User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 38

  1. #11
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    I like the analogy. As I read it:

    You build your Fi house near the Se sea, hoping for a nice ocean view. But then the Se sea comes in and knocks over the Fi house. That shows you: Fi is an artificial construction, and you build it according to your personal prejudices or according to what others have told you about how a house should be built. Meantime, Se reflects reality, and reality tends to come in and overwhelm you, especially if your Fi isn't equipped to take it into account.

    So after your Fi house has been battered and knocked down by the Se sea (reality) a couple times, you finally wise up. You study the tides and movements of the Se sea (reality), and you build your Fi house to take into account those tides and movements.

    I think the analogy works for Fi and Ne for INFPs as well. And I like the analogy because it does say something important about the nature of Fi: Often Fi is an artificial construction, a conglomeration of personal prejudices about how the world should be or a collection of simplistic beliefs and ideals fed to us by parents and friends. It's only with time and hard knocks that we begin to realize: Reality takes priority, and Fi has to be brought into correspondence with it.
    Likes julesiscools liked this post

  2. #12

    Default

    That's a great explanation of it. I like that. I agree, it could be applied to other types.

  3. #13
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Fi may be (ahem.. partly) construct, but I don't think it gets knocked down necessarily because it's weak or built on personal prejudices. Thomson's concept of Fi is in line with Jung's.. in that IFPs are seeking the ideal on a global/humane level. It's more than merely personal. It's similar to Plato's "eidos" or other concepts of archetypal and primordial imagery. The reason why it gets knocked down is that it gets so ideal that it's impractical.. not necessarily weak. You just have those moments where you realize something isn't applicable, and maybe the world isn't even ready for it. And you're alone in this conviction.. so it's hard to hold up.. you give in to reality. The new house that can withstand the sea's torrents is the weaker version of Fi - not the stronger one. It's less radical, compromising and more practical, but independent enough to not totally give in. Something with some dignity that says "Well, at least I didn't rebuild in the town.."

  4. #14

    Default

    Depends on how you define strength. Unadulterated I'd agree with.

    Such types can end up feeling like Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, faced with two bad choices: they can go to sleep, let the pods take over, and wake up happy to be programmed, or they can fight to stay awake and spend the rest of their lives resisting cooptation.
    When isfp develop extraverted sensation it takes them out of this either or dilemma. They begin to see that their potential dictates outward responsibilities.


    Developing Se leads to balance. That seems like strength to me.

  5. #15
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Fi may be (ahem.. partly) construct, but I don't think it gets knocked down necessarily because it's weak or built on personal prejudices. Thomson's concept of Fi is in line with Jung's.. in that IFPs are seeking the ideal on a global/humane level. It's more than merely personal. It's similar to Plato's "eidos" or other concepts of archetypal and primordial imagery. The reason why it gets knocked down is that it gets so ideal that it's impractical.. not necessarily weak. You just have those moments where you realize something isn't applicable, and maybe the world isn't even ready for it. And you're alone in this conviction.. so it's hard to hold up.. you give in to reality. The new house that can withstand the sea's torrents is the weaker version of Fi - not the stronger one. It's less radical, compromising and more practical, but independent enough to not totally give in. Something with some dignity that says "Well, at least I didn't rebuild in the town.."
    I'm re-stating the analogy in my own terms, of course.

    And you can say what you want about your own Fi (such as characterizing it as "archetypal and primordial imagery"), but across the years I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that a lot of my own youthful Fi was BS resulting from too much sci-fi reading and daydreaming. Reality provided an unwelcome but ultimately healthy wake-up call.

  6. #16
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'm not trying to talk about it in a personal sense (at least, I'm trying to avoid that). I'm just touching on it's definition in the abstract, going to Jung himself (read psychological types). It's both personal and generally humane. Not that we have a clear idea on tap, but we grow into refining it. The intent, even the faulty ones of our youth, was something better than mere whim.

    Anyhow, even concepts presented in scifi should not be played down, man. I'm going to sing the Beatles "Get Back" to you now and say that you should geek out more. Stop trying to be all cool and shit. Seriously though, the writers behind them are often tapping into timeless ideals concerning humanity.. not to mention, they are a part of a wider literary tradition that's been doing it for centuries. None of it is child's play. Literature, myths, all of these things are rife with archetypes that appeal to many, but Fi doms take a lot of it to heart. It's not "reality" to disregard it. That's just Te telling you that.. Another construct in itself.

  7. #17
    Stansmith
    Guest

    Default

    Se for me is the life of an animal; devoid of purpose and meaning, blindly riding the waves of your own neuroses and primal urges (although who am I talk when it comes to the former) until you eventually reach your demise. The social and professional world is nothing more than a sophisticated translation of the animal kingdom, and I'd much rather observe it from afar through fiction (where humanity is easier to sympathize with) than to give myself up to the ignorance, petty drama and prescribed routine inherent to it.

    Se in a nutshell.


  8. #18
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stansmith View Post
    Se for me is the life of an animal; devoid of purpose and meaning, blindly riding the waves of your own neuroses and primal urges (although who am I talk when it comes to the former) until you eventually reach your demise. The social and professional world is nothing more than a sophisticated translation of the animal kingdom, and I'd much rather observe it from afar through fiction (where humanity is easier to sympathize with) than to give myself up to the ignorance, petty drama and prescribed routine inherent to it.

    Se in a nutshell.

    America is actually largely, largely Te. It's a web of supposed logical functional call centers who can't actually serve you, but yet they are achieving their objectives of making money or dominating the oligopoly.

    Se isn't animal. It's actually the perception of being able to handle the immediate concerns in a practical way, like Wolfy said, instead of building this house that every one else has, you build this house that actually serves your needs. This is the story of my life. In Socionics Se has an intense physical presence as well. I guess this means tert Se is what really makes ENTJs intimidating.

    I have always known instinctively how to handle everything since I was twenty. When a guy tried to steal my money, when I was nearly raped, when I am making an omelet or carrying more bags, I just know how to adjust and what to do.

    I think I have been able to prepare myself to deal with various settings, including finding a murder scene or walking down a dark street. That is Se, especially combined with Te.

    Your assumptions about Se are insulting and disgusting. I would advise you to read Jung and his difference between high and low Se.

    Why do people so easily identify low Se but ignore high Se, and suffer the bizarre delusion that all Ne or Ni is highly developed.

  9. #19
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLD View Post
    I like the analogy. As I read it:

    You build your Fi house near the Se sea, hoping for a nice ocean view. But then the Se sea comes in and knocks over the Fi house. That shows you: Fi is an artificial construction, and you build it according to your personal prejudices or according to what others have told you about how a house should be built. Meantime, Se reflects reality, and reality tends to come in and overwhelm you, especially if your Fi isn't equipped to take it into account.

    So after your Fi house has been battered and knocked down by the Se sea (reality) a couple times, you finally wise up. You study the tides and movements of the Se sea (reality), and you build your Fi house to take into account those tides and movements.

    I think the analogy works for Fi and Ne for INFPs as well. And I like the analogy because it does say something important about the nature of Fi: Often Fi is an artificial construction, a conglomeration of personal prejudices about how the world should be or a collection of simplistic beliefs and ideals fed to us by parents and friends. It's only with time and hard knocks that we begin to realize: Reality takes priority, and Fi has to be brought into correspondence with it.
    You are describing Si, not Fi.

  10. #20
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Why do people so easily identify low Se but ignore high Se, and suffer the bizarre delusion that all Ne or Ni is highly developed.
    This is pretty interesting. It's probably fair to say that the prevailing ideas about Se on this forum are in fact set by Ni doms (and most vocally by INTJs) so yeah, they're skewed by bizarre inferior strangeness and tend to fixate largely on sexuality and animal magnetism with a wee dose of MacGyver.

    What do you think are the differences between low Ne and Ni and high Ne and Ni which this forum is failing to acknowledge?

Similar Threads

  1. Points of agreement and disagreement in discussions
    By garbage in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-06-2012, 12:18 AM
  2. Fictional examples of sensing and intuition in action
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 04:39 PM
  3. Survey of genuineness and acting in TypoC. Roles in persona and in type.
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-21-2009, 11:53 AM
  4. what means concretely to have Ti and Se in inferior?
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-21-2009, 01:54 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