Trying to figure out F thinking.

[Ilah]

I don't intend this to be some criticism of F or asking feelers to justify their thought process. I am genuinely interested in how it works, partly to understand my own F.

As a bit of a background: Although I am a T, I think I have a pretty strong Fi. I tend to make value choices that are different from the norm and often am given a hard time about them. I have often been asked to explain/justify my choices (not usually in a nice way) and am usually at a loss on how to do it.

Why do we choose the values we choose? Is it simply because they "feel right" or is there something more complicated than that going on? How do you evaluate one value over another? If someone asked you to justify one of your values could you do it, using strictly F, not supporting it with T? What would a debate between too Fs with different values look like if they defended it using only F?

For me, when something is decided by my T, I generally feel that I can defend my choices fairly well using logic. However, with my F choices I may feel very strongly about something, but I am hard pressed to defend them. I don't really feel comfortable with not being able to come up with the F equivelent of a "logical defense" to my position. Sometimes a logical explaination will coincide with my F choice and I can back it up using logic, but other times there is no convenient F choice.

I am not sure if this makes a difference or not but I am thinking of both big values (religion, politics, ethics) and little values (taste in music, clothing styles).

Ilah

[Chris_in_Orbit]

I definitely have a hard time defending my values (which is why I tend to keep them to myself) Some sort of recurring theme that I see in myself is an urge to be treated equally and fairly. I think most of my values are conditioned by this specific thing.

So many people say life isn't fair but I believe its as fair as we allow it to be. If you go with an attitude that things -can- be fair, I think there can be a greater overall gain from that.. I dunno why F seems so foreign to Ts when I seem to understand T rather well. Part of being human is deciding what is right or wrong based on a more subjective plane. We all have a conscience...its as simple as that.

[Evan]

Emotions and values are easy to explain in the framework of psychology.

[nolla]

Originally Posted by Ilah

Why do we choose the values we choose? Is it simply because they "feel right" or is there something more complicated than that going on? How do you evaluate one value over another? If someone asked you to justify one of your values could you do it, using strictly F, not supporting it with T? What would a debate between too Fs with different values look like if they defended it using only F?

I find it impossible to defend any of my values without logic. I guess the way I've dealt with it is that I have first tried to find out if my "feeling" against or for something is really right. Sometimes when you feel that something isn't right, you find that it is your own defenses talking. You can find out by comparing it (logically) against your other values. After some time you'll get a nice package of values that are really well defended by logic.

And, there are values that are defended by themselves. Like, you shouldn't kill people. It is so universally accepted that it pretty much defends itself. This kind of values defend other values too. If you shouldn't kill, you shouldn't hurt people physically. If you shouldn't hurt people physically, why would it be ok to hurt their feelings. A big simplification, but you'll get the idea. Still, there is also logic involved here.

[Lizzy1813]

Originally Posted by Ilah

For me, when something is decided by my T, I generally feel that I can defend my choices fairly well using logic. However, with my F choices I may feel very strongly about something, but I am hard pressed to defend them. I don't really feel comfortable with not being able to come up with the F equivelent of a "logical defense" to my position. Sometimes a logical explaination will coincide with my F choice and I can back it up using logic, but other times there is no convenient F choice.Ilah

I don't think you can defend any F choice by logic--that's kinda part of being an 'F'--you have to "feel" and deduce by processing your inner thoughts, not through reasoning.

I don't really know how to put it in words, but I hope my meaning got across.

[Evan]

I "feel" that I have to be able to defend my feelings by logic, or else I shouldn't have them.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by dissonance

I "feel" that I have to be able to defend my feelings by logic, or else I shouldn't have them.

One characteristic of Fi's is that they can have a hard time expressing their values because it can bring on emotions. In fact, Dick Thompson makes sure in workshops that no Feeling exercise taps Fi for anyone because the emotions get too raw for even the T's. He makes sure people externalize by talking of others.

My values come from stepping into the shoes of others and deciding what is fair/right/true based on what will be best for the common good...is it conscious? Some of it, like knowing that I value family relationships more than career possibilities...

[nolla]

Originally Posted by Lizzy1813

I don't think you can defend any F choice by logic

I don't see how you come to this conclusion... I can logically defend "you shall not kill" any day. Of course people can counter it by mentioning war and such when it suddenly is "right" to kill people, but even if they win the argument still I tried to make the point logically, and so I was defending it by logic. How could anyone defend any stance if it wasn't by logic?

[cascadeco]

Originally Posted by Ilah

Why do we choose the values we choose? Is it simply because they "feel right" or is there something more complicated than that going on?

For myself, it's not because it 'feels right'. I think I have pretty solid reasons for why I believe in what I believe, and put a lot of thought into most things. If I don't have solid reasons and a good framework for all of it, and if it doesn't all tie together and I don't feel 'consistent', I don't think it means much. Personal life choices are not done on whims, for the most part - again, I put a lot of thought into pretty much everything, and I've never had it pointed out to me that I'm irrational, or anything like that. Many things have to 'make sense' for me to believe them, or for me to make a decision (not that emotions/values aren't a component of my decision-making process, because they are - they're just not the sole component).

However, I admit there is one notable value of mine - environmental stewardship and my love of nature/other lifeforms - that kinda defies logic from the typical viewpoint. I mean, I could come up with 'logical' reasons for why we as humans should want to protect the planet and care for other lifeforms, but those 'logical' reasons would have to be reasons that benefit humanity in some way, and my love for the environment and desire to protect it has nothing to do with benefiting humans. I just value all life, and, well, in many ways don't think that people are any more deserving of life than other lifeforms. *sheepish look* I suppose there are many reasons for why I think this, so it's not pure feeling-based, but you know, from an outside perspective, I can see why it might be viewed as such......

[OctaviaCaesar]

Originally Posted by Ilah

Why do we choose the values we choose? Is it simply because they "feel right" or is there something more complicated than that going on? How do you evaluate one value over another? If someone asked you to justify one of your values could you do it, using strictly F, not supporting it with T?

For me, I feel that my values have been the ones I responded to the most from my upbringing--the ones that resonated the most with me. Yes, the ones that felt right, as you said. I can explain them logically but I feel them more than explain them on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by Ilah

For me, when something is decided by my T, I generally feel that I can defend my choices fairly well using logic. However, with my F choices I may feel very strongly about something, but I am hard pressed to defend them. I don't really feel comfortable with not being able to come up with the F equivelent of a "logical defense" to my position. Sometimes a logical explaination will coincide with my F choice and I can back it up using logic, but other times there is no convenient F choice.

I feel that the F is the willingness to suffer to uphold your beliefs: one of the ingredients inherent in martyrdom at the extreme. "Love is reason enough."