[Fi] Fi: You only get it if you got it

[Nocapszy]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Youre getting angry with me because I'm saying what Fi does.
Sorry to break it to you, but this is how it works.

 

[heart]

Just for the record, I don't actually think Fi is mysterious.

The statement was that other people don't get it when they ask what is Fi and you try to explain it. Somehow it's taken as a grandiose, self-congratulatory statement to say that some others don't understand. But being different doesn't equate necessarily with better or worse, so I am not sure why it's being taken that way.

My experience in life has been for others to express displeasure with me and disapproval when they didn't understand me and that's never felt all that magical and wonderful.

Fi does feel euporic on the inside as a function and that's all that I've ever meant when calling it that. It doesn't mean that I feel I am magical and wonderful! It simply means I appreciate the inner joy that I've felt from Fi as a function.

And it is always a joy when one meets another person who can instantly understand what I mean when I say this. Many times it happens when experiencing different works of art or music or literature and I assumed this was all CC was talking about in her OP, The joy of finding that stream that speaks to the heart.

Rousseau was an idiot. I prefer Novalis.

And I wash dirty socks, I don't celebrate them.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

ZOMG!!!

Fi respects the truth more than anything, that's right, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g!!!!

How?

The essence of things are decided by the thinking faculty or the logical analysis thereof. Fi merely sends a signal which could be translated as 'feels good' or 'doesnt feel good'.

An Fi person with a well developed Thinking function might love the truth because of their well developed Thinking faculty, but I do not at all see what this has to do with how Fi influences them.

I am very curious to hear an explanation for how a mere fleeting feeling inspires love of the truth!

 

[disregard]

^^ But is Fi really responsible for that euphoria? Are you not just a human.. in awe before the only life you have?

 

[Blackmail!]

Rationale of Fi: The process of subjective valuation is entirely arbitrary as is Feeling by definition. Whatever made the strongest impression on the person is by definition valued by Fi.

Here it is:

You seem to think "Feelings" are by essence arbitrary and subjective. On the other hand, I would tend to see them as quite predictable, or else, there would be no such thing as psychology, sociology or neuropsychology.

Even if like I said, those values may vary within each new Fi user, there are not random. And since they are a byproduct of context, I'd say personal experience affects them. There are objective reasons why they appear, how they are shaped and why.

Hence I find your whole analysis to be severely flawed by your own values (paradoxical, isn't it? ).

 

[heart]

^^ But is Fi really responsible for that euphoria? Are you not just a human.. in awe before the only life you have?

Well, it is a feeling generated from within, because of my own perceptions on things and it cannot be shared easily with others, it's sense of being intune with my own feelings and experiences not from merging with others. So this is why I assume the euphoria is coming from the use of Fi. I would see Fi as a cognitive tool that I am using to experience this. Just as my computer is not responsible for the words I am typing to you, it is however the tool I am using to do so.

I also sort of assume it because on these boards talking with Fi's and with my ISFP friend have been the times when I have been able to find others who easily understand what it is.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Here it is:

You seem to think "Feelings" are by essence arbitrary and subjective. On the other hand, I would tend to see them as quite predictable, or else, there would be no such thing as psychology, sociology or neuropsychology.

Even if like I said, those values may vary within each new Fi user, there are not random. And since they are a byproduct of context, I'd say personal experience affects them. There are objective reasons why they appear, how they are shaped and why.

Hence I find your whole analysis to be severely flawed by your own values (paradoxical, isn't it? ).

Illustrious one,

Feelings can be predictable when they are organized by our faculties of rational cognition. Most people have some competence in this regard and for this reason are predictable to a degree.

Quite simply, feelings if left to themselves will be completely whimsical. You must organize them, they will not organize themselves. People who lack competence in logical reasoning tend to fail to do this.

[Even if like I said, those values may vary within each new Fi user, there are not random. And since they are a byproduct of context, I'd say personal experience affects them. There are objective reasons why they appear, how they are shaped and why.).

You are absolutely correct that the feelings are not random becuase they are a direct consequence of the external stimulus. However, when Feeling is not disciplined by Thinking properly, irrational interpretations of the external stimulus ensue which leads to radically false beliefs. When I say they are random, what I mean is, the interpretation of the cause of the situation conjured by the Fi person has nothing to do with a cause a reasonable person would envisage.

For example, if I look at an Fi person in a stern fashion, the Fi person may think 'he hates me!'. If I were to ask them how they figured, they would provide fallacious reasoning. In most cases it would be the bare assertion fallacy, I feel this way, therefore it is. Or they would give a fallacious rationalization of the situation.

Thus, we all inevitably act out on our beliefs. Fi's in most cases have false beliefs about their situation and therefore appear random. Or in other words, they respond not to real world situations, but to an illusory view of the real world situation. They are random strictly in this regard, or their actions are not relevant to reality. It is difficult to predict their behavior because the conclusions they draw from their experiences are based on their subjective and irrational reasoning tendencies.

Such people have been very difficult to study for psychologists, and for this reason psychologists and sociologists insist that many studies need to be done on the same topic time and time again. Even re-done, one reason this is so is because we often lack a clear idea of what is going on in the minds of such people, exactly for the reasons I have mentioned.

[Hence I find your whole analysis to be severely flawed by your own values (paradoxical, isn't it? ).

Where do you see the expression of my values in my post? It must be up in your Ne-Fe fluffy heavens, as they are not to be found on earth!

 

[Haphazard]

Here it is:

You seem to think "Feelings" are by essence arbitrary and subjective. On the other hand, I would tend to see them as quite predictable, or else, there would be no such thing as psychology, sociology or neuropsychology.

Even if like I said, those values may vary within each new Fi user, there are not random. And since they are a byproduct of context, I'd say personal experience affects them. There are objective reasons why they appear, how they are shaped and why.

Hence I find your whole analysis to be severely flawed by your own values (paradoxical, isn't it? ).

AHA!

QFT. Thank you, Blackmail!

 

[SillySapienne]

How?

The essence of things are decided by the thinking faculty or the logical analysis thereof. Fi merely sends a signal which could be translated as 'feels good' or 'doesnt feel good'.

An Fi person with a well developed Thinking function might love the truth because of their well developed Thinking faculty, but I do not at all see what this has to do with how Fi influences them.

I am very curious to hear an explanation for how a mere fleeting feeling inspires love of the truth!

Fi isn't simply an emotional product, it is an implicitly cognitive-emotional product very similar to, and perhaps even a subset of, intuition, or intuitive thought.

Fi is a subconscious grasping of essential parts, it is the process of synthesizing wholes and meaning.

Fi is NOT fleeting, it is impenetrable and it is anchored.

I have thought wrong, but I have never *known* wrongly and this knowing is Fi infused.

Gah, I just don't know how to explain it, and I apologize for that. But Fi is not analogous to simply feeling, such as one feeling anger, or sorrow, ugh, HELL NO, it's deeper and more complex than that.

Here, my signature kind of exemplifies how I experience Fi.

"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Fi isn't simply an emotional product, it is an implicitly cognitive-emotional product very similar to, and perhaps even a subset of, intuition, or intuitive thought.

Fi is a subconscious grasping of essential parts, it is the process of synthesizing wholes and meaning.

Fi is NOT fleeting, it is impenetrable and it is anchored.

I have thought wrong, but I have never *known* wrongly and this knowing is Fi infused.

Gah, I just don't know how to explain it, and I apologize for that. But Fi is not analogous to simply feeling, such as one feeling anger, or sorrow, ugh, HELL NO, it's deeper and more complex than that.

Here, my signature kind of exemplifies how I experience Fi.

"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

What you are describing is as follows.

Fi has collected subjective emotive impressions of complex cognitive occurences, which are in your case an outcome of the work of Ne and Te. In itself it is mere fleeting feeling.

Fi may be anchored if it works to support something that is anchored in itself, for example a Thinking oriented idea, such as perhaps a mathematical formula. But if Fi is given ascendancy, such a formula could not be established.

Fi is a subconscious grasping of essential parts, it is the process of synthesizing wholes and meaning.

Fi does not do that. It merely applies passion to what has been synthesized before, which is in your case the work of Ne and Te.

I wonder what reason there may be for believing that it is Fi that does the synthesizing!

 

[Harmonic]

I guess I got some sort of example about Fi.

Last summer I took the position of assistant manager at pool where I lifeguarded and thus became responsible for the majority of my co-workers behavior. One of my big things was not abusing the time off afforded by adult swim / thunder because I've always sympathized with those that wanted to swim because of my own nostalgia from days of swimming with family as a child. Instead, those under me wanted to have that extra minute off or call a clearly bogus thunder, and it just sickened me because I just didn't feel that it was right.

Needless to say, I became the strict, unfeeling boss to my co-workers.

The reason that Fi is generally misunderstood is because the values that are acted upon are exclusive to the operator who acts upon these values because they are pressured by some sort of emotional investment. To an observer though, the operator is merely acting out of irrationality. The observer's fault is that he/she routinely fails to notice the emotional investment driving the action by the operator.

This thread was 2 pages shorter when I started...

 

[Simplexity]

Fi is the most useless function there is. Theres no point to it and most dominant users of it cannot even explain it so why should I believe in it.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The observer's fault is that he/she routinely fails to notice the emotional investment driving the action by the operator.]

It is clear that the actions are a result of an emotional investment, but this does not exonerate the Fi from the charges of irrationality. Because the reasons for having such an emotional investment are illegitimate (logically invalid and often grounded on false premises), the Fi fully deserves the censure of its critics, if not ridicule. That is the point I have made to Blackmail earlier.

 

[SillySapienne]

<---- Has nothing to do with my Fi and everything to do with my frustration!

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I agree with CaptainChick. The values that F uses aren't just "passions." They're heuristics that are compiled based on experience and usually have logical order to them, it's just that the order is implicit, and the person doesn't always know WHY it's the right answer.

 

[Blackmail!]

Quite simply, feelings if left to themselves will be completely whimsical. You must organize them, they will not organize themselves.

Are you sure?

Again, Feelings do not appear at random, even within animals (I mean beings who are severely limited with abstract reasoning).

Rub a cat the wrong way, and "he" may react very emotionally.
Yet you could predict that outcome. It's just a part of the equation you have to handle, and not to arbitrarily dismiss.

People who lack competence in logical reasoning tend to fail to do this.

The paradox is, the more I read you Bluewing, the more I am stunned by your own subjectivity and lack of broader understanding.

What I see is a list of half digested, questionable axioms which in return spawn ridiculously flawed conclusions.

You're one of the most illogical and subjective person I see in this forum, even if I find you quite predictable (especially how your own narcissism affects the axioms upon which you base your reason; and you don't seem to be aware of that). I've often noticed these traits with extreme INTx members, but this never ceases to surprise me, even when it shouldn't over time.

 

[sakuraba]

Fi is the most useless function there is. Theres no point to it and most dominant users of it cannot even explain it so why should I believe in it.

No it isn't.

Loyalty, Honor, Respect, Pride, a sense of right and wrong... these are big Fi values.


What would our world be without that?

 

[SillySapienne]

The values that F uses aren't just "passions." They're heuristics that are compiled based on experience and usually have logical order to them, it's just that the order is implicit, and the person doesn't always know WHY it's the right answer.

Again, Feelings do not appear at random, even within animals (I mean beings who are severely limited with abstract reasoning).

Rub a cat the wrong way, and he may react very emotionally.
Yet you could predict that outcome. It's just a part of the equation you have to handle, and not to arbitrarily dismiss.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I agree with CaptainChick. The values that F uses aren't just "passions." They're heuristics that are compiled based on experience and usually have logical order to them, it's just that the order is implicit, and the person doesn't always know WHY it's the right answer.

That is correct, but valuing is a process that includes not Feeling alone, but also Thinking (to give logical order to principles).

it's just that the order is implicit, and the person doesn't always know WHY it's the right answer.

That is true that there is some logical order to their claims as all of us inevitably rationalize or Think, therefore create order. However, as you mention this faculty is unconscious. It takes conscious effort to make something clearly orderly. For example, you need to carefully think about a math problem to solve it right (although your unconscious mind may have some ideas). Thus, because they do not use their Thinking function carefully enough, they tend to lack order. But they do have some, as aforementioned, they do use the Thinking function unconsciously.

Because they fail to bring proper order to their Thinking, what feels right to them, often is not.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Are you sure?

Again, Feelings do not appear at random, even within animals (I mean beings who are severely limited with abstract reasoning).:

Animals in nature simply get used to following their instincts. They are conditioned to behave in a way that they do. This is another way to impose structure onto activities.



Yes, there is an equation, as everybody rationalizes to some degree, even animals, the problem is, valid patterns of reasoning are easy to predict, invalid are not because they could be anything that our imagination permits. In the case of animals the equation is imposed upon them by those who train them.

Animals lack imagination, for this reason their invalid reasoning permits little, or there are a few things they could do.

Yet illogical people who have imagination (especially NFs) could do a myriad of different things, for this reason more difficult to predict.

The paradox is, the more I read you Bluewing, the more I am stunned by your own subjectivity and lack of broader understanding.

What I see is a list of half digested, questionable axioms which in return spawn ridiculously flawed conclusions.).:

Where do you see an expression of my personal values? You ought to be carefully to avoid confusing your imagination for reality.

The problem here appears to be that you lack the proper reasoning skills to understand the process.

You're one of the most illogical and subjective person I see in this forum, even if I find you quite predictable (especially how your own narcissism affect the axioms upon which you base your reason; and you don't seem to be aware of that). I've often noticed these traits with extreme INTx members, but this never ceases to surprise me, even when it shouldn't over time.

Got me there!

Forget what I said about the need to think logically in order to properly understand a situation, you see it all! Tell me more about me!