User Tag List

First 2767757677787987 Last

Results 761 to 770 of 938

  1. #761
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Well, the MBTI is based on Jung's Psychological Types, which is all about the 8 functions (well, each of the 4 functions expressed in an introverted or extraverted attitude). Jung only really mentions the auxiliary function briefly in passing a few times. It is by combining the primary and auxiliary functions that the Myers and Briggs defined the 16 types. I agree that the basic presentation of typology is all about the 16 types, but the 16 types are built from the 8 (4x2) functions. An INFP is not just a disorganized, indecisive INFJ... but without the functions it's hard to explain how.

    I also don't buy that type is entirely genetic, otherwise each pair of identical twins would have the same MBTI type. We don't. There's some evidence that the extraverted/introverted dichotomy has a strong genetic component (between 39% to 58%), but that still leaves plenty of non-genetic influence. The other dichotomies don't seem to have much of a genetic component whatsoever. I personally suspect that type becomes fixed in childhood, and is mostly immutable by the time we become adults.

    I do agree, though, that once you move much past primary and auxiliary functions the expected patterns don't seem to universally apply (and even for primary and auxiliary I suspect some have oddball combinations). Still, like any categorization system, it is "true" in so far as it describes aspects of reality in a useful manner. Fe vs Fi is a useful distinction for me, personally, since it shines some light on some personal blind spots.

    I'd like to hear from other NFPs and NFJs on this thread, too, so we can hear if their perceptions match up with those described by others of their type.

    EDIT: Repeated a lot of what uumlau has posted in the interim. Sorry for the repeated info.

  2. #762
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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).
    Yes, I've read Psychological Types and I understand the history. Jung didn't intend his work to be used in the way that it has though. I just think a lot of the stuff that has been done in his name is so fanciful and speculative that I can't take it seriously. Much along the lines of the criticisms you've made.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't talk about the functions in the way that they have come to be spoken about. He distinguished between the attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and 4 functions (T/F, S/N). Where he spoke of the "introverted thinking" type, he was talking about an introvert with a preference for thinking over feeling judgment (not a "Ti-dom"). I think this distinction is more useful than talking about 8 distinct functions and a whole manufactured hierarchy of supposed strengths and weaknesses. An extrovert who prefers feeling makes sense. Fe as a function? Meh. Seems people can even agree what it does/doesn't do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I also don't buy that type is entirely genetic, otherwise each pair of identical twins would have the same MBTI type. We don't. There's some evidence that the extraverted/introverted dichotomy has a strong genetic component (between 39% to 58%), but that still leaves plenty of non-genetic influence. The other dichotomies don't seem to have much of a genetic component whatsoever. I personally suspect that type becomes fixed in childhood, and is mostly immutable by the time we become adults.
    What are you basing that on? No one is really doing research on MBTI, but on Big Five, its reckoned to be ~40-60% genetic, IIRC.

    Still, like any categorization system, it is "true" in so far as it describes aspects of reality in a useful manner.
    The only stuff it describes accurately is pretty much the stuff that can be predicted from a person's own responses in taking the test, or self-identifying - the reasons for which should be fairly obvious in each case.
    Don't mind me, I'm just feeling distinctly skeptical of late.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #763
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    What are you basing that on? No one is really doing research on MBTI, but on Big Five, its reckoned to be ~40-60% genetic, IIRC.
    After googling around a bit, I must have been misremembering or simply mistaken. Looking at the references to "Twins and Type" in http://www.winovations.com/Articles/...e-Part%20I.pdf, looks like at least one study claimed that all the dichotomies had a genetic component. Otherwise, looks like the material is mostly applied from Big 5 studies (which don't correlate exactly to MBTI definitions). There's a fair amount of evidence that Big 5 traits have a substantial genetic component.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't talk about the functions in the way that they have come to be spoken about. He distinguished between the attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and 4 functions (T/F, S/N). Where he spoke of the "introverted thinking" type, he was talking about an introvert with a preference for thinking over feeling judgment (not a "Ti-dom"). I think this distinction is more useful than talking about 8 distinct functions and a whole manufactured hierarchy of supposed strengths and weaknesses. An extrovert who prefers feeling makes sense. Fe as a function? Meh. Seems people can even agree what it does/doesn't do.
    Jung was describing 8 distinct types, and he makes it clear that he is talking about each "type" as pure, dominate function in isolation—as a caricature, since a single function (or function in an orientation, in his terms) doesn't exist in isolation in practice.

    So, his description of "introverted feeling" types would be Fi-doms (ISFP and INFP, in MBTI terms). And INFJ would not qualify, despite being introverted and preferring feeling over thinking. They would fall under "introverted intuition," since that's what predominates for them. I don't really see any other way to interpret it that makes sense. Jung types describe the dominate function freed of any influence from the auxiliary. Of course, his four introverted types would all be given an "I" on the MBTI, since the orientation of dominate function matches the overall orientation of the person (in theory).

  4. #764
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    So, his description of "introverted feeling" types would be Fi-doms (ISFP and INFP, in MBTI terms). And INFJ would not qualify, despite being introverted and preferring feeling over thinking. They would fall under "introverted intuition," since that's what predominates for them. I don't really see any other way to interpret it that makes sense. Jung types describe the dominate function freed of any influence from the auxiliary. Of course, his four introverted types would all be given an "I" on the MBTI, since the orientation of dominate function matches the overall orientation of the person (in theory).
    Yeah. I think it's a mistake to read it that way. Functions don't have "attitudes", people do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #765
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Yeah. I think it's a mistake to read it that way. Functions don't have "attitudes", people do.
    While that's a self-consistent stance, I don't think it's very arguable from Psychological Types itself. For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung p345
    [Introverted vs Extraverted Thinking] Each type of thinking senses the other as an encroachment on its own province, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, each revealing to the other its least favorable aspect. Introverted thinking then appears as something quite arbitrary, while extraverted thinking seems dull and banal. Thus the two orientations are incessantly at war.
    Or (much more to the point):

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung p330
    Generally speaking, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the maintenance of the psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual invariably behaves in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological processes may be observed that involve the mechanism of introversion. We call a mode of behavior extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under the conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply "happen to one." These things need not be mere slips of the tongue or pen or other such oversights, they can equally well be half of three-quarters intended, for the less differentiated functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. A classic example of this is the extraverted feeling type, who enjoys and excellent feeling rapport with people around him, yet occasionally "happens" to express opinions of unsurpassable tactlessness. These opinions spring from his inferior and half-conscious thinking, which, being only party under his control and insufficiently related to the object, can be quite ruthless in its effects.
    (bold above mine)

    So, don't see it really as arguable that Jung didn't think that functions have an attitude and the attitude of a given function may not match the dominant attitude.

    Anyway... my apologies for going to far afield of the topic.

  6. #766
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    While that's a self-consistent stance, I don't think it's very arguable from Psychological Types itself. For example:

    So, don't see it really as arguable that Jung didn't think that functions have an attitude and the attitude of a given function may not match the dominant attitude.
    I can see why Jungians read that and interpreted it in terms of function attitudes, but I just don't see enough support for it.
    Even in that excerpt, Jung talks about Introversion and Extroversion as "mechanisms" or modes, in their own right. This doesn't make sense if they are intrinsically linked to functions.
    He talks about functions being "employed" in extroverted or introverted ways. That is, energy is directed via these functions in an introverted or extroverted way. That doesn't support the idea that Introverted Feeling is a different process from Extroverted Feeling. Merely that introverted feelers and extroverted feelers are likely to use the "feeling function" in different ways. A critical distinction.

    Maybe this should be split off into a separate thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #767
    Member Affably Evil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    73

    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.)
    Introverted intuition: the interior is chaotic: raw, sensory input without meaning. Patterns do not exist external of the mind: they're a part of how people process information.

    Like with the recent discussions of Jung typology: it's a way of ordering unordered information, creating conceptualizations of abstract ideas, creating a new point of view of looking at a person's actions and preferences, rather than something that is absolutely necessarily biologically concrete and measurable.

    Ultimately, the world is too great and complex to fully comprehend: like trying to count grains of sand or the stars. But you can imagine constellations and try to map the sky: ultimately, we can only see those constellations because we're looking at them from Earth. They don't exist anywhere else.

    It's not so much that Ni is focused inward so much as that the internal associations and contexts don't have an external structure (yet.)

    Extraverted feeling: so if the inside is raw unprocessed associations, Fe seeks to create a consistent external structure through judgements and values. Which then you can use to draw those raw processes into concrete forms. For example, for myself, shaping a personal social identity (while inside its chaotic and beyond words) and putting those aspects into context with a larger community to reach others. Or putting theoretical insights into an outward form, an applicable form like in a post on a forum — though that doesn't mean this post is of any use itself!

    Because of that structure then, Extraverted Feeling looks at people's behaviors and is then prompted to interpret it in a standardized way. And because the extraverted aspect is based on values and principles, Fe has a need to find common ground with others to verify the structure. However, because of the standardization, those who who are acting in a non-standardized way (and/or are Fi ) can get trod on or stifled in a mess of over-generalization. Does that sound like what ends up happening?

    In terms of Ni-Fe mental processing... I get the feeling that Fe with Ni can have a tendency to focus on linguistic inclusivity because Ni is likely to be very sensitive of how we use words to shape an external meaning. Which is probably why I get bothered when someone is interpreting me in a way I did not intend, or if they're trying to access my unconscious raw processes that I'm protective of.

    For me, I always thought everybody approached life/reality the way I did before I started exploring typology, so I kept getting baffled when I'd run into certain kinds of conflicts with people — like an ISTP friend who told me that abstract concepts were a waste of time, or an ENFP friend whose feelings I had hurt, or an ISFJ parent who was constantly trying to classify the world (visual field) and all these facts without any context apparent to me. It's helped a lot though for imagining the different ways people are approaching reality and internal structure (judgment)/external chaos (perception) or internal chaos/external structure. While I think trying to use typology as a hard and fast rule for understanding people EXACTLY is a load of bunk — everyone has a infinite variation of genetic makeup, so of course there's infinite variation of processing preferences — has given me new perspectives and new ways of relating to people. Which I think might be how the Ni-Fe thing works in a nutshell.

    Uh, I'm not sure how far afield I wandered from your question, Morgan. I hope it was a little helpful.
    5w4 sx/sp

  8. #768
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Affably Evil View Post
    Introverted intuition: the interior is chaotic: raw, sensory input without meaning. Patterns do not exist external of the mind: they're a part of how people process information.

    Like with the recent discussions of Jung typology: it's a way of ordering unordered information, creating conceptualizations of abstract ideas, creating a new point of view of looking at a person's actions and preferences, rather than something that is absolutely necessarily biologically concrete and measurable.

    Ultimately, the world is too great and complex to fully comprehend: like trying to count grains of sand or the stars. But you can imagine constellations and try to map the sky: ultimately, we can only see those constellations because we're looking at them from Earth. They don't exist anywhere else.

    It's not so much that Ni is focused inward so much as that the internal associations and contexts don't have an external structure (yet.)
    lol. Ni and Ne to me are much, much more confusing than Fi and Fe. you may as well have described Ne here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I can see why Jungians read that and interpreted it in terms of function attitudes, but I just don't see enough support for it.
    Even in that excerpt, Jung talks about Introversion and Extroversion as "mechanisms" or modes, in their own right. This doesn't make sense if they are intrinsically linked to functions.
    He talks about functions being "employed" in extroverted or introverted ways. That is, energy is directed via these functions in an introverted or extroverted way. That doesn't support the idea that Introverted Feeling is a different process from Extroverted Feeling. Merely that introverted feelers and extroverted feelers are likely to use the "feeling function" in different ways. A critical distinction.

    Maybe this should be split off into a separate thread.
    eh, the thread was beginning to stagnate, anyway. i think it's a pertinent and useful part of the discussion, if you choose to keep it here.

    i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at, though. i think i'm tending to see the function as a sort of conveyor belt, and you can either switch it to E or I, but it's hard to have both going at once. so they're really the same process - Feeling is Feeling, after all - but just working in two different directions.

    what are the implications of the functions themselves not having attitudes? off the bat i would suppose that it means that we, instead of having a 8-part function order, would have a 4 or even 2 part order - simply the dominant and auxiliary, and an orientation. if that's true, what are your thoughts on I/E balance?

  9. #769
    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
    Yes, I've read Psychological Types and I understand the history. Jung didn't intend his work to be used in the way that it has though. I just think a lot of the stuff that has been done in his name is so fanciful and speculative that I can't take it seriously. Much along the lines of the criticisms you've made.
    Obviously, I'm not going to disagree too strongly with this synopsis. It seems that some people just like to make up things about how functions are ordered, how they relate to one another, and so on, without realizing that it is always "just a typology", not a science. Just an ordered way of labeling concepts, so that we can talk about things in a coherent way.

    As long as we don't lose track of which properties we've put in which bucket, we're good.


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't talk about the functions in the way that they have come to be spoken about. He distinguished between the attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and 4 functions (T/F, S/N). Where he spoke of the "introverted thinking" type, he was talking about an introvert with a preference for thinking over feeling judgment (not a "Ti-dom"). I think this distinction is more useful than talking about 8 distinct functions and a whole manufactured hierarchy of supposed strengths and weaknesses. An extrovert who prefers feeling makes sense. Fe as a function? Meh. Seems people can even agree what it does/doesn't do
    This is an interesting point, and I don't reject it in its entirety, but I think you might be missing something. Indeed, we could redo our typology labels as "In, It, If, Is, En, Et, Ef, Es" instead of "Ni, Ti, Fi, Si, Ne, Te, Fe, Se," and we're still talking about the same things.

    I must emphasize that he is talking about functions separately from types. There is a bit in his description of extroverted thinking where he talks about introverted thinking (p. 194 of The Portable Jung):

    But -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- there also exists an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is oriented neither by immediate experience of objects nor by traditional ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following manner: when my thoughts are preoccupied with a concrete object or a general idea, in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back to my starting-point, this intellectual process is not the only psychic process that is going on in me. I will disregard all those sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, and will merely point out that this very thinking process which starts from the object and returns to the object also stands in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a sine qua non, without which no thinking process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, to objective data, it is still my subjective process, and it can neither avoid nor dispense with this admixture of subjectivity. Struggle as I may to give an objective orientation to my train of thought, I cannot shut out the parallel subjective process and its running accompaniment without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel process has a natural and hardly avoidable tendency to subjectify the objective data and assimilate them to the subject.
    [Bolded emphasis is mine. Any errors in this quote are mine.]

    In other words, in this section his is explicitly talking about introverted thinking, and later on in his introverted thinking section, he references the fact that he discussed it here. He obviously regards the human mind as having both objective and subjective thoughts, and that the extrovert cannot avoid subjectivity nor can the introvert avoid objectivity. It is, in fact, his opinion that it is excessive objectivity or subjectivity that causes problems and neuroses. The person is not extroverted or introverted, except as a "type." And he did not limit his types ("archetypes") to just extroverted and introverted, but expressed each in terms of a function.

    Therefore, I must disagree with your assessment here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Yeah. I think it's a mistake to read it that way. Functions don't have "attitudes", people do.
    I believe my quote above indicates that Jung believed functions have attitudes, and that people express both the objective and subjective forms within themselves, though they may strongly emphasize one or the other. That we have parallel thought process, both conscious and subconscious, which carry either objective or subjective attitudes, and that it is impossible for a human not to have these - that they can be suppressed into the unconscious to varying degrees, but they do not stop operating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I can see why Jungians read that and interpreted it in terms of function attitudes, but I just don't see enough support for it.
    Even in that excerpt, Jung talks about Introversion and Extroversion as "mechanisms" or modes, in their own right. This doesn't make sense if they are intrinsically linked to functions.
    I believe, based on my quote and other readings, he was generalizing what Extroversion and Introversion meant; that the objective/subjective attitudes are their own independent property, and that it's useful to use this property in psychological analysis because it is readily visible.

    He talks about functions being "employed" in extroverted or introverted ways. That is, energy is directed via these functions in an introverted or extroverted way. That doesn't support the idea that Introverted Feeling is a different process from Extroverted Feeling. Merely that introverted feelers and extroverted feelers are likely to use the "feeling function" in different ways. A critical distinction.

    Maybe this should be split off into a separate thread.
    Actually, I think it belongs in this thread. It adds a great deal of clarity.

    I've some ideas from another quote of his that I want to expand upon, where he contrasts the subjective from the objective functions in a general way, showing how they are largely at odds with one another. This "at odds" appears to me to totally describe the Fe/Fi differences, which very strongly parallel the Te/Ti differences, said parallel allowing me to effectively show Fe users how to put the subjective shoe on the other foot. I'll post these other ideas as I have time and such that they are in the context of this thread.

  10. #770
    Member Affably Evil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    lol. Ni and Ne to me are much, much more confusing than Fi and Fe. you may as well have described Ne here.
    That very well may be; I'm still learning about the functions! If I'm lagging behind in conceptual understanding I'd be very very thankful if someone could help me out.

    To continue with the metaphor, I had thought that while Ne notices the constellation and the picture it makes (and thus triggered associations of stories) and generate all these different ideas about the patterns the stars make, Ni might declare that looking at stars in terms of constellations is only useful from a human-on-Earth's point of view because from somewhere else the pattern would look different and we're only seeing a fraction of the universe anyway.

    Not to put you on the spot, skylights, but does this sound completely off from your experience of Ne? It would help me a great deal in hearing what you (or anyone else who wants to jump in with this!) know about the function, particularly (to keep this somewhat on topic) how Fi might get extraverted through it and build an image of the big picture. I'm trying to understand all the functions better and it sounds like Intuition tends to be one of the more mysterious ones. I'd be especially grateful if we could connect Intuition with how we NFs utilize it with Feeling, to clarify against how Sensate Feeling tends to operate.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    In other words, in this section his is explicitly talking about introverted thinking, and later on in his introverted thinking section, he references the fact that he discussed it here. He obviously regards the human mind as having both objective and subjective thoughts, and that the extrovert cannot avoid subjectivity nor can the introvert avoid objectivity. It is, in fact, his opinion that it is excessive objectivity or subjectivity that causes problems and neuroses. The person is not extroverted or introverted, except as a "type." And he did not limit his types ("archetypes") to just extroverted and introverted, but expressed each in terms of a function.
    Uumlau, your posts are, as always, very interesting to me. Do you have further thoughts on subjective versus objective thoughts, especially how they might act through the Feeling judgment as a preference? If I'm understanding this correctly, do the conscious and subconscious thought processes then directly correlate to the function being extroverted or introverted — then the successive function preferences as to how we navigate between introverted functions and extroverted functions...?

    It does make sense to me to consider that a person is only introverted or extroverted through preferring an extroverted or introverted function, rather than a person being inherently introverted or extroverted and then utilizing, say, Thinking. Might the preference for subconscious thoughts then account for an introvert's need for downtime? Or would Jung attribute that as having more to do more with requiring objective thinking?
    5w4 sx/sp

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