User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 115

  1. #61
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    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.
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

  2. #62
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTPness View Post
    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.


    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.

  3. #63
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    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."
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    ^ 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.

  4. #64
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

  5. #65
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Apologies for the wall of text

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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?

    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.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  6. #66
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

  7. #67
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    ^ 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.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #68
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    ^ 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).

  9. #69
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

  10. #70
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTPness View Post
    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.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

Similar Threads

  1. Fi vs Fe compared to Ti vs Te: Additional personal impressions
    By YUI in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-07-2015, 02:39 PM
  2. Fi vs. Ti and active listening skills
    By The Great One in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 03:13 PM
  3. Difference in Fi vs Ti in the conclusion of a god
    By Azure Flame in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 06-15-2013, 08:08 PM
  4. Romney vs. Obama; Te(Fi) vs. Ti(Fe)
    By Istbkleta in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-21-2012, 05:12 PM
  5. Fi vs. Ti
    By G-Virus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 08:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO