User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 115

  1. #71
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    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.
    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

  2. #72
    :) INFtha14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Think for themselves? That would be Ti. I think the expression you were searching for was "trust their own feelings."

    Interesting. Thanks, everyone.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Apologies for the wall of text


    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    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 that liquid metaphor OA :-D.

    Great thread idea.
    What is Feeling?
    Feeling is primarily a process.....that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. Feeling, like thinking, is a rational function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason...
    (Carl Jung, Psychological Types, Chapter XI - Definitions)

  3. #73
    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 Athenian200
    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.

    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.
    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...


    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

  4. #74
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    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’.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #75
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.

    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.
    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. #76
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    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.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #77
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    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.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  8. #78
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    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.)
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #79
    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
    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.


    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.

  10. #80
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    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.

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