User Tag List

First 2666747576777886 Last

Results 751 to 760 of 938

  1. #751
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I guess. It's a bit woolly though. The only way we can categorise functions is by behaviour - we don't understand the neuroscience part. So if the behaviour looks different...see where I'm going?
    If the behavior differs, how we can assume it's the same function neurologically? Yes, that's a leap.


    Contrived, definitely. Almost astrologically so.
    No arguments there, I think I have said as much. The real thing I value about it is simply that it acknowledges that the function's position in the model impacts expression of the function.

    I still don't know how he comes up with assigning one function to parent, one to child, etcetra... Astrology seems more sound sometimes. At least my sign LOOKS like an archer...


    I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.
    Pants, ick. I hope there's a pair of jeans in there somewhere...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #752
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I have a question regarding Fe aux users though:
    Fe is a judging function right? So what is the perceiving function that feeds it? For INFJ, supposedly Ni. How does this make sense? Introverted intuition is focused inward and on possibilities. How does this feed information about external standards and "feeling tones" to Fe to make judgments? (I'm thinking in terms of process flow, because that's how this stuff is described.)
    If Fe is tuned into the standards/feelings of others, how does it perceive these things? How can it strictly be a judging function?
    And if we perceive stuff other than via the 4 perceiving functions, isn't the CF model flawed?
    Meh... I'll answer how I see myself using Fe and why I don't relate to Fe equalling norms and such. I also realize my answer probably isn't going to be what I'm 'supposed' to be saying according to theory (I've never felt a strong affinity to infj either, so there's that as well - sometimes I think I've 'acquired' Fe rather than it coming from me naturally...but, in the end, cog functions are simply labels for abstract processes, it's not like they're built in our genetic code as such).

    I've written this before, but Fe for me is sort of a tool...maybe choice is a better word... it's how I choose to communicate with people and it's the fact that I factor in other peoples' needs. So yes, say I have all of these thoughts and ideas in my head. The words I use to convey all of this is highly catered to the individual at hand -- I'm always adjusting my communication style to what I think/sense the other person best responds to - to what I know their preferences are. Fe also means the vast majority of the time I in fact don't say a word about what's going on in my head. Example: if I know a person is a strong adherent to such and such religion, I know they're set in that, and I'm opposite, I won't say a word. There's no point. If I know the person could care less about one of my hobbies, I won't talk about it. I wouldn't WANT to talk about it - knowing that they're bored to tears or whatever would ruin any enjoyment I may have had out of sharing. I'm not out to ruffle feathers or debate, nor do I have a need to have others know who I am - especially if I know who I am is not compatible with who they are. So it's always focusing on commonalities and not seeing a point in bringing up differences -- in day to day life and when it comes to acquaintances and such. Deeper relationships, that stuff will become evident as time goes on.

    So Fe in the end is simply a mechanism for me to communicate with others. Internal world - NiTi - is still where I am most of the time and it's my ideas and analyses and conclusions -- Fe is how I present and externalize this information - merely a vessel, if you will. (The feedback loop though? I suppose on the other side of the coin I AM in the end overly concerned and attuned with my interpersonal relationships and those are of utmost importance to me -- so much of my NiTi 'time'/thoughts are devoted to Fe-ish type subject matter -- relationship dynamics, groups, etc). Also, I did like uumlau's comparison/contrast between Te and Fe -- their similarities and differences and what each respectively 'hones in' on -- I think that was pretty accurate.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  3. #753
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.
    To be frank, that's where I'm moving at this point as well. Especially since Fi seems to be experienced so uniquely by the individual as to be useless for any kind of outwardly valid analysis. The concept of "feeling tones" in particular- I haven't seen any two Fi-doms describe it the same way, whether during this conversation or any other I've read or had in the past five years I've been on these forums. It seems like we're all throwing piles of Jello at moving targets here, and sometimes inadvertently hitting each other in the face.

    There have been some very useful bits in this thread, and the vocabulary of function theory has helped define SOME very rough differences between those of us with a preference for feeling. But when I step back and look at the thread as a whole I think we're trying to force the concept to explain differences that are too fine for it to detect. Expecting a reliable level of repeatability/falsifiability out of a concept that is pseudoscientific to begin with is folly.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  4. #754
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    To be frank, that's where I'm moving at this point as well. Especially since Fi seems to be experienced so uniquely by the individual as to be useless for any kind of outwardly valid analysis. The concept of "feeling tones" in particular- I haven't seen any two Fi-doms describe it the same way, whether during this conversation or any other I've read or had in the past five years I've been on these forums. It seems like we're all throwing piles of Jello at moving targets here, and sometimes inadvertently hitting each other in the face.

    There have been some very useful bits in this thread, and the vocabulary of function theory has helped define SOME very rough differences between those of us with a preference for feeling. But when I step back and look at the thread as a whole I think we're trying to force the concept to explain differences that are too fine for it to detect. Expecting a reliable level of repeatability/falsifiability out of a concept that is pseudoscientific to begin with is folly.
    Truth be told, it's why I've actually always preferred dichotomies!!! Very straightforward! J=closure/control, P=open-ended/go-with-the-flow... etc. (and I often think the dichotomy differences are more telling irl anyway) Pretty cut and dry!

    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  5. #755
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.
    I'm of a similar mind, in terms of using function theory to "explain" things. It's also why it might feel similar to astrology, insofar as it tries to give a "why" reason to answer questions about personality. I don't think functions explain anything. Rather, they describe.

    It's a typology. A typology is a particular kind of theory that is about classifying "things." As long as you have a means of separating things into distinct buckets, it's a valid method of organization. That means of separating is the essential part of the typology.

    Function theory helps me in terms of thinking about how I think about things. Yes, there is a lot of mix and match going on, with several different flavors of thinking joining together in various ways. But in specific instances, you can see the particular style of thinking, and from experience with that style of thinking (in oneself or in others) you can "get a handle" on dealing with whomever employs it.

    In the basic example of Fe vs Fi, the problem isn't one of understanding why people favor one or the other, or understanding a function one doesn't share more deeply. The problem is that the differences are distinct and noticeable, and reliable: the same patterns happen between people over and over. Except it isn't even really a problem because if we can see the pattern, we then know how to deal with it. When I see Fe in play, I can use a pseudo-Fe style to communicate. E.g., review my recent long reply to Fidelia, in which I employ the same "this isn't personal" kind of caveats that I note as being typical of Fe - I knew it was likely she'd respond favorably and grasp my context. Similarly, when I see Fi in play, I can use my more native Te + Fi modes of communication.

    The functions classify these things that I have never classified before, and classify them usefully. The problem with general rules for what is polite or correct is that different people regard different things as polite and correct, and the rules can become extremely detailed, with no real theory can comprehensively cover all of it. Yet, with function theory, I can easily adapt myself to others' communication styles, even though I've never been that skilled at doing so in the past.

    So, I don't need to understand "why" Fe feels as it does in order to make a connection. Rather, I simply respect how Fe works, and work with it as needed. Perhaps understanding will come in time.

    In the case of Fi, an individual's Fi is going to be rather unique to the individual. The trick isn't to figure out how Fi works, or how Fi thinks, but rather to just respect Fi, and resolve to learn how to interact smoothly with those using it. Usually it just means dropping a few Fe assumptions, and adapting to the more personal mode of sharing that Fi employs, at which point, communication happens, and you learn how the Fi individual "feels" much more easily than trying to use Fe to read it.

    For me, MBTI, and later Jung's (and others') function theory has always been more about understanding the ways in which others are commonly different. It has helped me understand myself better to a degree, and done so in unexpected ways, but the real help has been from understanding others. The power of the typology is that you don't need to know the inner workings (how Fe or Fi "really thinks" for example) in order to understand that there are differences and learn simple ways to respect them.

  6. #756
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    For the most part, I have very few "clashes" with Fe, mostly because I can feel the static when it seems like a clash is coming, at which point I immediately defer to my inner Artful Dodger and position myself to avoid the conflict.

    But that's with INFJs. I rarely encounter (and for some reason never, even if I do encounter one, hang around) ENFJs in the real world. If I do, I don't know they're type. They're like Sensors in that way. They're all around, but I never see them, ya know?

    But they are, in both the literal and metaphorical way, at the opposite corner of the NF quadrant. ENFJs can come across to me as just ESTJs who speak my language but say the same thing. I don't have the same immediate aggression as with the ESTJ, who lacks any knowledge of my customs (much like how an American doesn't know that pointing is rude in Asia), but I have the same mistrust of motive and disagreement with worldview of the ENFJ as with the ESTJ.

    With INFJs, we both lean back on our introversion and keep our differences of opinion to ourselves. We know that we disagree, but we don't make it a topic of discussion. We look at each other, laugh, and change the subject. With ENFJs, there's a much higher probability of them bringing our disagreement into the realm of discussion.

    Which usually follows a common plot line:

    We discuss the point with which we're in disagreement.
    We both try to explain our own argument.
    We both allow room for the other being right, then go into rebuttal about why they might be wrong.

    Then the problem sparks:

    The ENFJ hangs on to their concept of being "right", while I (an INFP) demand that they define "right"ness.
    The ENFJ refers to their Se and expects me to "know" what "right" is.
    I refuse to be limited to a single moral coordinate and subconsciously begin to assume the INFP aggressive stance.
    The ENFJ puts weight on their assertion that I define a single moral coordinate and give reason for why it's different from theirs.

    [begin initiation sequence]

    They realize that something's FUBAR, but their J-ness causes them to maintain their position.

    And then I go





    Usually we aren't together long enough for it to get to the latter stages of the exchange, but if I were locked in a room with one, it would inevitably boil down to this result.

    So...

    :blushing:
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

  7. #757
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I'm of a similar mind, in terms of using function theory to "explain" things. It's also why it might feel similar to astrology, insofar as it tries to give a "why" reason to answer questions about personality. I don't think functions explain anything. Rather, they describe.
    Exactly. It helps with tracking patterns that point to general trends. But to explain behaviour, no, how could it?

    People naturally are so much more than just "cognitive functions". And yet, interestingly, we do reduce to loosely defined definitions of each. Enough to just catch the edge of lending credence to the descriptions in the first place.

    If more people shared their personal vantage points in thread, it would help identify the underlying patterns more readily, IMO.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #758
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Meh... I'll answer how I see myself using Fe and why I don't relate to Fe equalling norms and such. I also realize my answer probably isn't going to be what I'm 'supposed' to be saying according to theory (I've never felt a strong affinity to infj either, so there's that as well - sometimes I think I've 'acquired' Fe rather than it coming from me naturally...but, in the end, cog functions are simply labels for abstract processes, it's not like they're built in our genetic code as such).
    Well but if they are innate (which they are supposed to be) then built into our genetic code is exactly what they are.
    And if they're not, then we need to understand what makes you Ni dom and me Ti dom. The implications for functions/preferences not being innate are pretty huge. Especially when it comes to Fe.

    And then, yeah, we come to stuff like "learned" Fe vs "natural" Fe. Is there a difference? This is all pretty important - to me at least. I'm only interested in MBTI/Typology because I want to deepen my understanding of human nature. For pragmatic purposes? It's just not worth it. Most people muddle by without a typological map, and I can't say that an understanding of the theory has improved my relations with others in any meaningful way.
    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I don't think functions explain anything. Rather, they describe.

    It's a typology. A typology is a particular kind of theory that is about classifying "things." As long as you have a means of separating things into distinct buckets, it's a valid method of organization. That means of separating is the essential part of the typology.
    Not strictly speaking. The typology is just about the dichotomies. Basic MBTI is the typology.
    Function theory builds a whole elaborate back story on top of that. It's interesting, but that's all it is, a story. Anyone can make up a story. Why should I choose this one above another? Why shouldn't I just make up my own? Most of the stuff function theory predicts isn't even accurate. If a model has no predictive power, it has no use, as far as I'm concerned.
    But I don't want to stray too far off topic. I just wondered how others have reconciled these anomalies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #759
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Well but if they are innate (which they are supposed to be) then built into our genetic code is exactly what they are.
    And if they're not, then we need to understand what makes you Ni dom and me Ti dom. The implications for functions/preferences not being innate are pretty huge. Especially when it comes to Fe.
    What I meant by 'Fe' not being tied to genetic code was that I don't believe it's as simple as that. That 'Fe' is a descriptor for a category of cognition and more often used as an all-encompassing thing that ties to a set of behaviors, but it's a descriptor we've developed to classify this generic set of stuff. This 'stuff', of course, is tied to genetics, as is pretty much everything, but I don't think it's as simple as 'Ooh, I'm an INFJ, so I have an 'Fe' gene, and he's an INTJ, so he has a 'Te' gene'. Bottom line, typology's simply labeling and categorizing observable trends when it comes to people - putting a name to these differences. Doesn't mean it's the *right* name or the categories themselves are 'right'. It's just one way, after all. (As you start mentioning below).

    And then, yeah, we come to stuff like "learned" Fe vs "natural" Fe. Is there a difference? This is all pretty important - to me at least.
    Probably a difference, yes. But to be honest I can't tell you whether I've 'learned' mine or not. Often I think I have. But then it could be argued that the very fact that I've 'chosen' Fe vs. Te (apparently? lol) is in fact evidence that it's 'natural'. That choice/leaning speaks to a tendency within myself. gah.

    Function theory builds a whole elaborate back story on top of that. It's interesting, but that's all it is, a story. Anyone can make up a story. Why should I choose this one above another? Why shouldn't I just make up my own? Most of the stuff function theory predicts isn't even accurate. If a model has no predictive power, it has no use, as far as I'm concerned.
    But I don't want to stray too far off topic. I just wondered how others have reconciled these anomalies.
    I dunno. I haven't reconciled them, to be honest, which is why I scrapped paying much attention to function theory about 1.5-2 yrs ago...the anything to do with strict function order and other really specific things, that is) I don't see it as terribly applicable irl - at least in a predictable way. All there are are overall trends (or with some theory, perhaps even Extreme or Ideal examples of each category), but imo the bulk of people deviate from the trends in one way or another such that the theory isn't terribly applicable on the individual level (at least in terms of how the theory is outlined and how it's 'supposed' to work according to theorists) but remains of some use when describing groups - i.e. statistical purposes, tendencies, etc.

    I just get into these discussions every now and then because it is after all a typology forum and typology's all about the theory anyway.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  10. #760
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Not strictly speaking. The typology is just about the dichotomies. Basic MBTI is the typology.
    Function theory builds a whole elaborate back story on top of that. It's interesting, but that's all it is, a story. Anyone can make up a story. Why should I choose this one above another? Why shouldn't I just make up my own? Most of the stuff function theory predicts isn't even accurate. If a model has no predictive power, it has no use, as far as I'm concerned.
    But I don't want to stray too far off topic. I just wondered how others have reconciled these anomalies.
    I must strongly disagree. The Jungian functions are distinctly typological in nature. Jung was very specific that they were archetypes, extreme examples, and that people had other functions in play. MBTI is a popularization of Jung's original "theory of types," looking at Jung's functions from a PoV of primary and auxiliary, perceiving (irrational) and judging (rational). The "back story" came first, isn't made up post hoc, and is the inspiration for all of the rest.

    There are those who take function theory much farther than I would deem appropriate, those who do want it to "mean something" who want to figure out which brain activities map to which function use, and so on. Such theories are misguided precisely because functions are typological in nature, not real, objective entities. They might be a starting point, but I would expect legitimate research along such lines to at least revise the functional definitions to much more precise statements, so that they can be mapped properly, and more likely drop the concept of Jungian functions overall and replace them with a new typology that describes the brain mapping (not unlike the "right-brained/left-brained" typing that is also popular).

    I've read the paper by Beebe that introduces his concept of 8 functions, with 4 shadow functions: it's entirely subjective, personal experience, nothing to do with clinical studies or observation - little better than an amateur post on a typology forum. His ideas are interesting, and largely seem to make sense, but they have some glaring flaws, e.g., an arbitrary order and a tendency to regard the shadow functions as always being negative in nature. Jung argued that we're in a continuous process of bringing these other, subconscious functions into the conscious realm - that one differentiates and realizes new ways of looking at the world, even if some ways are antithetical to one's primary way (function).

    As for "predictive power", I've been using functions in a useful, predictive way for quite a while, now. The predictions aren't that fancy, mostly along the lines of, "Oh, I need to say it this way in order to convey the idea to that person." Or, e.g., if I use Fe-style instead of Te-style with this person, they'll stop being such an @$$ to me ... and it works! It's generally faster than my prior method of just guessing what might best communicate a complex idea.

Similar Threads

  1. When Fe meets Fi......
    By RedAmazoneFriendZone in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-15-2016, 08:09 AM
  2. Fe vs. Fi, Disloyalty, Allegiance, Or the Lack Thereof…
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 07:55 PM
  3. [NT] Fe and Fi, the NT version
    By BlahBlahNounBlah in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 09:55 AM
  4. Let's end the Fe/Ti - Fi/Te wars once and for all...
    By onemoretime in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 12:00 PM
  5. Why does Ti always go with Fe and Fi with Te?
    By sofmarhof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 03:57 PM

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