms certainly have momentary slips and allow emotions to lead us to take destructive action, but because we spend so much time testing our values with external systems, we rarely get stuck in this mode. Our values are part of an on going process, not a solid, immovable position we adopt - even if it sometimes seems that way.

So to answer your question from an INFP perspective, we can change those corrupt values if they are not shown to be congruous with reality. Counter-arguments that we can't explain away will persuade us to change our minds just as they do with Ti.

As an INFP this reminded me of how I've been shifting perspective over the years. And about Fi users seeing how Fe values are reaching for similar ends.

I used to always baffle at how this family member could keep on putting up with their children (my two siblings) making mistakes (over and over not just once). I felt they were using them and sometimes still do. I would always ask why do you listen to them if they keep making the same decisions. They got themselves there etc.

When they told me "Because I worry that if I don't listen to them they may just go crazy from it all". I immediately stepped back and thought how much that made sense. Why didn't they tell me this sooner LOL. I couldn't argue if anything I was reflecting on it and "thinking" how I need to start incorporating that in my beliefs/Fi values. Not in those exact words but just a internal "uh huh... okay I've been going about this all wrong apparently.

This seems to be another way of acting out something that matters to me. I always thought they were enabling them but really it was an act of love/concern. I also was thinking about a quote I heard regarding trying the best you can with what you got. Instead of resisting I felt a new found respect for a family member. With the talk with them and that quote I realized this other family member was really just trying to play their cards the best they could/knew how. I didn't get angry like I would before as I think I was starting to understand."

Something else I've wanted to address in general, and this seems as good a place as any.....
I've noticed that "subjectivity" is referred to quite negatively in regards to the cognitive functions, and I think that is a great misunderstanding or unfair judgment.

Let's remember that "objective" in the Jungian sense does NOT mean "without bias". It simply means the focus of the reasoning is on the object - external factors are used as the basis of reason. In other words, the bias of the external world & its standards is very much influencing these extroverted processes, and as mentioned, it can result in mob mentalities that have very twisted moral reasoning. So subjective thinking is really FREED from the influence of the object, as it resists its influence. If Fi is the most subjective thought process, it is also the most INDEPENDENT thought process, the least touched by external biases, which is important when those biases are damaging to core concepts of goodness. I'm not suggesting this is superior, but its extremely important for BALANCE, & why all of the functions are important. Fe & Fi often deal with the same issues as they both valuate, but they're coming from different ends in regards to lines of reasoning, and sometimes they wind up at the same place (quite often actually), and other times they are something like a check & balance; and when you add Ti & Te into it, then your bases are covered in regards to sound judgments.

For Fi, there is a resistance to be affected by external feelings, which allows its feeling to be untouched in sense. There is a purity & simpleness to its basic concepts of value because they're left uncomplicated by external forces ; what seems black & white standards of good & bad to others (Fi values) is really so basic & focusing on the core of matters that its also broad & has much fluidity (no doubt, the effects of Pe on the mindset also). This is likely why FPs have a childlike quality at times to their demeanor, an idealistic naivete that's hard to kill.

I'd compare Fi values to a liquid that adapts to different containers' shapes easily until a container is unable to hold it properly, and then & only then does it spill over, leak out, or bust through. It seems gentle until the container is not suitable & then its force is apparent; that is Fi and the external world. It flows in & out without much ado, adapting to moral codes around it as long as they can contain its own. A mature FP easily sees the significance of Fe standards, because they simply relate it to their inner ideal. The tendency, being Pe types, is to wait & see anyway - which is why Fi may seem rigid if you forget its not paired with Pe & using Pe when focusing on the object. Evaluations are sort of suspended until external angles are exhausted, and values remain in conceptual form, adaptable to specific situations, but not hard & fast rules.

Fi for me is very independent. I notice alot of the times I prefer to be independent in my evaluating of a situation or personal strife/grief. Sometimes I worry people have thought that I didn't need them. But really what was happened needed to sorted out internally for myself first. I take in information and I sift it through like those gold rush people sift through the sand/dirt to find gold and silver with those mesh like squares they'd hold in their hands. (heard this somewhere on here I think and definitely agree)

When the good old Fi needs to work some internal kinks out I tend to need to be alone even more then normal. Intrusion on this process while I'm weighing what I'm feeling tends to only frustrate me because I'm really wrestling with something that can't be defined but only felt. Even though I think and think... alot. I try to let information in though via if I see it as being potentially helpful to interact.
Heh it's I really need to be in my head when I'm working something out internally.

Love :heart: that liquid metaphor OA :-D.

Great thread idea.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Athenian200 said:
Oh! Well, if you look at Fi that way, it's far less frightening. Just an application of emotional principles derived from experience with human morality. Although, you may be right about Ne changing your perspective, because I don't clash with ENFPs nearly as much as INFPs. I think that perhaps dominant Ne makes it easier for you to see the big picture, and thus avoid many of the pitfalls of Fi.

perhaps so... Ne probably resonates more easily with your Ni. i'm glad you find this way of looking at it helpful. :yes:

i would try to keep your mind open about the pitfalls though. Fi for you would be in the "critical parent" role, i think, and as such may tend to feel harsh and restricting. i have seen quite a few NFJs interpret Fi as some kind of cold, black-and-white either rigid or chaotic function, but i wish you could spend a minute in my mind and feel what Fi feels like. it's an inner warmth, a glow, a soft light and enduring love, and a burning fire when it comes time to protect someone you love. i know it must be hard to understand from the outside, but it's so very human. certainly Fi can accidentally drown in its own internalization... but it cares so much about other people, about every person. it hurts how much it cares about other people. my other caveat - the principles are not just emotional. they involve emotion, yes, but they are not explained by emotion alone. a calm Fi dom/aux still feels the stir of Fi inside.

Well, with the emphasis upon the impact of information gathering, and the idea that even Introverted feelings are still designed in such a way that they can respond to human beings... makes everything make a lot more sense.

:yes: some may disagree with me, but i believe that the purpose of the Feeling function, regardless of attitude, is to deal with other beings. Fi might internalize, but it is not just a crazy locked-up storehouse of egotistical values - consider how maladaptive that would be, both for the individual and for the group as a whole. Fi is just a pattern of cognition that facilitates our ability to understand what goes on within beings, much as Fe is honed to understand what goes on between beings. our own selves are our training grounds, but a well-developed Fi function will be applied not just to the self, but to others' selves, and to large groups and systems as a whole. it really is just a cognitive process, and nothing more. a pattern in our brains.

i wish you could see the interaction between my best friend, an NFJ, and i, for an example. we end up at extremely similar conclusions almost all the time, and share very similar values, but we have very different ways of getting to those conclusions. it's actually quite wonderful, because each of us considers what the other tends not to, and we can bolster one another in that way. we are made of the same stuff, really, of N and F. of curiosity and of compassion.

Well, I think this all helps a little bit. I've been overlooking the fact that Fi is still capable of empathy, even if it is directed inwards. I assumed that empathy required you to direct your feelings out towards the person. But I suppose you could also look inwards at what it was that evoked the empathy within you, and still have it be no less intense (though it might not be obvious).

it is very obvious to us though :) when i see someone hurting, i literally mirror their hurt and feel it very strongly within. this will inspire me to reach out and help them, but i have always understood "empathy" more at the level of feeling what they are feeling than in reaching out. feeling what they are feeling is nigh automatic, practically impossible to prevent. (and the strength of our Ne/Se helps to read objective external data so that we make an accurate read as to what a person is feeling - it's not just an assumption, but a complex calculation). the depth of compassion can be very great. it's very much about the other person, more than it's about myself, even though i feel it inwardly. however, we may tend to act on it less than Fe dom/aux because sometimes the hurt is overwhelming or confusing, especially in a Ne light. you see one person suffering, but you know there are millions of others suffering too. you want to donate to a charity, but which one? what if the money goes to the wrong thing? there are so many possibilities... sometimes it's paralyzing.

so while one can get lost in the internal hurt, or by virtue of analysis paralysis, i suspect that we continue to internalize because of how well it allows us to put ourselves in another's shoes. it's not really pleasant to be in a mirrored hurt state, but it can be extremely helpful to the other person because i can "get on their level". it's rewarding. Fi internalization and rapid Ne/Se cue-reading helps one to know the right things to say, how to say them, when to say them. it's also often healing to the other person to have someone sit at a place of hurt with them and simply accept it for what it is - regardless of the shame or discomfort they may feel - and we are often good companions into these depths because we have explored them within ourselves. because we are not focused on the interpersonal, there is little, if any, worry of how that shared emotional depth will impact the relationship - there is simply concern for the other's inner wellbeing, and the assumption that if the other person heals internally, things will be better.

overall it's really quite odd to hear anyone talk about Fi as a non-person-oriented function because my Fi is overwhelmingly applied to people. i can think of about 1000 person-oriented applications of Fi off the top of my head... and... not really any good non-person-oriented ones... actually Fi tends to personalize even inanimate things... so...
:thinking:

anyway... think of us first as Feeling types - warm, compassionate, caring, humanistic - then secondarily as introverted Feeling types - and things may tend to make more sense. we deal with the same "matter" as you do via extraverted Feeling, just we send it in a different direction :yes:
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ti people are attached to something special with this word "objective". It isn't being used as Jung used it. It is being used to mean something, ironically, that one can be attached to. I am unsure how to express it. Something like "being personally interested in being impersonal". But that is a shallow expression implying the position is chosen. It seems rather that it is not chosen. It looks, sounds, and acts like a value, but indeed, that is me using terminology I fill with Fi nuance. So what is it? It's special to the operation of particularly Ti. What is it?

Yes, Ti people, what's up with this word "objective" you keep using? I know why I use it. It refers to everything that is independent of me. I don't make that "everything". And I discover it mostly just by seeing it and assenting to it. But you guys have something special going on.

What's up with that?

So, it is a value! And becomes more clearly recognised as such if "outside" is rendered as "uninfluenced by", viz INTPness' impressive description above.


Okay Kalach, this is the best I can do. I don’t know what you mean by value here^. I don’t purport to speak for all Ti’ers, but this is how I perceive ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. [There’s a lot of stuff that’s been posted since this has- which I haven’t read- so: usual disclaimer about ‘if this same thing has been said’.]

As it applies to introverted/extraverted:

Objective = is ‘true’ outside the individual’s mind, is true to a collective of individual minds (in other words, it's ‘true’ to the collectivity of subjective praxes of thought); and the bigger the collective of individuals a thing is ‘true’ for, the more it is ‘objectively true’.

Subjective = is ‘true’ to the individual. Either it rings true to critical thinking senses (correct/incorrect, Ti) or it rings true to critical feeling senses (right/wrong, Fi), for both on an experiential level. In other words, the individual experiences the information as ‘true’, regardless of whether other individuals do or not.


I think that both Fi and Ti seek information/values that appeal to both ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ senses- yet if a thing is true ‘objectively’, but not true ‘subjectively’; then it is not experienced as being true. I’m sort of seeing the question put forth in the op as: is the extent- to which the reciprocal of this applies- indicative of the difference between Fi and Ti? The reciprocal being: if a thing is true ‘subjectively’, but not true ‘objectively’; then it is not true. I think Fi users (in this forum, at least) have sort of implied they don’t gauge their values against others as a check and balance for what’s ‘true’. Maybe. Kind of.

I totally get what Peacebaby and Seymour have said (or at least, I believe I do)- that Fi also seeks a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that are universally/objectively true (according to the definition of ‘objective’ above, anyway). But T is at a clear advantage, in that it’s possible to prove- more or less- how its information is incorrect/correct. While there may be morals/values that seem universal to all mankind, it’s infinitely harder to prove as Truth per se. It’s possible to prove Ti is incorrect with external means- since essentially, it isn’t about value judgments. Is it possible to prove Fi wrong with external means- indisputably, I mean?

So, objective/subjective as it applies to Thinking/Feeling:

Objective: is provable in external world, irregardless of affect.
Subjective: is provable only in that the collective of different subjective experiences of ‘affect’ can agree to something being right or wrong.

In short: there are two different definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ coming into play here, when saying Te is 2x as ‘objective’ and Fi is 2x as ‘subjective’.

Both Fi and Ti are at the affect of ‘subjective’ truth- according to the first definition of ‘subjective’ listed above (individual experiences information as ‘true’, regardless of whether or not other individuals do). AND both Ti and Fi are ultimately aimed at seeking a ‘truth’ that can be considered as such collectively. BUT Ti seeks ‘objective’ (according to 2nd definition) collective ‘truth’ while Fi ‘subjective’ (according to 2nd definition) collective ‘truth’.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I suppose the extreme is what bothers me. There is so much subjective reasoning as it is, that it seems creepy to allow it to take root on purpose and make it the decisive factor.
I think you associate it too much with erratic, selfish behaviour (which can result from any function) and its clouding your view of Fi. I hate this stuff too and wouldn't want to be compared with it.


Well, I do agree with you that the feelings of the victim's families are irrelevant to the question of whether the death penalty should be permitted. However, I do propose other questions. Namely, what quality of life would one experience with life imprisonment, and is it really preferable to the death penalty? In some ways, it seems more cruel to force them to live with their guilt day after day. Also, if we as a society agree that they are too dangerous to allow on the streets again, then why do we have a responsibility to provide for them for the rest of their lives? By not killing them, we are forced to bear the financial burden of taking care of them, when they clearly have done something that makes them less worthy of being cared for than an innocent person.

There's a less reactive argument for the death penalty (not that I agree with it, I'm actually unsure, but those are good points).
Oh don't tempt me to get into this. I don't want to begin a derail. ;)


If there is no dissent, how can it be wrong? Or at least, how can anyone be held responsible for it if is, since there's no way of seeing that it's wrong without a way of contrasting it with something else?
I don't know where to begin with this.

You can always contrast it with something else, if only with a past experience or a concept of how you would want to be treated.

I don't judge historical figures on my own morality, or that of today, but that of their own time and place... because that's all that they knew. I really don't believe that someone can "just know" that something is morally wrong. I think there is a difference between doing something you know is wrong, and doing something that's wrong because you don't know any better.
Yes this is important to do this to a degree. Some historical figures were a little racist or sexist, and as much as I disapprove of it, that was acceptable in that time so you can't entirely judge them on it. But relativism can be taken too far - there is a point where a line is crossed and cultural/historical differences are rendered irrelevant. If we don't judge by some absolute principles everything becomes acceptable. Anti-semitism was the norm in Europe in the mid 20th century - does this make the Holocaust acceptable, or even understandable? People can just know what is right and wrong - often they just ignore their conscience. I mean, do people/books/the media have to tell you Hitler was morally corrupt or can you decide this for yourself?

At least it's more predictable, and allows the society to continue functioning on some level due to that predictability. LOL, I suppose predictability sounds like a shoddy ethical argument, doesn't it?
It is predictable but perhaps not in a way perceptible to you. :shrug:

I would say that many cultures that accept cruelty to those who are different (in terms of religion), or those deemed inferior (such as women or slaves). Ironically, that would be an Fe problem... but still, the fact that such cultures exist makes me doubt the existence of a universal morality. If there are entire cultures of people who behave in what is (to me) an obviously immoral fashion... how can one believe in a universal human morality? Naturally, I have to choose to judge them by their own standards of morality for my own peace of mind... because to do otherwise would require me to condemn them as bad people, when in reality I feel that they just live in a bad culture and are misguided.
Yes there are some cultures that accept cruelty and we should judge them on that. Sometimes we need to be judgmental, it saves lives. Always remaining unbiased can end up being nothing more than tacit approval of cruelty.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Okay Kalach, this is the best I can do. I don’t know what you mean by value here^. I don’t purport to speak for all Ti’ers, but this is how I perceive ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. [There’s a lot of stuff that’s been posted since this has- which I haven’t read- so: usual disclaimer about ‘if this same thing has been said’.]

As it applies to introverted/extraverted:

Objective = is ‘true’ outside the individual’s mind, is true to a collective of individual minds (in other words, it's ‘true’ to the collectivity of subjective praxes of thought); and the bigger the collective of individuals a thing is ‘true’ for, the more it is ‘objectively true’.

Subjective = is ‘true’ to the individual. Either it rings true to critical thinking senses (correct/incorrect, Ti) or it rings true to critical feeling senses (right/wrong, Fi), for both on an experiential level. In other words, the individual experiences the information as ‘true’, regardless of whether other individuals do or not.

^ these two are N-close to what I understand Jung to have meant by objective and subjective. ("N-close" = "intuitively, the same"). The emphasis on number of people in the "objective" statement is Fe objectivity, but still, lets move on.

I think that both Fi and Ti seek information/values that appeal to both ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ senses- yet if a thing is true ‘objectively’, but not true ‘subjectively’; then it is not experienced as being true. I’m sort of seeing the question put forth in the op as: is the extent- to which the reciprocal of this applies- indicative of the difference between Fi and Ti? The reciprocal being: if a thing is true ‘subjectively’, but not true ‘objectively’; then it is not true. I think Fi users (in this forum, at least) have sort of implied they don’t gauge their values against others as a check and balance for what’s ‘true’. Maybe. Kind of.

I totally get what Peacebaby and Seymour have said (or at least, I believe I do)- that Fi also seeks a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that are universally/objectively true (according to the definition of ‘objective’ above, anyway). But T is at a clear advantage, in that it’s possible to prove- more or less- how its information is incorrect/correct. While there may be morals/values that seem universal to all mankind, it’s infinitely harder to prove as Truth per se. It’s possible to prove Ti is incorrect with external means- since essentially, it isn’t about value judgments. Is it possible to prove Fi wrong with external means- indisputably, I mean?

So, objective/subjective as it applies to Thinking/Feeling:

Objective: is provable in external world, irregardless of affect.
Subjective: is provable only in that the collective of different subjective experiences of ‘affect’ can agree to something being right or wrong.

In short: there are two different definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ coming into play here, when saying Te is 2x as ‘objective’ and Fi is 2x as ‘subjective’.

Both Fi and Ti are at the affect of ‘subjective’ truth- according to the first definition of ‘subjective’ listed above (individual experiences information as ‘true’, regardless of whether or not other individuals do). AND both Ti and Fi are ultimately aimed at seeking a ‘truth’ that can be considered as such collectively. BUT Ti seeks ‘objective’ (according to 2nd definition) collective ‘truth’ while Fi ‘subjective’ (according to 2nd definition) collective ‘truth’.

I think I probably agree with everything there except the bolded, which I will explicitly disagree with. Whether Te or Ti, all thinking functions are essentially about value judgements. "True" and "false" are evaluations. This is particularly easy for me to see because I prefer extroverted thinking so it's particularly obvious to me that I measure statements by comparing them to external sources. I evaluate by relatively shallow worldly measure. But "true" under a Ti scheme is so very much more like a value judgement. Statements are evaluated as true if and only if they survive a particular kind of cultivation. That cultivation is meant to weed out personal influence and bring the content of the statement into clear focus with respect to a standard. That standard is "objective". The meaning of the terms are clarified, the content is established, its relation to other content is established, it is checked according to principles that have been established. And all of that stuff exists in the mind. It was produced by some similar process of cultivation. AND IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION! The universality of the judgement arrives exactly by virtue of how far from contingent worldly influence this subjective process allows the person to move the judgement.

/hypothesis and "making things up"



"Subjective" can't mean dismiss-able. It can't mean "out of touch with reality". It can't mean "personal to him and therefore meaningless to me." If it did, we'd all, by definition, be sociopaths.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Okay, I totally get the 'value judgment' thing now. Yeah, judgment = value judgment, it's all the product of subjective evaluation. [So, let's say, '2+2=4 is true' is ultimately a value judgment I guess, however 'objectively' true it seems. No matter how widely it's collectively thought of as being true, 'true' is a product of subjective evaluation?]


And the other stuff you wrote is, I think, the point I was trying to make with my earlier post: "blah blah 'objective thinking' is myth blah blah." You've stated it better.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
And the other stuff you wrote is, I think, the point I was trying to make with my earlier post: "blah blah 'objective thinking' is myth blah blah." You've stated it better.

Ah, but see, assuming you're saying what I think you're saying, because I don't know which post you mean, that's exactly what an "objective" thinker would say. Like an INFP commenting on the good or right and wrong. "It's a myth," they'd say, wistfully and pining, because they know how hard, or perhaps even how meaningless, it is to achieve. In other words, it's one of the ultimate values.

(I once suggested to a fairly obvious INFJ that I was interested in truth and she was more interested in feeling... well, that surely didn't provoke the good natured assent I had (not quite) expected.)
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
You can always contrast it with something else, if only with a past experience or a concept of how you would want to be treated.

Well, if things have always been that way for your whole life, then how could a past experience help?
Yes this is important to do this to a degree. Some historical figures were a little racist or sexist, and as much as I disapprove of it, that was acceptable in that time so you can't entirely judge them on it. But relativism can be taken too far - there is a point where a line is crossed and cultural/historical differences are rendered irrelevant. If we don't judge by some absolute principles everything becomes acceptable. Anti-semitism was the norm in Europe in the mid 20th century - does this make the Holocaust acceptable, or even understandable? People can just know what is right and wrong - often they just ignore their conscience. I mean, do people/books/the media have to tell you Hitler was morally corrupt or can you decide this for yourself?

I actually believe that even Hitler was merely ignorant and misguided, not evil. It's true that he had to be stopped for the good of others, but I would not condemn his motives as evil. He had good intentions. His dream was to elevate Germany into a golden age of prosperity. He genuinely believed that the Jewish people were undermining German society, due to the prejudices to which he had been exposed. So, he took it to its logical extreme, and decided that in order for his country to prosper, they must be eliminated. He was considering the good of the majority as the most important thing. The problem is that he was wrong, dead wrong. Had his assumptions been right, he would have been a hero and not a villain.

Most consider Hitler as an archetype of pure evil. But I've studied about him. I think that he's the archetype of how far astray misguided good intentions can actually go. A good man, who committed evil actions because he failed to understand right from wrong. Most of his followers did as well. In fact, I believe that there is little, if any, true evil... and that most of what we see as evil, is the result of a deep-seated ignorance of what is good, loss of control due to momentary passions or psychological problems, and/or a lack of self-awareness. So, those who are "evil," are either merely ignorant, or disturbed. Calling someone evil is really just a shorthand way of saying that their behavior is undesirable for moral reasons that can be understood, and thus must be stopped. In that sense, there is evil, and it doesn't refer to their intentions or inner nature. The truth is, I just don't believe in "evil" in the sense of a willful choice or inherent quality.
It is predictable but perhaps not in a way perceptible to you. :shrug:

:huh:

Yes there are some cultures that accept cruelty and we should judge them on that. Sometimes we need to be judgmental, it saves lives. Always remaining unbiased can end up being nothing more than tacit approval of cruelty.

Yes, but I would emphasize that we should judge the culture, not the individuals within the culture. Sometimes, it is necessary to stop others for the sake of what we believe in. Because we believe that our morals are right, we must prevent that which we perceive as undesirable in order to accord with our sense of right and wrong.

When it comes to a purely internal level, there is no evil, only ignorance and error. Or rather, there are no evil people, only evil actions. Evil is something that you DO, not something that you ARE.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I didn't find the functions tests helpful either. I think part of it is because the functions we use most are ones that fade into the landscape for us, while the ones we use less or which we have made efforts to develop tend to be ones that we are more conscious of using. For example, I didn't feel like I could see how I used Ni, even though I was more aware of Fe and Ti in myself all along. I finally realized that Ni is such a part of my everyday lens through which I view the world that I had ceased to even be aware of it.

OH THIS. THIS THIS THIS.

I actually started considering ISFP as a type because I was *so sure* I have Fi/Te, like not even open to question anymore, but I was so unaware of how I was using Ne *for sure* rather than some Se/Ni combo...was to identify that I assuredly have Si. How crazy is that? Ne is my dom function and people who know cognitive theory can see it quite clearly, but what ultimately convinced me (after reading Jung and discussing this with others on a different forum) was "ye godz I have sooooo much Si rather than Se" not "oh yes I have Ne!"

It's because the perceptual lens just seems to be 'what is' ...it's kind of freaky. I mean I see it now, Ne dominance makes sense, but still.
 
Top