User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 159

  1. #131
    Post-Humorously stalemate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    I think I posted in this thread under the influence of beer last night. How close was I?

  2. #132
    L'anima non dimora Donna Cecilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fduniho View Post

    To the extent that it bumps up the thread and continues to give my test exposure, it is helping. But I am not using the data posted here for anything. I am relying on algorithmic analysis of a database. If you would care to look at the results of my script's analysis, you will find it at http://duniho.heliohost.org/ddli/analyze.php
    Thanks for posting that. Now I understand why I skipped the questions about the cognitive proccesses that I don't use.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...5-post158.html

    That is my cognitive process profile, so you can understand what I mean.

    What I liked the most about your test is that it allows you to skip the questions which don't apply to how you think. In that respect, your test has the major advantage that it won't force you to choose something that does not relate to you, and that gives you a more honest result.

    "An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise."
    Victor Hugo



    LII/INTj (Analyst) - 1w9 Sp/Sx - RC|O|EI - Melancholy/Choleric

  3. #133
    Member fduniho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Aleksei,

    The definitions you quoted, which were written by Berens and Dario ten years after I began working on the DDLI, still do not define Fi and Fe in terms of ethics, and they do not support the definitions of Fi and Fe you gave to me earlier. It is a strawman to suppose that I do not think that thinking types can be emotional. Since thinking types still use feeling, of course they can be emotional. Let me now quote from Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers in Gifts Differing. Concerning Fi, they say, "Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal." Concerning Fe, they say, "Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people." In describing both Fi and Fe, they refer to emotions. They also contrast them by calling Fi "deep and passionate rather than extensive" and Fe "extensive rather than deep." It is our emotions that can be deep and passionate, not our ideals and moral values. They also refer to Fe as "establishing warm sympathy" and Fi as being "too overpowering to be expressed at all" and appearing "cold to the point of indifference." It is not ideals and values that can feel overpowering; it is emotions. As understood by both Myers and Myers, Fe and Fi are different ways of using and managing emotions. Fe's tend to feel emotion empathically, while Fi's tend to feel emotion from deep inside. Fe's tend to synchronize their emotions with each other, while Fi's tend to feel passionate about their ideals. Inasmuch as Fe or Fi do affect moral decision making, Fe's tend to be moved by empathy for others, and Fi's tend to be motivated by deeply-held moral values. But morality is not the sole domain of feeling, and it is not all that feeling concerns itself with.

  4. #134
    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 fduniho View Post
    I can tell you that reason plays a large role in ethics.[...] So I do not recognize the feeling function as being particularly about moral values. My own moral values are rooted in my sense that life, both mine and others, is worthwhile, and this is personal in the sense that it is deeply rooted in my experience of life. To put it another way, I do not value life simply because other people do; I value life because I recognize that it is good.
    look at what you've said here though - you recognize that it is "good". "good" is a rather Fi determination in and of itself. Ti can determine pleasant, or sensible, or best, but it cannot give you the value judgment of fundamental goodness. that is Fi.

    we associate Fi with ethics and values because Fi deals with tricky things that are difficult to approach with logic, like the nature of the human soul (assuming we have such a thing), whether the life of one human who is important to you is worth more than the lives of several humans who are not important to you, how we will respond to the death of a loved one who passes unexpectedly, whether there is a God or gods or not.

    Anyway, you have told me how you understand Fi and Fe, but you have not told me what your experience of Fi is like. Is your understanding of Fi grounded in your experience? What is it like for you when you are using Fi?
    okay... Fi... it's judging things on a subjective, context-filled basis. it's talking with a person and noting that something is "off" - that their overall body language and what they're saying don't match up. it's entering a room and picking up on an overall atmosphere - tense or relaxed. it's knowing when someone has "crossed the line" between being ignorant and deliberately antagonistic. it's reading a thread of posts and picking up on the emotional undertones. i like bjork, but the lyrics to human behavior really are not a good description of Fi - at least, not of Fi as understood by a dom/aux... maybe it works for Fi from a shadow function perspective.

    here's a really Fi song -- YouTube - Defying Gravity Tony Awards elphaba, the witch, is Fi - glinda, the blonde, is definitely Fe dom...

    so Fi is not actually always about experiencing emotion yourself, but it is about the ability to read and converse in emotion, if that makes sense. because Fi dom/aux are attuned to emotion, we tend to be especially aware of our own emotions - and it is a mistake to think that humans ever have bouts of time where we are emotionless - but that doesn't mean we are mired in the experience of emotion all the time. it simply means we have a better than usual awareness of our emotional states. i think of emotion like a thermometer - it tells me important things about my internal state. it tips me off to things i might miss otherwise. i feel irritated. why? because someone is treating me poorly in comparison with how they are treating others. and that is important. i feel sad. what should i do about this? reevaluate what is important to me. i feel content. awesome. i should make special note of what i'm doing right now and what the circumstances are so i can create this pleasant state again in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise
    Of course there is a practical and rational basis for ethics. However, the fine details of ethical reason isn't pure logic. I'm going to echo stalemate in saying that you are mistaken if you believe that Fe and Fi are not rational ethical processes. A T can be every bit as emotional as an F. It's not only about being emotional.
    Fi has its own internal consistency... it's not logical, but it is rational in the sense that it is consistent. in fact, that's really what Fi is about - assessing subjective internal consistency.

    OMGZ I love that Gee video with the Asian chicks. That music is just catchy as hell.
    seriously!

    Quote Originally Posted by fduniho View Post
    Concerning Fi, they say, "Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal." Concerning Fe, they say, "Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people." In describing both Fi and Fe, they refer to emotions. They also contrast them by calling Fi "deep and passionate rather than extensive" and Fe "extensive rather than deep." It is our emotions that can be deep and passionate, not our ideals and moral values. They also refer to Fe as "establishing warm sympathy" and Fi as being "too overpowering to be expressed at all" and appearing "cold to the point of indifference." It is not ideals and values that can feel overpowering; it is emotions. As understood by both Myers and Myers, Fe and Fi are different ways of using and managing emotions. Fe's tend to feel emotion empathically, while Fi's tend to feel emotion from deep inside. Fe's tend to synchronize their emotions with each other, while Fi's tend to feel passionate about their ideals. Inasmuch as Fe or Fi do affect moral decision making, Fe's tend to be moved by empathy for others, and Fi's tend to be motivated by deeply-held moral values. But morality is not the sole domain of feeling, and it is not all that feeling concerns itself with.
    yes and no... the emphasis on emotion here is still way too strong. ideals and values can be overpowering when we are too attached to them and refuse to see outside their paradigm, just as Fe social principles can be overpowering when we refuse to see outside those paradigms. the key is so much that while Fi and Fe do involve emotion you can have a Fi or Fe decision that is not about emotion. for instance, me choosing whether i would rather wear a blue or red shirt today. well, maybe i feel the overall tone of being laid-back and fluid today, and i will probably go with blue.

    so yes, that conjures all sorts of emotionally-tinged ideas like the association of blue and being calm and peaceful and relaxing and serene, and red of being fiery and passionate and angry and intense, but the decision itself did not involve me, personally, experiencing an overt emotional state. more like briefly shuffling through emotional associations to figure out what best matched my overall state of being. or maybe i'm just thinking about how i love the freedom of endless water and sky, and decide to go for blue. that's not really overtly emotional either, even though it does involve pleasant emotions. it's much more subtle. you cannot take emotion out of Fi or Fe, certainly, but the central idea of Fi and Fe is not emotion. it's more like a language Fi and Fe communicate with to establish internal (Fi) or external (Fe) subjective consistency.

  5. #135
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fduniho View Post
    Aleksei,

    The definitions you quoted, which were written by Berens and Dario ten years after I began working on the DDLI, still do not define Fi and Fe in terms of ethics, and they do not support the definitions of Fi and Fe you gave to me earlier. It is a strawman to suppose that I do not think that thinking types can be emotional. Since thinking types still use feeling, of course they can be emotional. Let me now quote from Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers in Gifts Differing. Concerning Fi, they say, "Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal." Concerning Fe, they say, "Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people." In describing both Fi and Fe, they refer to emotions. They also contrast them by calling Fi "deep and passionate rather than extensive" and Fe "extensive rather than deep." It is our emotions that can be deep and passionate, not our ideals and moral values. They also refer to Fe as "establishing warm sympathy" and Fi as being "too overpowering to be expressed at all" and appearing "cold to the point of indifference." It is not ideals and values that can feel overpowering; it is emotions. As understood by both Myers and Myers, Fe and Fi are different ways of using and managing emotions. Fe's tend to feel emotion empathically, while Fi's tend to feel emotion from deep inside. Fe's tend to synchronize their emotions with each other, while Fi's tend to feel passionate about their ideals. Inasmuch as Fe or Fi do affect moral decision making, Fe's tend to be moved by empathy for others, and Fi's tend to be motivated by deeply-held moral values. But morality is not the sole domain of feeling, and it is not all that feeling concerns itself with.
    Both the Feeling functions are rational, reasoning cognitive functions. Emotion is NOT cognition. To boil Feeling down to emotion shows a massive lack of understanding of the functions, IMO. It's pretty much insulting to Feelers also. What you've quoted from Gifts Differing has been taken out of context and interpreted to fit your understanding. In fact, some of what you say contradicts itself...

    That is not to say that emotion does not have a greater role in influencing Feeling than Thinking. Emotions are signals of what is important to us - something like how hunger is a signal of a basic need to eat. Now, you can act on the signal without thinking and probably make some bad decisions, but if you stop to sort out what that signal means, then you'll probably make a better decision. Feelers pay attention to emotions because of the valuable insight they provide, but the emotion itself is not the reasoning process. Thinkers, in contrast, may pay less attention to emotion as it does not aid their preferred judgment process (it may even hinder it), which is why they sometimes seem disconnected from their own emotions; even if they have & feel them & manage them well, they often don't seem "in touch" with them the way Feelers do. Sometimes you have Feelers who seem much more rational than Thinkers, because they actually manage their emotions better.

    I mean, really, do you think feelers just wallow in emotion all the time & act on it like an animal does instinct, without any reasoning? I, an INFP, spend most of my time THINKING, because that is what cognition is - THOUGHT PROCESSES.
    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

  6. #136
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Taken together, your scores indicate that you are an INFJ. There was either some slight conflict between related scores, or some of your scores were insufficient to fully confirm your preferences. Check below for details. Here are your more detailed results, preference by preference.

    Introversion: 38 / 13
    Extraversion: 5 / 13

    Intuition: 51 / 15
    Sensing: 6 / 15

    Thinking: 11 / 11
    Feeling: 32 / 11

    Perceiving: 14 / 16
    Judging: 36 / 16

    Dominant Judger: 14 / 11
    Dominant Perceiver: 24 / 11

    Introverted Sensing: 17 / 6
    Extraverted Sensing: 8 / 6

    Introverted Intuition: 11 / 5
    Extraverted Intuition: 9 / 5

    Introverted Thinking: 12 / 5
    Extraverted Thinking: 6 / 5

    Introverted Feeling: 14 / 11
    Extraverted Feeling: 21 / 11


    Opposing preferences are paired together. The numeric scores give the raw score divided by the number of questions answered for each pair. The preferences you scored higher on are in boldface, and the preferences matching the type you scored as are underlined. Green bars indicate preferences in alignment with your estimated type. Red bars indicate non-preferences that do not match your estimated type. Blue bars indicate a conflict between your preferences and your estimated type. The length of each bar represents the relative strength of each preference.
    --------------------

    INFJ on the first and second taking. I was blue barred on Ni vs. Ne and Si vs. Se on the first go round. The second time I omitted questions that didn't resonate. There's no denying that my Si stronger than my Se, so I expected that.
    There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

  7. #137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Taken together, your scores indicate that you are an ENFP. There was either some slight conflict between related scores, or some of your scores were insufficient to fully confirm your preferences. Check below for details. Here are your more detailed results, preference by preference.
    Introversion: 18 / 13
    Extraversion: 35 / 13

    Intuition: 57 / 17
    Sensing: 11 / 17

    Thinking: 6 / 19
    Feeling: 64 / 19

    Perceiving: 39 / 16
    Judging: 19 / 16

    Dominant Judger: 19 / 10
    Dominant Perceiver: 19 / 10

    Introverted Sensing: 18 / 6
    Extraverted Sensing: 7 / 6

    Introverted Intuition: 4 / 5
    Extraverted Intuition: 17 / 5

    Introverted Thinking: 12 / 5
    Extraverted Thinking: 8 / 5

    Introverted Feeling: 23 / 10
    Extraverted Feeling: 17 / 10

  8. #138
    Member fduniho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stalemate View Post
    Your whole paragraph about ethics and reason above is still based on your belief that feeling is an emotional irrational process. I don't see how saying ethics is based on reason means it is outside the realm of feeling.
    Okay, let me try to parse what you're saying here. First, I have not said that feeling is an irrational process. I have said that feeling is about emotions, and you are using the words "emotional" and "irrational" together as though they are related in meaning in your mind. There are two senses of rational and irrational we need to distinguish between. One is the Jungian sense of rational referring to judging functions and irrational referring to perceiving functions. In this sense, feeling is a rational function that grounds its decision making in emotions. But the Jungian sense of these words is not the everyday English sense of of these words. In English, not Jungian terminology, rational refers to the use of reason and logic, and irrational refers to the abandonment of reason and logic. Since you are taking emotions to be irrational in this sense, you are concluding that they cannot be rational in the Jungian sense, and so cannot be part of feeling, which is a rational function. But this is equivocation. The same word is being used with different meanings. Whether or not emotions are rational in the English sense has nothing to with whether they can be rational in a Jungian sense. I will also add that emotions are not necessarily irrational in the English sense. Emotion can be logical, such as I like her because she likes me, or I dislike her because she is such a sycophant. I think this kind of emotional judgment is more common than liking someone for treating you like dirt or disliking a nice, attractive person who genuinely likes you.

    Quote Originally Posted by stalemate View Post
    I don't know how to answer your question about my experience with Fi. And it is even harder when we haven't even agreed on a definition of Fi. I am not sure what you are asking me for.
    Take your understanding of Fi, whatever that is, introspect on the times when you use it, and report what is going on or what you are experiencing when using Fi.

  9. #139
    Member fduniho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    In fact, some of what you say contradicts itself...
    If I've said anything contradictory, please point it out.

  10. #140
    Post-Humorously stalemate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fduniho View Post
    Okay, let me try to parse what you're saying here. First, I have not said that feeling is an irrational process. I have said that feeling is about emotions, and you are using the words "emotional" and "irrational" together as though they are related in meaning in your mind. .
    I actually thought you were saying this. Here is how I got there. You are saying that ethics is about "reason" as your argument for it not being about feeling. Therefore you are separating reason from feeling as two different things. You have also said that feeling is about emotions. I understand "reason" to mean rational though, so I take it to mean that you are saying that any kind of ethics decision is not feeling because it is not rational thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by fduniho View Post
    Emotion can be logical, such as I like her because she likes me, or I dislike her because she is such a sycophant. I think this kind of emotional judgment is more common than liking someone for treating you like dirt or disliking a nice, attractive person who genuinely likes you.
    Your example of emotion here makes me think we are arguing semantics. I don't think of "like" and "dislike" as emotions. To me emotions are things more like worried, afraid, happy, sad, etc. Like and dislike are the result of some kind of value judgment. Maybe we just have a terminology problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by fduniho View Post
    Take your understanding of Fi, whatever that is, introspect on the times when you use it, and report what is going on or what you are experiencing when using Fi.
    This will seem like kind of a cop out I'm sure, but I have a really hard time observing the specifics of this going on within myself. I know it does but I have a hard time getting down to specifics and pinning it down.

    I understand Fi to be more like this: Introverted Feeling

    And I do feel like I get a gut reaction about how someone is or if they are a "good" or "bad" person (as defined by me in some nebulous way) quickly. I can't really nail down what is going on there though.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI types with an X - something doesn't sit well with me...
    By Society in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 04:26 AM
  2. [MBTItm] An Insight of Mine into the Mechanics of MBTI (feedback is welcome)
    By NashK in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 09:57 PM
  3. [MBTItm] An Insight of Mine into the Mechanics of MBTI (feedback welcome)
    By NashK in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-29-2008, 04:02 PM
  4. An MBTI Christmas
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 11:46 AM

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