Can you give some examples where you take some Fi stuff and explain its way of being logical and consistent? Btw thanks, this Ti vs Fi thing here is also a really nice explanation here.
Let's see...before my SO and I got together, we became best friends over the course of several months. We chatted online, using IRC,for the most part, and on the phone later on. I got to know him well, as we discussed many things at length. One of the things that we joked about regularly was that despite the very different way of thinking that we both had ( he used to get obsessed with backtracking my non-sensical way of coming to a conclusion), we somehow always arrived at the same conclusion. Often the conclusion was differently worded, or the interpretation of which part of the conclusion mattered most was different, but still - it was one of the reasons we enjoyed each others company.
At some point - I don't even remember what happened - he tells me about a situation he was in recently, tells me how he got there, what happened and how he responded. And a red flag went up. I'm reading the text he typed in and it has all the traits that I've come to expect from him: it was succinct, confident, statement-like and in control. The phrasing is correct, the word order checks out for his typical succinct and somewhat private and formal way of communicating. Everything fits. Except for one thing: the content.
Everything that made him *him* was tossed out the window when he got to the part of the story where he stated how he handled and responded to the situation. Supposedly, his response was passive, held-back, reactive instead of active and easy-going. There was no way these two people, the one telling me the story and the one living that story were the same person. For that matter, even *I* who has several of those traits he supposedly displayed would never have been satisfied with the conclusion/solution he allegedly came to and the direction he took. There was *NO* way. Considering our previous experiences in this regard, it made absolutely no sense. And based on how *I* would respond to that situation, I knew he'dve seen that option and done at least the same if not even better and in a more efficient way.
So I double-checked with him, to make sure I got the context correct. He repeated exactly the same thing. I checked for hidden parameters - omissions in the story that he might've kept from me due to privacy but could come up with no options that would logically explain and motivate this change in behavior, based on the extensive knowledge I had on him. It was like pushing a square peg through a round hole.
So I widened my scope. I factored in him *telling* me this story. Considering that I knew him to be protective and drama-averse, as well as a bit of a control-freak, it dawned on me that it wasn't against his moral code to lie to people - for what he considered their own good. He considered it an efficient tactic to minimise their needless worrying and his head aches. He was protecting me from something that he (wrongfully) believed I would react badly to - and didn't want to deal with that shit, while still wanting to share the story.
It also occurred to me that he was being smug - casual even, about the lie. He was experienced at this. So experienced that he was not showing any signs of hesitation, nervousness, no betrayal of any trepidation in lying to me. He was convinced that I wouldn't be able to tell. He clearly got away with this on a regular basis. And why wouldn't he? On the surface, all the pieces of the story seemed to logically match the situation perfectly - just not him as a person. Which he didn't account for.
(for those interested, the rest of the story is in the spoiler)
No comment.
Now all that's interesting again. Btw you mention an Inner Judge, I don't really have that myself, what is it like for you?
Ime, everyone has one. It's sort of the Superego personified, I suppose (I first came across the term in one of the books I read on the psychology of anorexia). The problem it can cause though is that it can become unreasonably demanding of you and others around you due to the beliefs it holds. If you look at younger people, they often have more black and white and hard line type of beliefs, and then mellow out as they get older. This is due to experience and re-evaluating those beliefs repeatedly and cutting out the dead wood, based on what you've learned. And if you had the opportunity in life to actually explore what it is you value in life, you have a pretty good chance at that Judge being reasonable, and aligned with your interests.
However, when we're young, we tend to be very impressionable. Life, or even our loved ones can teach us lessons that create false beliefs. One example of this is for instance a child who was bitten by one dog believes that all dogs are vile, evil and can never be trusted. How these beliefs are formed and how they get executed depends on the childs personality and coping mechanisms.
A common occurrence seems to be that parents pass on *their* values onto their child - with the best intentions in the world as to keep their child safe and prepare it for the world - and in the process, they put a lot of pressure for that child to conform to their parameters and their way of addressing life - as they know that way will work.
However, if that child's natural way of working si completely opposite of the parent's way of viewing the word, they will be disappointed as their childs strengths won't be their own. This often results in them pushing the child harder, and ...well, frustration as to the lack-lustre performances while being blind(or too scared coz they don't trust themselves in that area) to recognise the areas where the child would truly shine. If this happens to be a child who is naturally geared towards approval learning, they will turn themselves inside out to please their parents, effectively undermining their self-esteem and their self-worth as they never quite seem to be able to live up to the expectations which come so easily to everyone else and are the basics of life - or so their parents would have them believe. This in turn can create an Inner Judge who takes over the role of the parents once the child moves out of the house - someone who reminds them of what their supposed priorities are and what they are supposed to do in life - instead of adhering their own priorities which they never truly got to pursue before. It is more comforting to stick with what you know, after all.
Similarly, for those not that approval-seeking but hard-wired for control, for instance - an unstable or uncertain youth (financial issues, an inconsistent parent with rules that don't make sense, neglect, etc) can cause that person to overcompensate and believe money, power and control are all that matter and will keep them safe. It drowns out what they would truly value in life if this had not happened to them - and despite their best efforts, they never have enough power, money and control to feel at ease and happy as their Inner Judge keeps reminding them of how helpless they once were, and pushing them to get MOAR.
And most people aren't aware this is going on - all they know is that they feel empty, alone and afraid and nothing they do seems to help.
In essence, their parameters for their way of living have been skewed - and not in their favour. Which means they need recalibrating, but that voice in the back of your head tends to be *really* hard to ignore and in extreme cases can act like an abusive husband which the person is too terrified to leave.
Hm well my only issue is procrastinating some stuff that I should be doing sooner. I actually think it's this lack of "inner judge" and thus being extremely carefree that allows me to slack off so much with some stuff until external circumstances put enough pressure on me to get motivated and go do the stuff. Of course until then I gladly spend time by doing other stuff that I am motivated to do on my own. Is this then somewhat paradoxical to what you were explaining above? Or can it be reconciled? I'm working off a terribly superficial analysis here because that's all I have right now.
Procrastination can be a symptom of false beliefs, but doesn't have to be. It is a grayscale. If you don't beat yourself up for procrastinating, or consider it something you should purge completely from your repertoire, it tends to be a non-Judge issue. Procrastination, in most cases though, is caused by a form of fear or resistance to whatever it is you feel you should be doing. Often there is something that bugs you about that activity, something that causes you to avoid it - be it that it needs more thought, more energy than you currently have to spare (mental or physical) or coz you're no longer interested in this activity. So it's something that should be looked at to see what causes it - one of those cogs to be replaced, dusted off or updated. Some wear and tear - especially on things that cannot be avoided, like the dishes - in the form of procrastination is to be expected within every person though, like in any system really.
Well heh because I don't try to seek a rational explanation for personal preferences, I don't see that as inconsistency unless it has certain practical consequences.
Heh, you don't say. I am the exact opposite - I don't try to seek a rational explanation for things that don't hold personal preferences, as most tend to be predictable without me having to know exactly how it works, so I easily miss any inconsistencies that would cause malfunction for instance.
Sounds nice in theory, in practice this sounds like a looot of cognitive load
Like, the part about deciding what to keep and what not to keep and then act based on this. As I already said in this thread, it'd be hard for me to act like that. Willingly putting limits like that on myself??
You'd probably find me terribly inconsistent with some stuff if you knew me.
OK it's not as bad maybe, I'm not inconsistent with everything, just some values stuff. There's some other things I'm pretty consistent about, though.
People, ime, are never inconsistent - they just act inconsistently - the fun is in hunting down how it truly *does* make sense and what you're missing. All I need to consider you consistent and make sense of you, is your personality map
And, it is like any skill really. I feel honestly the same about Ti. I feel that Ti limits me coz it is based on the principle of defining everything so you know exactly what yo ure talking about. But that limits my what-if pleasures, my preference to look at things in a way that goes beyond their definition and eliminates one of my favourite things to do: hold two contradictory ideas in your head and value them equally so you can contrast and compare them in order to gain more insight into them.
At the same time, Fi isn't limiting to me, as I can choose to dust the cogs or not, or even replace the entire part of a system if I felt inspired. I still have several 'outdated' habits still within me, and perhaps some day I'll declutter. For now, I'm good with just being aware that they are there and trying to compensate as much as I can for when they get me into trouble or go faulty on me. Sure, it is a lot of work - but it is also work that I enjoy. As much as I love watching a man fix his motorcycle, it isn't something you could ever convince me not to yawn at if I had to do it myself
The part about figuring out the reasons for why I do something, that sounds more rewarding, though. Maybe that's something Ti and Fi share, or some other function can affect this too, like Ni
.
Ti and Fi seem to share the drive and desire to *understand*. What and in what way they seek to understand something is another matter. But the drive to understand - and let's face it, blind obsession in most cases - is certainly shared.
And not interested in doing psychology?
....it's on my list
