User Tag List

First 2969777879808189 Last

Results 781 to 790 of 938

  1. #781
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Random Ness View Post
    Not me...I care much more about intentions than results.
    The thing is, Fe people seem to think that X action means Y good intention, and Fi is operating in its own way, not according to formula. Y good intention in Fi do not come out in the prescribed X way, so Fe wants to deny the existence of Fi's good intention. In this sense, Fe is more about what actually manifests on the surface, because as long as X is shown, then it's rather assumed that it's stemming from Y good intention (although other factors may prove it to be phony), and if X is not shown, then Y good intention is questioned. This is frustrating for the Fi person.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  2. #782
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    270

    Default

    ^^^^

    Concrete examples plz?

  3. #783
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Oh...I'm no good at concrete examples....I'll get back to you if I ever think of one (they always seem too specific....).
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  4. #784
    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 Random Ness View Post
    I agree with everything you said, Adasta. As for the group thing, large groups can be good for me because people interact with each other so I don't have to constantly be babysitting and pleasing somebody. Large groups can also be bad for me if people aren't all participating and I have to babysit and please multiple people/groups at once.
    babysitting? i think this is a fair Fe-Fi dividing line. Fe users tend to see universal behavior standards - so you can conceptualize "babysitting" as being a good thing, probably with rules that anyone could enforce, but to me that term seems rather insulting, as if you think you're better than everyone else because you know how we all should act and have the right to direct everyone to act your way. personally, i would prefer that you'd only babysit if it was an event you were hosting. i understand it in that case (i've hosted enough events to know ), but if it were someone else's event - or nobody's event - i would feel that babysitting would be disrespectful to the host and to other people, in that it's an implication that people don't know how to conduct themselves in a way that is good for them, and also that they shouldn't be allowed to act otherwise.

  5. #785
    Member Affably Evil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    The thing is, Fe people seem to think that X action means Y good intention, and Fi is operating in its own way, not according to formula. Y good intention in Fi do not come out in the prescribed X way, so Fe wants to deny the existence of Fi's good intention. In this sense, Fe is more about what actually manifests on the surface, because as long as X is shown, then it's rather assumed that it's stemming from Y good intention (although other factors may prove it to be phony), and if X is not shown, then Y good intention is questioned. This is frustrating for the Fi person.
    I don't know if Fe cares that much about intentions. I mean, intentions are a factor, but the ultimate reality is the F extraverted reality, e.g. the execution and result of the intent-to-act, rather than the introverted reality of the source of the intent-to-act. Even if someone has a good intention that ends up hurting someone (or on a much more trivial level, is an irritant, acts as an obstacle, and so on), then that good intention is subordinated to its effect on the external (ideally "good" "principled" or "values-driven") reality. In that sense yes, good intention is "denied" by being subjugated more to the result.

    Though because everyone's position on what that external ideal reality ought to be is distinctly constructed from a multitude of perspectives, nobody is going to exactly agree as to what it properly constitutes. So you'll get that frustrating variation where the rules change depending on where you are. Despite the supposed existence of previously agreed-upon "Fe" guidelines, even adept Fe users will have to adapt to/learn them as they move between any cultural, societal, or personal groups to perform those signs.

    I agree with you that Fe prioritizes what is externally manifested, and tends to trample the unarticulated Fi good intention under when that good intention seems to be causing disturbances that are perceived at the time to not eventually lead to group or larger benefits. However, oftentimes Fe has made oversights or has muted sources of hurt or dissent that Fi picks up like alarm bells.

    You're right: because Fe understands intentions as manifested through "good" or "beneficial" actions, it becomes difficult for an Fe user to trust the Fi user's presence of good intentions if they haven't been putting capital into the social bank of socially established signs of good intention as manifested through "good" results of action.

    So my question is how might we bridge this gap?
    5w4 sx/sp

  6. #786
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    ^ my problem with that setup - and therefore perhaps a place that we can begin to bridge - is that, in addition to overseeing good intention, a results-only paradigm overlooks accounting for chaos. sometimes random variables are going to throw off results through no fault of the person acting.

    for example, a kid trying to get to school on time but missing the bus because the bus driver forgot to go down that kid's street. in that case, the results don't match up with the intention, but they don't match up with the external effort the kid made to wake up, shower, eat breakfast, brush his teeth, get his things together, and get out to the bus stop, either. really, he did everything right. should that kid be punished for being late?

    i think it breaks down here especially in terms of Pe (Ne, Se) and Je (Fe, Te) because Pe tends to act on the fly whereas Je tends to plan ahead. Je dom/aux create contingency plans, whereas Pe dom/aux just make do with what we have at the moment. for Pe dom/aux, it's kind of an underlying assumption that the bus will arrive on time, since it's a variable that you're not personally responsible for controlling. and an assumption that if the bus doesn't arrive on time, the things caused by that aren't your problem. Js are more likely to see that the external structure may be less than ideal, and see the ways to account for that.

    personally, i've grown up with a Fe dom mother and have a Fe dom best friend, and especially from interacting with and learning from them, i think that it's really important for all of us just to show a mixture of both. because really, good results don't mean anything if they don't have good intention behind them - without the good intention, they're just a lucky accident, and the good that they produce can't reasonably be attributed to the person - but intentions equally don't mean anything if they never come to fruition. so as an answer to the question i posed before of whether the kid missing the bus should be let off, yes and no. he should learn from the mistake that he needs to have a backup plan, and he should get in touch with the bus driver so that the same thing doesn't happen again. but he shouldn't be chided for making an honest effort, either, otherwise he'll feel like his effort means nothing - which isn't true.

  7. #787
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Affably Evil View Post
    Introverted intuition...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...

    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.
    Affably Evil, this was very, very helpful to me. Thank you for posting. I really like what you said here and I think you shed some new light on the whole Ni-Fe thing for me.

    In particular, I like the way you articulated the differences between those who have a chaotic outer world (chaotic here referring to a perceiving function, viz. S or N) and apply order (with a judging function, viz. T or F) to it in their inner world, versus those who have a chaotic inner world and apply order to it in their outer world.

    And, I think you're dead on right about how sometimes there is a mess of over-generalization with Ni-Fe. At least that's how it feels to me.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  8. #788
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    The generalization is, to a degree, about efficiency. I'm one person. There is only so much time. Only so much energy. I will make a reasonable effort to please and I will trouble-shoot inter-personal problems to a point, but I have to have a reasonable rate of return on investment or I get frustrated. I'm really very happy at home alone playing on my computer or reading books -- the return on investment rate on those things is extremely high for me -- interactions with people take a lot more effort and the return is a big crap shoot.

    Even with my family, I will, say, make a meal and I will keep things on hand for people who don't like what I cook, but I'm not cooking several things. I try to make stuff that most people like, but if they don't like it, they are going to have to fend for themselves. I don't enjoy cooking -- I'm not doing it as a hobby, but because we need to eat and we're on a budget.

    Now if somebody is sick, I will go out of my way to make sure they have something that will make them feel better -- that's reasonable. If somebody is just picky I'm not bending over backwards unless it's their birthday or something.

    I don't host things if I can avoid doing so. I really don't get much pleasure from doing it because by the time the preparation is done, I'm too exhausted to enjoy the resulting interaction -- and half the time there are issues with people that cause distress if they are not worked around because people can't keep a lid on their issues long enough to get through a frigging meal or child's birthday party. Bleh.

    Life is just too short to mess with all that crap.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  9. #789
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Now the one dissenting voice in this scenario is all too often Fi. Continuing with the theme of a party, Fi feels that, if the party does not serve him/herself ("I don't feel like a party today"), then the party is worthless and, unforgivably, without meaning. This disrupts Fe's carefully laid plans and wonderfully-implemented harmony and appears to be nothing more than obstinate and destructive behaviour which, to an extent, it is. Fe seems to consider Fi's alternatve view in this scenario as selfishly destructive: why are you acting this way to the detriment of all the guests and undermining all my efforts? Fi, however, sees the party itself as undesirable and participation in it, therefore, artifical and dishonest: why do I have to "perform" for these people if my heart's not really in it?
    I skimmed this whole post, and maybe it's something to avoid when discussing either side to start mixing selfish parts of a particular function perspective.

    Selfish Fe will say things like, "why are you... undermining my efforts?" In that case, the experience has become about validating the Fe'ers sense of self-worth... but that is not inherently part of Fe. (Typical anecdote: The ESFJ party hostess who dominates a gathering or plans some big social event.) You do this a few times in your post, where you associate some aspect of selfishness with the function itself.

    Meanwhile, I note that your Fi descriptions seem void of such things and paint it in a far better light... but frankly, there are selfish expressions of both function perspectives that people routinely fall into. Maybe you could add a few to your Fi description, to even things out?

    If the explanation you are offering is intended to remain neutral, you should either be criticizing both or neither. And this isn't about supporting Fe, really; it's about presenting an accurate and fair picture of both, otherwise the meanings become distorted.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    .... 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.
    Good overall criticisms/clarifications... including viewing the Shadow as redemptive rather than necessarily negative in nature. (Which is how Jung referred to it.) I think I've made the Beebe criticism before.

    Pretty much the last paragraph mirrors how I use MBTI in a practical sense. It's an overall, general strategy shift rather than some detailed and specific plan that fits every scenario -- for example, realizing I'm being far too broad and abstract when I need to be more specific and detailed, or that I'm trying to provide a rational argument for a position that the other person is holding because they value something that I wasn't aware of, so I need to go more through the heart than the head.

    The guiding influence is, of course, the person you are trying to communicate with in the moment.
    "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

  10. #790
    Senior Member Adasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Meanwhile, I note that your Fi descriptions seem void of such things and paint it in a far better light... but frankly, there are selfish expressions of both function perspectives that people routinely fall into. Maybe you could add a few to your Fi description, to even things out?
    Easily done:

    Selfish Fi lashes out by taking away elements that others would enjoy simply because Selfish Fi doesn't feel good/isn't having a good time. A good example of this is a group of children playing football (soccer) where one of them gets upset with the game (s/he is losing, for example) and then says "It's my ball and I'm going home!", promptly taking the ball away and ruining the game for everyone else. In the context of a party, it could be willful non-engagement with other guests, passive-aggressively undermining the whole concept of the party ("party's are worthless anyway; they're full of superficial posers blah blah blah"), or being caustic during "party conversation".

    Alternatively, there could be moments where Selfish Fi doesn't believe his/her needs are being met and therefore becomes resentful. Continuing with the party theme, if the host/ess does not lavish enough time/attention/praise on Selfish Fi, or, at least, not enough attention as Selfish Fi sees it, then resent can build against the main figure at the party rather than at the party itself. This could cause bitchy comments to be formulated against the host/ess for the perceived "cold shoulder" received by selfish Fi in comparison with all the others.
    That girls are raped, that two boys knife a third,
    Were axioms to him, who'd never heard
    Of any world where promises were kept,
    Or one could weep because another wept.

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