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

[SolitaryWalker]

This may be your philosophy, but it's not fact. I know I'm not the only one who observes, composes hypotheses based on observation, and then analyzes further. I do not need a starting theory.

There is no other way to do it. Imagine for example you are trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is 4. You at first have worked out a mathematical model that this is so, and then you go to the real world to push 2 sets of chairs together and see that you derive 4.

Now, when a psychologist comes up with an idea about human behavior, first he makes a hypothesis, or a theoretical model, than he goes on to apply it to the real world.

Quite simply, it is not possible to pursue the truth without first having a hypothesis or internally thinking through.

 

[Orangey]

There is no other way to do it. Imagine for example you are trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is 4. You at first have worked out a mathematical model that this is so, and then you go to the real world to push 2 sets of chairs together and see that you derive 4.

Now, when a psychologist comes up with an idea about human behavior, first he makes a hypothesis, or a theoretical model, than he goes on to apply it to the real world.

Quite simply, it is not possible to pursue the truth without first having a hypothesis or internally thinking through.

Yes, but the hypothesis must have been informed by a hunch, or an intuition based on some previous observation of the world.

 

[Jack Flak]

It is not conjecture.

Consider the following.

Axiom: Thinking, Feeling, Intuition, Sensation outline the basic tendencies of the human mind. These faculties we call the functions because they perform operations of thought. Extroversion, Introversion, Judgment and perception are attitudes as they merely describe how we perform such operations of thought.

For example, Extroversion and Introversion directs what our cognitive processes focuses on, the inner world or the outer. Judgment and perception specify what cognitive activity we are engaging in, merely perceiving or moving towards a decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Axiom 2: Cognitive faculties of Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation are antithetical to each other.

Proposition : We have earlier established that Introversion and Extroversion specify the direction of the cognitive process. Therefore because we know that an Introverted function and an Extroverted function advance in different directions they do not contrapose each other.

Thus, for the INTP, Introverted Thinking is the dominant function. The most opposed function is Introverted Feeling because it is the Feeling faculty in the Introverted realm. Extroverted Feeling is not opposed by Introverted Thinking because it is in a different typological zone.

I am familiar with the theory itself, but what it boils down to is taking something which only seems true, and extrapolating.

The theory of direction of functions, for example, may seem obviously true to you, and I didn't question it for a long time. When I did, I realized that a function, such as Thinking, can be had without any meaningful selection of direction.

Introversion itself isn't necessarily tied to a function. It's been shown that the brains of introverts and extroverts operate in slightly different ways. I am an introvert, and I have a preference for thinking. This doesn't necessarily mean my dominant function is "Ti."

About the extrapolation: You and others claim that Ti and Fi are opposed, and that in an INTP, Ti forces out Fi, making it last in the order. Who's to say? It could just as easily be true that the functions of T and F co-exist, but one is preferred for making most decisions.

The problem is not in theorizing as to how our minds operate. The problem is the claim that the theory is unquestionably fundamentally correct, without any scientific reason to make that claim.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The theory of direction of functions, for example, may seem obviously true to you, and I didn't question it for a long time. When I did, I realized that a function, such as Thinking, can be had without any meaningful selection of direction. .

The direction of the function is a necessary component of the function.

There are empirical grounds for believing that some of our brains are more naturally geared towards Introversion, whilst others are more naturally geared towards Extroversion. This is the case because one kind of a brain is more easily stimulated than the other. One can derive excitement from quiet contemplation, yet the other requires stimulation from things that are more impactful on us, such as the external world.

We also know that some of us are Thinkers, others are not. Therefore those of us who are introverts have a tendency to use Thinking specifically in relation to the inner world, and hence Introverted Thinking emerges.

This justifies the doctrine of directions of functions.

Introversion itself isn't necessarily tied to a function. It's been shown that the brains of introverts and extroverts operate in slightly different ways. I am an introvert, and I have a preference for thinking. This doesn't necessarily mean my dominant function is "Ti."

About the extrapolation: You and others claim that Ti and Fi are opposed, and that in an INTP, Ti forces out Fi, making it last in the order. Who's to say? It could just as easily be true that the functions of T and F co-exist, but one is preferred for making most decisions..

There are many mathematical theorems that are not supported by empirical investigation that we know obviously to be true because of the logical validity of their reasoning. The reason why we do not have support for such claims from empirical investigations is not because such support could not be found, but because we have not discovered adequate circumstances under which it could be found. They often occur however, without us knowing. Imagine for example a 100 step mathematical proof. The confirmation that this truly is a proof could be found for example in a complex military or a business strategy, but we do not know about such an empirical confirmation for the mathematical proposition because we have not bothered looking for it.

Some things we can easily believe without empirical investigation if we see that the reasoning is logically valid. We should continue to do so until we find a reason to believe that the premises upon which the reasoning is founded are false. Some propositions are clearly true because the premises they are founded on are truisms and reasoning is logically valid. They do not require empirical investigation for legitimation. However, it certainly would be helpful.

About the extrapolation: You and others claim that Ti and Fi are opposed, and that in an INTP, Ti forces out Fi, making it last in the order. Who's to say? It could just as easily be true that the functions of T and F co-exist, but one is preferred for making most decisions..

The question to ask here is are Thinking and Feeling truly antithetical? The reason to think so is that they both have a tendency towards judgment, as Jung calls them the rational functions, and they differ in a fundamental way. The former insists on detachment from passions, yet the latter insists on attunement with passions.

What empirical confirmation do we see for this? We could do a psychological experiment where in one group we have people who are dispassionate at the moment, and in another people who feel emotional intensity at the moment, see which group will have a stronger tendency towards dispassionate rationalization (thinking) and what group will have a tendency towards attunement with emotions (Feeling).

Quite simply, the definition of thinking is a tendency towards dispassionate judgment and of feeling a tendency towards attunement with emotions. Obviously both cognitive processes exist in nature and obviously both are antithetical, ample empirical evidence could be advanced in favor of the propositions above.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes, but the hypothesis must have been informed by a hunch, or an intuition based on some previous observation of the world.

That is certainly true. However, we must specify to what degree such a hunch is attuned with the concrete world. For example, is it the case that our hunch must be inspired by our observations of the concrete, physical world? Or could our hunch be inspired by a mere symbol of an abstraction. For example, our hunch could be inspired by an observation of a mathematical symbol representing an abstraction. The point of all of this is that it is possible to have knowledge of the world through observations of abstract symbols and not of their correspondences in the external world, knowledge that mathematics offers to us is the case point.

We could accept your statement as an epistemic axiom, though it certainly did require the specification above.

 

[anii]

The T-F scale on the MBTI (not socionics or other) measures how people make decisions. Most people use both logic and values in doing so. But the MBTI says they prefer to use one or the other first.

How that function is used depends on whether it is Introverted or Extraverted.

Fi is using values to make decisions with an inward focus. So someone with dominant Fi may appear to be relaxed about external choices (i.e., messy, flexible with group decision-making) or even appear indecisive at times. But internally they are seeking consistency and order based on values. E.g., if I value life then do I value it across the lifespan or only at certain points? Does that then mean I am pro-life? Pro-gun control? Anti-death penalty?

I will only speak for myself; as someone with dominant Fi, I am continuously going round and round inside my head, rearranging my Fi furniture as it were into more orderly fashion. When new information comes in (primarily via Ne), I then have to take a step back, survey my internal house, and re-arrange it according to my values.

This goes on consciously and I suspect subconsciously. That's why experiences, ideas or observations will nag at me until I've sorted them out. This process is also quite hidden from external observers. A person with dominant Fi can spend quite a bit of time weighing and agonizing over internal conflicts of interest and prioritization of competing values before any outward action is seen, if ever.

So the generalization "still waters run deep" can be true of people with dominant Fi. There is an awful lot of rumination going on underneath our seemingly placid exteriors.

 

[Jack Flak]

The direction of the function is a necessary component of the function.

There are empirical grounds for believing that some of our brains are more naturally geared towards Introversion, whilst others are more naturally geared towards Extroversion. This is the case because one kind of a brain is more easily stimulated than the other. One can derive excitement from quiet contemplation, yet the other requires stimulation from things that are more impactful on us, such as the external world.

We also know that some of us are Thinkers, others are not. Therefore those of us who are introverts have a tendency to use Thinking specifically in relation to the inner world, and hence Introverted Thinking emerges.

This justifies the doctrine of directions of functions.

It doesn't logically follow though, if the result is function order, which I know it is in your eyes. There's a break in cause and effect between "Introverted and Thinking" and "Ti-Ne-Si-Fe...", and there's no meaningful reason to separate something like Ti from something like Te.

There are many mathematical theorems that are not supported by empirical investigation that we know obviously to be true because of the logical validity of their reasoning....

I think I know what you're getting at, and it doesn't matter, because theory like MBTI function order doesn't exist on its own, it's intended to describe reality, not another construct.

Some things we can easily believe without empirical investigation if we see that the reasoning is logically valid. We should continue to do so until we find a reason to believe that the premises upon which the reasoning is founded are false. Some propositions are clearly true because the premises they are founded on are truisms and reasoning is logically valid. They do not require empirical investigation for legitimation. However, it certainly would be helpful.

No, we shouldn't, and that's why I don't. This is the same reasoning behind thousands of years of any number of practices continuing well beyond their usefulness. If I can create my own theory in competition with your "truisms," my own "truisms," if you will, and have uninitiated people believe it just as easily, they aren't truisms. It's been done, and I could as well.

The question to ask here is are Thinking and Feeling truly antithetical? The reason to think so is that they both have a tendency towards judgment, as Jung calls them the rational functions, and they differ in a fundamental way. The former insists on detachment from passions, yet the latter insists on attunement with passions.

And why I call it a preference. It's not cut and dry, and it should be obvious to you and everyone that from time to time, Ts are controlled by F, and vice versa.

What empirical confirmation do we see for this? We could do a psychological experiment where in one group we have people who are dispassionate at the moment, and in another people who feel emotional intensity at the moment, see which group will have a stronger tendency towards dispassionate rationalization (thinking) and what group will have a tendency towards attunement with emotions (Feeling).

It depends on the context. What's the subject of contemplation for this moment? What physical and mental states are the tested people in? Put a hunded introverts in a small room together for eight hours, and you might find some "shadow functions" coming out of the woodwork, for example.

Quite simply, the definition of thinking is a tendency towards dispassionate judgment and of feeling a tendency towards attunement with emotions. Obviously both cognitive processes exist in nature and obviously both are antithetical, ample empirical evidence could be advanced in favor of the propositions above.

They do compete, no argument there, but the aforementioned theory just isn't one to be relied upon.

 

[SillySapienne]

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.

Makes perfect sense...

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.

Absolutely, ever since I was a young girl I have been interested in people, and how their feelings seemed to affect their words and actions. And since I was a child I've been formulating theories about people and human behavior. I had no idea this had to do with Fi, good to know, I guess.

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.

Have you been talking to my family members, or something?!!?

But in all seriousness, you are absolutely right. I was raised in a remarkably and colorfully dysfunctional family, (lol, who hasn't though, really ), and since a young age have put an immense amount of value in my sense of self and identity, I could always trust myself, but other people could, and did, sometimes act in erratic, self-motivated ways that needed to be set apart, contained, observed and noted. Why was that person doing that, why was I feeling this, who is that, who am I , why is that, why am I, were and are questions that I often consciously or subconsciously, ask/ed.

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.

Lol, now you are just creeping me out with your insight!!!

Let's just say that as a child I suffered from both of these things.

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"

Hmm, I can rationally justify most of my beliefs, but I believe in everything that I believe, truth be told, because it just "feels right". So, are you saying that trusting this intuition is indicative of out-of-touch-ness??

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."

:sad:

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.

I have been guilty of spending some time out-of-touch, :blushing:, and your insight resounds with truth, thank you for the wonderful post, Fineline!!!

Your theories have to work out in real life. Otherwise they're just airy-fairy nonsense, no better than INFP theories on the love lives of elves.

And you know as well as I do that there are plenty of nonsense, full-of-shit INTPs out there. A good grasp of logic is only worth as much as the rest of the package that comes with it.

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.

Ding-ding-ding-ding!!!!

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,

Excellent description/explanation, Sarah!!! I couldn't relate/agree with you more.

I am constantly checking in with myself, and relating my feelings, my current circumstance(s) with the me-o-meter. It is like, even if I decide to be free and let go, I have to understand why I am letting go, and why that is ok, whenever I have acted out poorly, I must sit and reflect as to *why* I acted in such a way. When I pursue a goal, all along the way, I must constantly re-check myself and the path that I have "chosen" to see if it is in fact the right path. (Thus far my life has been very zig-zaggy. ).

But you are right about Fi really being something internally and self based. I can be in a room full of people who are acting or preaching things I strongly feel/believe to be wrong and I will go against the current, speak up for myself, and more than ever clutch to the source of strength that myself has provided, so as to not sink into the crowd/mob.

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.

Um Aimahn/Jack Flak, that wasn't what I meant when I agreed that the immaturity in this thread is "obvious".

What I meant was that all of the personal attack was incredibly immature. CC doesn't make sense! CC doesn't inspire respect! CC doesn't justify what she says! I misunderstood what she said, and that's her fault! That's because she's an ENFP! (one form of immaturity)

Second form of immaturity: What you're describing can't be the function, because YOU DON'T HAVE THAT FUNCTION! From a typological perspective, you can't possibly use that function, it's just an invert of the extraverted form of that function (as I define it), and you're completely mistaken (because I know you better than you know yourself because I've written a book about typology)!

Third form of immaturity: Ti is so much better than Fi for making decisions! People with Ti as their primary function are so much less likely to be delusional, because hello, Ti = logical = objectivity! ZOMG! Context disappears in the wake of a specific ability to reason!

I would say that I haven't learnt much from this thread, and most of what I learnt was from FineLine's long post. Sigh. Why have I bothered to type this out? It'll only offend people and can't bring any benefit. Screw it. I'll post it anyway.

 

[Nocapszy]

(joking!)

So was I!

I don't believe in immaturity.

 

[Nocapszy]

Lucky for you, you recognized early on and didn't engage. I wish I would have had the same foresight and discipline. It would have saved me about two hours.

Rule of thumb:

Type threads asking specific questions are a waste of time.

 

[A Schnitzel]

Rule of thumb:

Type threads asking specific questions are a waste of time.

So are most other threads, but those are more enjoyable.

 

[nonsequitur]

So was I!

I don't believe in immaturity.

*sighs* an ENTP proves me right again.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It doesn't logically follow though, if the result is function order, which I know it is in your eyes. There's a break in cause and effect between "Introverted and Thinking" and "Ti-Ne-Si-Fe...", and there's no meaningful reason to separate something like Ti from something like Te.
I think I know what you're getting at, and it doesn't matter, because theory like MBTI function order doesn't exist on its own, it's intended to describe reality, not another construct..

Ti is not separated from Te. Because the INTP is generally a Thinking type, all Thinking faculties are strong. Therefore Te is also prominent in this type as we see Fe is in 4th position, it means that it is greatly opposed.

No, we shouldn't, and that's why I don't. This is the same reasoning behind thousands of years of any number of practices continuing well beyond their usefulness. If I can create my own theory in competition with your "truisms," my own "truisms," if you will, and have uninitiated people believe it just as easily, they aren't truisms. It's been done, and I could as well.

The reason why they are called truisms is because there is clear-cut empirical evidence for their existence, as for instance we see that there is a clear-cut antithesis between dispassionate judgment and engagement in emotion.

And why I call it a preference. It's not cut and dry, and it should be obvious to you and everyone that from time to time, Ts are controlled by F, and vice versa...

What is cut and dry is the natural tendency towards one or the other. If you are a Thinking type, the Thinking faculty simply arises more naturally in your cognitive activity than other functions.

It depends on the context. What's the subject of contemplation for this moment? What physical and mental states are the tested people in? Put a hunded introverts in a small room together for eight hours, and you might find some "shadow functions" coming out of the woodwork, for example..

The underlying principle is that the unconscious tendencies oppose each other and this will manifest in all contexts. The context in this case is not relevant.

They do compete, no argument there, but the aforementioned theory just isn't one to be relied upon.

Why not?

Sorry my friend, reasonableness requires you to believe my theory unless you can show what is wrong with it.

 

[SillySapienne]

I am continuously going round and round inside my head, rearranging my Fi furniture as it were into more orderly fashion. When new information comes in (primarily via Ne), I then have to take a step back, survey my internal house, and re-arrange it according to my values.

This goes on consciously and I suspect subconsciously. That's why experiences, ideas or observations will nag at me until I've sorted them out. This process is also quite hidden from external observers. A person with dominant Fi can spend quite a bit of time weighing and agonizing over internal conflicts of interest and prioritization of competing values before any outward action is seen, if ever.

There is an awful lot of rumination going on underneath our seemingly placid exteriors.

Excellent post!!!

I will only add this ---->

And, this ---->

 

[Moiety]

BlueWing : I'm going to repeat my question since I don't know if you were ignoring me on purpose or not :


If Fi is so arbitrary why don't most people "irrationally" cling to "evil" values?

 

[Jack Flak]

Sorry my friend, reasonableness requires you to believe my theory unless you can show what is wrong with it.

I'm developing a new theory in my head, and perhaps I'll post it soon. It's simpler, of course. And I've already shown you the flaws in the extrapolations, so there is an ERROR in your statement here.

 

[SillySapienne]

Type threads asking specific questions are a waste of time.

If that is what you truly believe, then what are you doing here posting???

 

[SolitaryWalker]

BlueWing : I'm going to repeat my question since I don't know if you were ignoring me on purpose or not :


If Fi is so arbitrary why don't most people "irrationally" cling to "evil" values?

Because evolution has conditioned them to relate to people in a benevolent fashion. They would not have survived if they did not learn to relate to their tribesemen. Our culture has instantiated a code of behavior where a benevolent attitude towards others is highly vouched for. Fis (lacking critical thinking faculties) uncritically accept such cultural norms.

Irrationality has is irrelevant to wickedness in this context.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm developing a new theory in my head, and perhaps I'll post it soon. It's simpler, of course. And I've already shown you the flaws in the extrapolations, so there is an ERROR in your statement here.

Where have you shown a flaw? Reiterate please, I must have missed that!

 

[Jack Flak]

I didn't say you agreed that they were flaws, as if you did, we wouldn't be debating, but I have presented them.

It doesn't logically follow though, if the result is function order, which I know it is in your eyes. There's a break in cause and effect between "Introverted and Thinking" and "Ti-Ne-Si-Fe...", and there's no meaningful reason to separate something like Ti from something like Te.
I think I know what you're getting at, and it doesn't matter, because theory like MBTI function order doesn't exist on its own, it's intended to describe reality, not another construct.