• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Oh well, agree to disagree as always.

Congrats on the book, by the way.

Another interesting thought. Claims of pure mathematics would indeed be useless if they describe nothing of reality.

Take the principle of mathematics concerning addition. We know that this is a true principle because we can confirm that 2 plus 2 make 4 in real life by adding 2 sets of objects together.

Hence, applied mathematics gives us a reason to believe that a principle of pure mathematics is true. However, the principle of pure mathematics is a prerequisite for the work in applied mathematics because if we are to do any empirical testing, we must first have a clear idea of what it is that we are testing.

Thus, before we go on to look for Fi or Ti in people, we must first have an idea of what Fi or Ti is. This justifies the precedence of pure typology over applied typology.

How would this work? Suppose I make a hypothesis that there is a Thinking function, and such a function is responsible for logical reasoning and it contraposes with subjective value judgments. We go on to do empirical testing. We study the works of philosophers, writers and scientists to see if we observe such tendencies. If we do, than we can conclude that we have discovered a typological principle.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Why are you soooo predictable?

---

What's interesting in Fineline's pots, is the notion of "getting out of touch" or not. Your narcissism seem so disproportionate that you don't even seem aware of it, and how it contaminates every reasoning you make.
It's a question of balance, maybe.

Extreme Ti user are always prone to severe logical fallacies, since their arguments are not really grounded, since they lack this "broad view"; the context for instance, or being aware of their own limits.

Narcissism?
Logical fallacies?

Where?

Could it simply be the case that you only have imagined there is narcissism and logical fallacies, but there truly are not? As you, my dear sir, have a vigorous imagination after all!
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Narcissism?
Logical fallacies?

Where?

Could it simply be the case that you only have imagined there is narcissism and logical fallacies, but there truly are not? As you, my dear sir, have a vigorous imagination after all!

When you'll be able not to comply to Bluewing's laws, then I'll recognize I may have "imagined" something. Prove me I'm wrong!

---

What you don't seem to realize, is that a perfect reasoning doesn't necessarily lead to objectivity. To reach that goal, one must firstly be self-aware of our own subjectivity, a basic step you have never done yet (unless you are a prankster, an eventuality I do not push aside since you are quite caricatural, so far). And alas, subjectivity doesn't mean irrationality: you can be very subjective, and very rational in the same time: you're a shining example of that.

You can use your reason any time you like, if you lack context and balance, then it's pointless. Ti is never more accurate than when we are able to figure out our current emotional state, our own hidden goals, our own unconscious side.

I think you should read a bit of Husserl, sometimes, it can't do any harm. Try some epoche... :rolli:
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
---

What you don't seem to realize, is that a perfect reasoning doesn't necessarily leads to objectivity..

It leads to objectivity. As perfect reasoning means perfect compliance with laws of logic, or a deductively valid argument. It certainly does not guarantee the knowledge of the truth or a sound argument. This does require more than reasoning, it also requires that you have accurate information to start with. However, as aforementioned, good reasoning should inspire you to search for accurate information because inaccurate information will manifest in your thinking in a form of contradictions which you will have an urge to correct if you are a devoted logician.

In short, good reasoning does not guarantee the truth, but it is the most reliable guide to the truth we have. The offer it makes is good enough.

It is not helpful to think of yourself as subjective if you are interested in the truth. That is not relevant. If you want the truth you should make an earnest effort to abide by the laws of logical reasoning.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
Perfect objectivity is impossible because no conclusions could be drawn from gathered information alone, the information must be subjectively processed to make conclusions.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Perfect objectivity is impossible because no conclusions could be drawn from gathered information alone, the information must be subjectively processed to make conclusions.

Exactly.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Perfect objectivity is impossible because no conclusions could be drawn from gathered information alone, the information must be subjectively processed to make conclusions.

That is true. However, as close of an adherence to logic or laws of reasoning as possible will bring us as close to complete objectivity as possible.

I never maintained that complete objectivity was possible.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
That is true. However, as close of an adherence to logic or laws of reasoning as possible will bring us as close to complete objectivity as possible.

Is Objectivity caused by adherence to logic and laws of reasoning.

Or are logic and laws of reasoning caused by Objectivity?
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here's my own thinking on the subject. Everything's relative, so Fi has to be examined in the context of Ti, and even in the context of Te and Fe.

Everyone's usually pretty clear on what Te and Fe are. In my own shorthand, Te is short-term analysis and rationalizing for organizational purposes. Fe is short-term emotional bonding and relationship-building for organizational purposes. (I know those definitions will be challenged, but I'll go with them for now and you can judge for yourself subsequently whether those definitions are critically flawed for purposes of this exposition.)

Ti and Fi, then, are the same things as above, but introspected into the form of a system: Ti types analyze and rationalize in order to build logical systems. Fi types study emotions and relationships in order to build value systems.

What's the difference between the extraverted and introverted versions of T and F? Fe and Te place a high value on the social contract as a means of dealing with life. I'll hypothesize that Te and Fe types were valued as caretakers and contributors when they were children; they were rewarded for participating in the community (the family) and taught not to value solitary accomplishments. By comparison, Ti and Fi types place a high value on the solipsist self as the best tool for dealing with life. Frankly, all the Ps (Dominant and Auxiliary Ti and Fi types) are kind of whiny and selfish by comparison to the average J. :)

What's the difference between Fi and Ti under this scheme? Again, I'll hypothesize some formative childhood influences, just to create a paradigm--a fun little tool for understanding the differences in type. Ti types often seem to have been raised in chaotic environments in some key ways--a demanding parent, a suffocating parent, squeezed by strong or simply too many siblings, etc. Unable to compete on an emotional (bonding) level, they strive to win their fair share of the family pie by relying on rules and logic. Thus, let's say that T is motivated by a need for fairness in order to deal with emotional chaos. Fi types, on the other hand, seem to carry old wounds from abandonment or lack of attention. Let's say Fi is about building emotional bonds in order to address fears of abandonment or lack of attention.

Is Ti more grounded in reality than Fi? Not at all. Both types get their original inputs from the world around them. In the process of introspecting systems from those inputs, both types may remain connected with the outer world or may become increasingly cut off from the outer world. If both are connected with the outer world, they can probably offer sound reasons for the introspected systems that they create. If both are cut off from the outer world, they may have trouble justifying their systems, rationales, and behaviors in the real world. Fi types may become new agers, believing in things because they "feel right"; Ti types may spend their lives studying and becoming proficient in Klingon or archiving libraries of old train schedules, apparently for no better reason than because it gives them a bit of notoriety in a tiny subset of cultish types who share that interest sprinkled around the nation, even as they become totally estranged from the family members who live in the same house with them.

Even when they can offer reasons for their systems, are the base beliefs of a Ti any more reasonable than those of an Fi? Many's the time I've asked a Ti why he treats a spouse or a family member in some strange fashion. "Because it's fair." But is fair really the issue here?--that person should hold an honored place in your life, and you're treating them like the family dog. "I treat people fairly. I can't explain it any clearer than that. It's just who I am. If I gave my wife or my kid better treatment than the family dog, I wouldn't be me anymore."

Frankly, it's the same ridiculous answer an Fi might give when pushed on why he won't accept the precepts of basic math or science. The Ti person is no more in touch with real life than the Fi person. They're just two sides of the same coin. The Ti person can't simply choose to ignore the rules of emotions and human interactions any more than the Fi person can simply choose to ignore the rules of logic and science. To do so is to prove how badly one is out of touch with reality. IOW, the Ti function offers no more protection against falling completely out of touch with reality than the Fi function.

Both types will survive and even prosper, but if they persist in their one-sided development their lives and their introspected systems will be severely and obviously (to an outside observer) deficient in key respects.

So what's Fi? Pretty much the same thing as Ti. Emotional systems and hierarchies will be mulled and constructed pretty much the same as logical systems and hierarchies. Raw material will be taken from the world. If the Fi or Ti person believes strongly in God, then God is going to appear in both systems. If the Fi and Ti persons are both well-educated and in good contact with the world, then they'll both be able to argue their systems coherently and exhaustively; for example, if the subject is the death penalty, then perhaps the Ti person will tend to pull out a lot of law books and the Fi person will tend to pull out a lot of philosophy books on the subject of the value of life. Neither argument will automatically or intrinsically be stronger than the other. Law and philosophy ultimately draw their water from the same well--real life.

And if the Fi and Ti persons are grossly solipsist and out of touch with the real world, then the Fi person is going to belong to some new age cult or live in a world of bunny-rabbit and butterfly and rainbow stickers on their windows and wonder why they never seem to find true love; the Ti person is going to belong to some Heavens Gate cult or live in a one-room studio with bare walls and spend their lives prowling the internet pushing some conspiracy theory and wonder why they never seem to find true love.

Big difference. :rolli:

Fine Line,
This post described everything to me beautifully.

Yeah, I've had gut reactions to things as well. I particularly remember this one time when someone was introducing me to a new manager (at a shitty job I held while still in high school), and I became completely overwhelmed by this random sinister feeling about the guy. I don't know what it was, and it certainly had no reasons attached to it, but it made me avoid him like the plague from there on out. Would that be Fi?
I thought that was what Fi was too...but it could be intuition base as was stated later on.

I'm going to relate a circumstance, which I think is Fi related...bare with me, I'm trying to work out the Fi/Ti thing, although I think it's all the Ti in this thread that makes my head hurt.
Forgive me if I seem to meander through the example...I'm hoping it will be indicative of the thought processes involved.

In my work, I have to be able to make quick decisions, which theoretically should be based on logic, but for me as my intuition is perhaps my strongest "function", a fair amount of my decisions are based on "gut feelings". I have to concentrate intensely, and if I'm getting distracted by phone calls, and personal inquiries, I get a little flustered. One of the machines that is analyzing the data breaks downs, and one of my co-workers goes off to find maintenance, while the other stays twiddling her finger, instead of starting up the back-up analyzer. I start to worry that the work is backing up and I have stay back and finish it, and then I wonder why my co-worker isn't starting up the back machine. Instead she is is wasting time talking to another co-worker . I start to get angry, because she makes no move, and it's been over 15 mins, and I know I will have to deal with lots of phone calls from people who wonder where the data is. Then the phone calls start, and I have no time to go over and ask her to start up the back up machine, so I'm seething by now. Can't my co-worker see the work backing up....she shows absolutely no concern for any one else around her. I start to think to myself, she always does this, she never thinks about doing her work. She is such a bad and lazy worker...god, I hate it when I have to think for her. The mantainace team arrive, and I get a break in between phone calls. Looking back, she had no idea what was going on in my head, as she wasn't expecting my reaction, which was " You so don't have any work ethic what so ever! I need you to start up the second machine now."
Looking back, I should have explained to her, what was required and why, instead of getting angry and acting irrationally.
Instead, I acted upon my anger, misconstrued what I was feeling for a violation of one of my deeply held values - to be seen working hard = good work ethic.
It's probably not the best example, but if I have interpreted things correctly, it is an example of Fi in use (?though possibly not high functioning Fi).
 

sarah

soft and silky
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
548
MBTI Type
isfp
What's all this about "faking" Fi and how is that relevant to CaptainChick's original question? Of course you can pretend to care deeply about stuff you don't really value, but ultimately the people who do that must know they don't really value it. People who have a highly developed use of Fi don't tend to see any value in doing that. They'd rather be living in a way that supports what they actually care deeply about than pretend to for anyone else's benefit, and they certainly wouldn't see any benefit in pretending for their own sakes.

I have even seen type experts and theorists stumble all over themselves trying to explain Fi. It's just really hard to explain something that has no concrete, outward "appearance", and which can not be adequately explained by logical argument. The best attempt at linear and logical explanation I've ever seen is one created by an INTJ type theorist -- perhaps his being tertiary Fi makes him better able to understand and appreciate it than the type theorists who prefer Fe, and his well-developed use of Te comes in handy for the explanation.

I'm referring to this book, if anyone has it.. Amazon.com: 8 Keys to Self Leadership: From Awareness to Action: Dario Nardi: Books I know it's $16, but I highly recommend it. It's the best source I've ever seen for explaining in depth each of the cognitive processes in all stages of development from least to most developed.

Anyway, the way I've always tried to explain it (although it's not a rational argument) is that Fi provides those of us who use it and trust it with a set of deeply held convictions about who we are and what we value. It informs all our decisions and helps us make choices that align with what we care most about. I think it even has a lot to do with identity in the sense that we Fi users are big into making our choices reflect who we are personally rather than deferring to group norms and opinions, or connecting to the group's values at the expense of living true to our own values. Fi users also care deeply about the quality of the values we hold deeply. I really can't remember a time when I wasn't considering whether anything I was experiencing or doing was something I wanted to do or something worth caring about, although my decisions couldn't ever be adequately explained to others because they weren't rationally-formed. I don't ever stand there and argue with myself over the fine points of whether something is worth valuing, because my decision-making tends to be entirely nonverbal.

Sarah
ISFP
 
R

RDF

Guest
Thanks for your nice comment, FireyPhoenix. Thanks, too, to Blackmail! I appreciated the positive feedback in the course of the discussion with BlueWing.

[...] It's probably not the best example, but if I have interpreted things correctly, it is an example of Fi in use (?though possibly not high functioning Fi).

By the time you got angry at your co-worker, you were operating under stressed-out Te (your Inferior function). It's controlling, snappy, negative J.

For Dominant Fi types (INFP and ISFP), at it's most basic level Fi is generally going to be a fairly instant value judgement to the effect that something is oh-so-right (to the point of being highly pleasurable) or oh-so-wrong ("No, I could never do that! That's not me!")

As I understand it, everyone's Dominant function is so highly-tuned that it's effectively unconscious. (BlueWing pointed that out once in an old post, and it sounds right to me.) So the INFP's right/wrong value judgement appears to pop up out of nowhere, though on reflection after the fact you could probably retrace how and why that judgement exists in you.

OTOH, one's Auxiliary (Ne in the case of INFPs) is usually more conscious and deliberate. That's the brainstorming function where you obsess over things a bit and mull them over.

Under stress, people tend to exhibit their Inferior function in a stressed-out form (Te for INFPs and ISFPs). Since Te is a judging function, it tends to show up in INFPs as a harsh, controlling, irritated judgment. OTOH, the Inferior function can also be used in a positive, unstressed way with practice. With practice, INFPs and ISFPs can use it for short-term planning and implementation to become more productive.

That's how I understand these things anyway, as a non-expert.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
"Fi: You only get it if you got it"

[aimless incoherent ramble]

I could say the same thing of Fe or any function really, but that would be like pushing water uphill (thanks bluemonday for that one!). Actually it would fit the extroverted functions more so than introverted ones because what the eyes see and the ears hear the mind believes and you can see extroverted functions. Which then makes me wonder if it's easier to understand what's in plain sight and everybody thinks they grasp or what's out of sight and people are already primed to think we're going to have to understand it so it opens them up to understanding more. OK, I'm not quite sure what I just wrote so I'll leave it alone.

And now I'm also thinking that the way the title is even phrased already places the function itself into the deep and impenetrable fog, leading you to think there's something I don't get!!! I liken it to when you get a brain teaser or a riddle and you know the answer is embedded somewhere in there and if you look hard enough you'll get it. But this riddle is that there is no answer in there, joke's on you. The riddle turns into a knock-knock joke and then you're like damn, that was so obvious. OR, for all you party monsters out there, the bouncers will purposely let a long line form outside of the club to make people think 'what's going on in there?' Now when you get inside the place can be jumpin or you have two lame people doing the running man on the dance floor. Once again, I'm not sure what I just wrote so I'll leave it alone.

Honestly, this is what I think people make Fi out to be: "Fi: You only get it if you got it." Should I believe the hype? Should I wait in that line? I'm in the audience and I'm waiting for the main act to come onstage and it's been 45 minutes. Will it be worth it? I dunno.

[/aimless incoherent ramble]
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Honestly, this is what I think people make Fi out to be: "Fi: You only get it if you got it." Should I believe the hype? Should I wait in that line? I'm in the audience and I'm waiting for the main act to come onstage and it's been 45 minutes. Will it be worth it? I dunno.

It's one of those things 'you only get when you've got it', but really, it's not as great as the hype says it is. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Jackie, at best, CC's claims seem like a vague apology for Feeling or Feelers, yet nowhere has she made an explicit statement that Feelers are just as good at everything that Thinkers do.
Well...It feels odd debating someone's intent who isn't long-dead, and is instead right here, but okay...

The claims may be, in the mind of the claimant, an innocent defense of Feeling only disguised as an attack on Thinking, but they at least come across as arrogant, to some, and are a regular occurence. If someone preaches the strength of Thinking somewhere, you can bet that CC isn't far behind with the "Everyone both thinks and feels!" statement. Obviously true, but irrelevant.

I would like to hear from CaptainChick what she "feels" Thinkers are more qualified to do than Feelers at this point in time, because I haven't seen her allude to anything of the sort in the past.

You're reading things into her statements that were not there.

Yes...This is what I do, I read between lines. It's not infallible, but I admit that I rely on it. I could argue that we're both looking at her statements and seeing two separate intentions, neither of which was explicit.

This quotation you have cited does not support this charge of yours,

She said that Feelers have a different approach clearly, yet nowhere do we see her stating that the approach of feelers is just as efficient.
I paraphrase: "Thinkers debate truth; Feelers arrive at truth."

The wording of this statement implies that Feelers have a more intimate relationship with truth, as if they hold it in their hands, and Thinkers are on the other side of the room talking about it.

Yes because Fe preceeds Fi in the order of functions.

In essence they are the same, the only difference is the output of Fe is inspired directly by an external object, yet the output of Fi is inspired by an internal emotive mindset. So in the case of Fe, the emotion is evoked directly by the work of art, yet in the case of Fi by a preconceived emotive perception of the work of art. For the Introverted Thinker the emotion is inspired by the analysis of the work of art, generally cannot emote before having thought through the circumstances. However, there is no subjective filter of emotive perceptions in this case, the emotional reaction is aimed directly at the object itself, in this case it is the analysis of the work of art. For this reason, you will almost never hear an INTP say, I feel this way simply because I do, I have no will to explain that. In addition to the very rational nature of the INTP, the Feeling of this type is very simple because it is easily traced to the external stimulus.

The mindset of a TJ (Fi) is different, first there is an analysis, yet Fi does not emote directly in relation to the analysis, but to some mystical emotive perception interposed between the analysis and the process of commiting the emotion to such an analysis.

In short, extroverted functions respond directly to the object, introverted functions respond to the subjective perception interposed between the function and the object.
I know you wouldn't make a statement like this if you realized it was conjecture, but it is. This isn't fact, and there's no evidence whatsoever to support it, only the theory of function order, which is also conjecture.

It could hypothetically be true, and it could hypothetically be false, so I choose not to rely on it. It's just as likely that it actually is Fi, and just as likely it's something we don't understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
She should have said, thinkers attempt to understand the truth by disputing it with others, yet feelers through mere perception 'see/understand/sense'.

This is the most accurate interpretation I can think of.
I disagree with this, and the original CC statement. Feelers are just as likely to bounce ideas off people before making conclusions, for example.

I would say the best way to describe the difference simply is that Thinkers come to specific conclusions, based on fact and/or logic, which may combine to form general conclusions. Feelers have notions which lead them directly to general conclusions, which are more subjective and based on principle.

Thus, before we go on to look for Fi or Ti in people, we must first have an idea of what Fi or Ti is. This justifies the precedence of pure typology over applied typology.

[And other statements/posts]
I also love to play with theory, for fun, but you treat it as more real than the people and behavior which are more important in this context. That doesn't follow logic if your goal is understanding the human mind, and helping others to. If your goal is simply to get the blood flowing in your brain, you might really have something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
I agree with ajblaise that Fi is a "gut reaction".

If anything, I find that more the reason to follow it. Listen to your body.
 
Top