User Tag List

First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 382

  1. #151
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    i think that's being not a te dom aux haha i think their tone can often come across like that.

    and i've been guilty of it too when my patience has worn out.
    Yeah seems like something nobody likes but that everyone is occasionally guilty of...
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  2. #152
    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 fidelia View Post
    Re Fi or Fe being selective. I can see what you are talking about and I think we both do this, but in different areas. Working on articulating this properly in my head because I've noticed both things at work in inverse ways.

    An example of doing something you don't feel like for someone else's sake that you care about - Maybe you hate hospitals. You always have. Yet someone you really care about has fallen seriously ill and needs your presence there. I think Fi is more likely to say, "It's not them. I just don't like hospitals. I'm staying home." whereas Fe reasoning might be more like, "I hate hospitals, but so and so has been there for me in the past and they need me right now because there's no one that can fill that place for them. I guess I'll go, even though I really don't want to." Another example might be going to a musical with your SO. You don't really enjoy musicals and you have no real interest in seeing this one. However, your SO has checked around and they have no one else to go with and they've offered to pay for your ticket. They'd really like to have a shared experience and it matters to them. Fi reasoning might go something like, "I have other things I'd rather do with my evening and I don't even like musicals. Is it such a big deal to go alone?" Fe reasoning might be more like, "They did this this and this that I wasn't interested in. I guess I'll go even though I don't really want to and make it fun for them". Fe focusses more on the fairness aspect and also how it will impact on other people. More priority is given to sacrifice for people closer to them, because more investment has been offered in the past which obligates. (I'm not sure about this, because this might only be NFJ Fe, or it might be more individual than that). Fi is much more about the individual and being authentic to their feelings instead of doing things out of obligation????? (I don't really want to presume to say, because I'm not sure what it's about). I'm not even sure if these examples sound fair to Fi users, but that is the kind of thing I'm thinking of.
    You were doing so well and now you've gone and made such a rookie mistake in function interpretation. I'm sure you meant well, but you must realise this is an unfair comparison. You've basically compared positive example of Fe behaviour with a negative example of Fi behaviour. I'm not saying that there isn't some truth in it, but the truth is more complex than that. I would describe the Fi example you used as an unhealthy form, that is perhaps more commonly seen in tertiary/inferior usage. To me that's just bad Fi. I'm not saying I've never been guilty of it, but for the most part this is not how I would describe my behaviour on a day-to-day basis (nor would others, I imagine).

    I would break it down this way:

    Fi - driven by the individual (focus on yourself or the individual experience of another)
    Fe - driven by others (focus on behaviour towards others and their behaviour toward you)

    These can both be used for positive and negative ends. To compare the extremes of both:

    Fi at its best
    Deeply empathic. Strongly connected to others. Forgiving. Authentic. Thoughtful. Benevolent. Unbiased. Principled. Selfless. Kind. Generous. Complete understanding and respect for what others think and feel. Enables others to be at their best and acts as advocates for them. Strong sense of obligation to what is right (eg. to be kind, to be there for friends). Helps others by anticipating and fulfilling their needs.

    Fi at its worst
    Selfish. Apathetic. Self-indulgent. Self-righteous. Tactless. Bears grudges. Total lack of consideration of the impact of own behaviour on others, OR use insight into others hearts/minds as a weapon (eg. cruelty). Willing to justify anything to serve own ends. Morally inconsistent. Expects something for nothing. Refusal to adapt behaviour - "my way or the highway". Insensitive to the feelings of others. Example: someone expecting their SO to go along with their interests/hobbies but refusing to participate in the interest or hobby of their SO (or doing so but complaining constantly about it).

    Fe at its best
    Compassionate. Inclusive. Fair. Supportive. Self-sacrificing. Considerate. Principled. Selfless. Kind. Generous. Create unity and maintain harmony. Inspires and assists others to reach their goals. Strong sense of obligation to others (eg. to help people, to be supportive). Helps others for the pleasure of doing so.

    Fe at its worst
    Exclusionary. Vindictive. Disingenuous. Us vs. them. Manipulative. Unfairly projects negative intentions on to others. Refuses to accept others think/feel/behave differently. Reciprocity taken to an extreme - always keeping score. Treats kindness/morality as a transaction, or as an investment on which they expect a larger return. Expectation of gratitude from others. Chooses to blame others for everything, while elevating self to sainthood. Example: the 'nice guy' who expects sex/a relationship in return for kindness towards a female acquaintance (ie. "I deserve sex/relationship with you, because I was nice to you") and then is outraged and accusatory when he doesn't get it.

    Do you think those are fair descriptions? Correct me if I'm wrong.

    In terms of what you're actually trying to get at, I would say that Fi is selective about what it determines are its obligations. Fi decides what is right or wrong and will act in accordance of this - and if this is done badly, it can be, "I think I shouldn't have to do what I don't want to". But if you are using Fi well, you don't choose obligations based on what you want. Instead, an inner part of you forces you to take certain courses of action. Often it doesn't feel like a 'choice' at all; it is an internal obligation to do the right thing. OTOH Fe sees obligations in broader terms and as coming from external sources; the sense of pressure comes from other people to match a perceived standard. I don't feel that pressure from others. I don't feel pulled this way and that by what I think others expect of me or need from me. I'm the one that puts myself under pressure. I crack my own whip, so to speak.
    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

  3. #153
    Iron Maiden fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    11,134

    Default

    Thank you for writing this and also for giving me the benefit of the doubt AND some information to go on instead. I really appreciate it!

    Do you think you could help me out by rewriting something that is a analogous between the two? I was a little unsure even at the time, but honestly, even after all this time, it does feel like feeling around in the dark in some ways. The more threads like this there are, the more I take away for next time, but I still need help.

  4. #154
    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 fidelia View Post
    Thank you for writing this and also for giving me the benefit of the doubt AND some information to go on instead. I really appreciate it!

    Do you think you could help me out by rewriting something that is a analogous between the two? I was a little unsure even at the time, but honestly, even after all this time, it does feel like feeling around in the dark in some ways. The more threads like this there are, the more I take away for next time, but I still need help.
    Sorry, I was in the middle of an edit. I realised I didn't do that and tried to write something to tie it together more (If that's what you mean.). Take another look at the last paragraph.
    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

  5. #155
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    You were doing so well and now you've gone and made such a rookie mistake in function interpretation. I'm sure you meant well, but you must realise this is an unfair comparison. You've basically compared positive example of Fe behaviour with a negative example of Fi behaviour. I'm not saying that there isn't some truth in it, but the truth is more complex than that. I would describe the Fi example you used as an unhealthy form, that is perhaps more commonly seen in tertiary/inferior usage. To me that's just bad Fi. I'm not saying I've never been guilty of it, but for the most part this is not how I would describe my behaviour on a day-to-day basis (nor would others, I imagine).

    I would break it down this way:

    Fi - driven by the individual (focus on yourself or the individual experience of another)
    Fe - driven by others (focus on behaviour towards others and their behaviour toward you)

    These can both be used for positive and negative ends. To compare the extremes of both:

    Fi at its best
    Deeply empathic. Strongly connected to others. Forgiving. Authentic. Thoughtful. Benevolent. Unbiased. Principled. Selfless. Kind. Generous. Complete understanding and respect for what others think and feel. Enables others to be at their best and acts as advocates for them. Strong sense of obligation to what is right (eg. to be kind, to be there for friends). Helps others by anticipating and fulfilling their needs.

    Fi at its worst
    Selfish. Apathetic. Self-indulgent. Self-righteous. Tactless. Bears grudges. Total lack of consideration of the impact of own behaviour on others, OR use insight into others hearts/minds as a weapon (eg. cruelty). Willing to justify anything to serve own ends. Morally inconsistent. Expects something for nothing. Refusal to adapt behaviour - "my way or the highway". Insensitive to the feelings of others. Example: someone expecting their SO to go along with their interests/hobbies but refusing to participate in the interest or hobby of their SO (or doing so but complaining constantly about it).

    Fe at its best
    Compassionate. Inclusive. Fair. Supportive. Self-sacrificing. Considerate. Principled. Selfless. Kind. Generous. Create unity and maintain harmony. Inspires and assists others to reach their goals. Strong sense of obligation to others (eg. to help people, to be supportive). Helps others for the pleasure of doing so.

    Fe at its worst
    Exclusionary. Vindictive. Disingenuous. Us vs. them. Manipulative. Unfairly projects negative intentions on to others. Refuses to accept others think/feel/behave differently. Reciprocity taken to an extreme - always keeping score. Treats kindness/morality as a transaction, or as an investment on which they expect a larger return. Expectation of gratitude from others. Chooses to blame others for everything, while elevating self to sainthood. Example: the 'nice guy' who expects sex/a relationship in return for kindness towards a female acquaintance (ie. "I deserve sex/relationship with you, because I was nice to you") and then is outraged and accusatory when he doesn't get it.

    Do you think those are fair descriptions? Correct me if I'm wrong.

    In terms of what you're actually trying to get at, I would say that Fi is selective about what it determines are its obligations. Fi decides what is right or wrong and will act in accordance of this - and if this is done badly, it can be, "I think I shouldn't have to do what I don't want to". But if you are using Fi well, you don't choose obligations based on what you want. Instead, an inner part of you forces you to take certain courses of action. Often it doesn't feel like a 'choice' at all; it is an internal obligation to do the right thing. OTOH Fe sees obligations as coming from external sources; the sense of pressure comes from other people to match a perceived standard. I don't feel that pressure from others. I don't feel pulled this way and that by what I think others expect of me or need from me. I'm the one that puts myself under pressure. I crack my own whip, so to speak.

    i like where your going with this and i think this is a fantastic method of clarification, but i think your making an error in mixing the consequences of Fi/Fe at their positive & negative ends with the consequences of function location & development stages.

    i disagree with the premise that the positives & negatives are directly aligned with the level of development - there are certainly examples of "Fi at its worst" that are common to FPs but rarely come out in TJs, and vise versa - your examples of of classical IxTP & ExTJ misconducts will rarely show up FJs or FPs - likewise the Fe of an IxFJ on a good day isn't the same as the Fe of an ExFJ whose having a bad day.. it simply doesn't fit such a linear path - there are both positive and negative results for the location of the functions at various development points... there needs to be another axis.


    (i might need to think about it some more)

  6. #156
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    In terms of what you're actually trying to get at, I would say that Fi is selective about what it determines are its obligations. Fi decides what is right or wrong and will act in accordance of this - and if this is done badly, it can be, "I think I shouldn't have to do what I don't want to". But if you are using Fi well, you don't choose obligations based on what you want. Instead, an inner part of you forces you to take certain courses of action. Often it doesn't feel like a 'choice' at all; it is an internal obligation to do the right thing. OTOH Fe sees obligations in broader terms and as coming from external sources; the sense of pressure comes from other people to match a perceived standard. I don't feel that pressure from others. I don't feel pulled this way and that by what I think others expect of me or need from me. I'm the one that puts myself under pressure. I crack my own whip, so to speak.
    This makes sense, to a point, but if I follow it through, it becomes circular.

    Fi acts based on individual, internal values. That sense of internal obligation is accurate, and can be very strong, even in a tert-Fi user like myself. But sometimes that obligation involves observing external demands, as when I observe social conventions interacting with family elders, because respect for elders is something I value deeply.

    On the Fe side, obligations do seem to come from external sources and standards, and the desire to have harmonious interactions with others. But why is satisfying these important? The desire to do so starts to look again like another internal value: the Fe user values social harmony and external standards.

    I find it all confusing if I think about it for very long.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #157
    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 Mane View Post
    i like where your going with this and i think this is a fantastic method of clarification, but i think your making an error in mixing the consequences of Fi/Fe at their positive & negative ends with the consequences of function location & development stages.

    i disagree with the premise that the positives & negatives are directly aligned with the level of development - there are certainly examples of "Fi at its worst" that are common to FPs but rarely come out in TJs, and vise versa - your examples of of classical IxTP & ExTJ misconducts will rarely show up FJs or FPs - likewise the Fe of an IxFJ on a good day isn't the same as the Fe of an ExFJ whose having a bad day.. it simply doesn't fit such a linear path - there are both positive and negative results for the location of the functions at various development points... there needs to be another axis.


    (i might need to think about it some more)
    Oh, I didn't mean to imply this is only about development levels or function ranking. I think we all dip into those extremes now and then. I meant that those negative attributes are simply a list of possible behaviours, not a overall description of a particular kind of person. In reality, it's not as straight-forward as someone fitting into one set of those behaviours or the other, and also the interaction with other functions will colour it in different ways.

    However, I do think it can be useful to look at tertiary/inferior usage of a function to help understand how it fundamentally works. It's like how in clinical psychology/neurology, it's easier to look at extreme cases to understand the underlying nature of the human brain. I recognise you have to be careful in doing this, and need to stick to broad strokes.
    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

  8. #158
    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 Coriolis View Post
    This makes sense, to a point, but if I follow it through, it becomes circular.

    Fi acts based on individual, internal values. That sense of internal obligation is accurate, and can be very strong, even in a tert-Fi user like myself. But sometimes that obligation involves observing external demands, as when I observe social conventions interacting with family elders, because respect for elders is something I value deeply.

    On the Fe side, obligations do seem to come from external sources and standards, and the desire to have harmonious interactions with others. But why is satisfying these important? The desire to do so starts to look again like another internal value: the Fe user values social harmony and external standards.

    I find it all confusing if I think about it for very long.
    I know what you mean. There is an element of that, but I meant address personal perception of where those standards come from more (the internal experience of the specific function). Basically, it's impossible to separate these functions if we break it down enough literally, because they depend so entirely on each other to work. It's like when you study the human brain. You can point to different parts and say that's the centre where certain things are controlled, but yet all of the centres are so intricately interwoven you could simply separate them off into clear cut sections.

    I would argue in your example of respecting your elders, it's still a Fi evaluation of what is right. The fact that you observe social convention is merely co-incidental. The real reason you do it is because it is a person value (ie. an obligation you impose on yourself). You can see the same thing in reverse in Fe. For example, a Fe user may seem to take a stand for the sake of, what appears to be, a Fi-style personal value (ie. doing the right thing because it is intrinsically right) but really it is an external standard. From what I've observed, Fe external standards doesn't necessarily equate with herd mentality or the relinquishment personal responsibility. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but perhaps a Fe user could explain it.

    It is an interesting thought to imagine Fe is simply rooted in Fi core values. I don't have an argument against that, but perhaps others might. I would think there is more to it than that, and that maybe Fe is not really compatible with Fi like that, but I don't know.
    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

  9. #159
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Sorry to bombard everyone with my posts, but I've been reading parts of the thread that I've missed so far.

    I wanted to say that @Wind-Up Rex you articulated the internal experience of Fi in reaction to Fe so insightfully. I mean that as no insult to Fe users, either. It's just a wonderful explanation of why it's hard for us to comprehend how you think, why the things you need from us are so important, or how we should adjust ourselves to what you need. It's a hurdle for us.

    @FineLine gave some good analysis of that post too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stansmith View Post
    Would a Nazi Officer who decides to secretly help one Jew on a whim (bringing him food and giving him shelter) be Fi, or Fe?
    Not type related. Either could result in this behaviour, albeit through different thought processes.
    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

  10. #160
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Oh, I didn't mean to imply this is only about development levels or function ranking. I think we all dip into those extremes now and then. I meant that those negative attributes are simply a list of possible behaviours, not a overall description of a particular kind of person. In reality, it's not as straight-forward as someone fitting into one set of those behaviours or the other, and also the interaction with other functions will colour it in different ways.

    However, I do think it can be useful to look at tertiary/inferior usage of a function to help understand how it fundamentally works. It's like how in clinical psychology/neurology, it's easier to look at extreme cases to understand the underlying nature of the human brain. I recognize you have to be careful in doing this, and need to stick to broad strokes.
    oh i wasn't telling you to back off generalizations (typology is sort of a form of generalizing anyway)... i was saying that there's a mix up in the symptoms of undeveloped functions with negative consequences of the functions - there is an overlap but to a very small extent IMO. maybe a better set up would be something along the lines of:

    Fi at it's best Fe at it's best
    dom/sec:emotional introspection as means for empathy, the emotional exploration of scenario's used to better understand the points of view of others under a gradual self-study and the shedding of generalized assumptions in favor of finding the circumstances leading to one's own beliefs & emotional triggers, thus expanding the realm of projection to include a larger diversity of others. thrives under a diversity of close relationships. dom/sec:valued interaction as a mean for genuine emotional connectivity, observant of others & inclusive of their needs, accommodates the perspectives of many within a larger social platform, actively seeks opportunities to give & be helpful to others, willing to sacrifice and place one's own ego aside, dutiful towards the well being of others & actively helpful, often using Ti to solve problems for others. thrives under... (fuck if i know... still trying to figure it out, so far all i have is a growing list of what it isn't.)
    tert/inf:willingly seek roles & form ideas by which they can deliver value and improve the conditions for others in both the present & future, use introspection to determine their strengths & weaknesses and define how they can best do so, at times prioritizing the utilitarian good over themselves, open and ready to except insight and information from anywhere it comes from. thrives under factually-supported self esteem. tert/inf: caring for others, conscientious of the consequences & implications towards others, uses Ti deductions as means for thoughtfulness towards others. opportunistically considerate & giving, the well being of others will often become an end in itself rather then a mean. thrives under collective problem solving & self fulfillment.
    Fi at it's worst Fe at it's worst
    dom/sec: define everything in relations to the self as it is - make moral judgement calls based on the most literal interpretation of the golden rule, if something is out of the range of "what they would do" immediately assume malevolent intentions. feeds on alienation and isolation. dom/sec:actively lie to themselves with sociological virtues as ego decorations, stemming from idealistic notions of one's relation & value to others but not the practice, the self esteem is entranced in the appearance of things - and one does not need to change reality when one can change the appearance. self righteous & incapable of taking critical thinking or taking responsibility for the external self, control the information about one's self & exclude all who experienced it differently becomes the norm. feeds on notions of boundaries & illusion of control over one's social circumstances.
    tert/inf: indulgent and self-serving, defines the world under a relationship of "me (me me me me!) vs. everyone else" leading to resentment, pigeon holing people in terms of utility for one's own ends without acknowledgment of intrinsic value, view any harm or offense to others under a self-serving guise of heroism or karma, indulge in grandiose notions of the self. feeds on others buying in to their illusions. tert/inf: insight into others as a mean to an end. manipulative & juvenile, will openly lie to others and play on the piano of social interactions simply to see what happens & learn the game for the benefit of Ti, or in order to game social interactions for one's own goals. feeds on indirect power & influence over others through deceit.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] What Type of Learner are You: Visual, Auditory, or Kinesthetic? (All Types Welcome!)
    By Upnextup in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-01-2017, 03:13 PM
  2. What type of human are you?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 09-09-2014, 11:17 PM
  3. What Type of Social Media Personality Are You?
    By MTINFJ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-19-2012, 04:05 AM
  4. What type of drunk are you?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 04:56 PM
  5. What type of results to you aim for?
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:08 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