User Tag List

View Poll Results: Fi ONLY: Do you feel safe to freely share your thoughts about Fi on TypoC?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 63.89%
  • No

    13 36.11%
First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 368

  1. #151
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    Some very interesting stuff here, but I need to point out some stuff from the Ti perspective...when we say, "I think..." and "maybe," it's usually not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with. It's because we are aware that there could be a big blind spot and lots of other data to consider that we might not be aware of. So the qualifiers are to say, "hey, I'm not saying this is the be-all, end-all right here. This idea is a work in progress, and there could be something I'm missing."
    I totally get that. Note that this is how Fi talks about "feelings."

    As for "not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with," from what I've observed, it is that while there is a fear of looking stupid, the real value is a need to "be reasonable." That's where it gets personal. Other people being unreasonable or illogical or what have you, seems to be innately offensive to Ti, such that it is for all intents and purposes taken as a personal affront. (Not that it is felt as such, but it is shunned/rejected as such.)

    That's what Fi is doing when other people are "being mean." Fi often tends to value tolerance, acceptance ... for lack of a better word, "niceness." So just the same way Ti gets riled and snippy when others are perceived as being unreasonable or illogical, Fi gets riled up when others are perceived as being mean, intolerant, etc.

    My main point, in terms of the personal, is that it's almost instinctive, to the point that one wonders why it isn't obvious to others.


    Now, no one wants to look like an idiot, and INTPs in particular hate looking stupid. So there might be a bit of a personal element there, but I think in general, Ti likes to be given information that could make it better-informed. I think Te bugs Ti because we go, "How could you possibly know that for sure? How do you know you haven't missed something crucial?" Is this how Fi feels about Fe?
    Yes, that's how Fi feels about Fe.

    As much as Ti has spent a lot of time considering things, so has Fi, in its terms. Imagine, Ti-wise, having thought through something in extensive detail, and then this Te guy comes along, asserting a half-assed theory that sort of deals with your subject matter, but it's SO WRONG!!!! So many details and nuances are left out. He doesn't understand anything, and when you try to explain it, he goes off with a brand new half-assed theory that only demonstrates his ignorance. Now replace Ti with Fi, and Te with Fe. Same thing.

    Keep in mind, I'm not insulting Fe, and I'm Te aux, so I'm used to being the one doing the offending in this regard. The key to realize is that the verbal expressions of those who emphasize extroverted judging only SOUND half-assed. There is an introverted perceiving function that has also analyzed and collated and so on, but the extroverted verbal communication would be crippled if one tried to explain "the whole truth, omitting nothing." Just as Ti understands that no one knows the whole truth, so does Te. It is the mode of communication and its underlying assumptions that differ. Te people fully understand that, too, we just speak about it differently.

    Similarly, Fe doesn't mean one feels different emotions or assert substantially different truths, but rather than their mode of expression involves different underlying assumptions than the Fi mode.

    Well, it's not that feelings are impersonal. It's that they're TOO personal. Ti/Fe tends to feel that since feelings are personal, easily manipulated, mercurial, they aren't reliable data. For us, leading with our emotions makes us do stupid stuff. (Maybe I should speak for myself.) Leading with feelings makes us project our feelings onto others, makes us act out of petulance, pettiness or revenge, makes us lose our ability to see clearly. Creates drama. Far too often, leading with my personal feelings would lead me to act selfishly. So, really, it's not that feelings are impersonal, it's that they're nearly irrelevant in the decision-making process, FOR US. We consult them, but we are also able to override them if necessary. I think this perception of how we might deal with feelings (and I can't really speak for INFJs--this is probably more of an INTP thing?) is based upon our own experience with our feelings and our observation of how personal feelings can impact a group.
    I like this. You're saying essentially what I was saying, but with different emphasis. I emphasized that their expression is impersonal. Note that I mentioned the feelings are the same, where I said:
    (I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is not how one feels feelings.)

    Fe naturally sets "feelings" apart from oneself. As Fe/Ti, the preference is to subjectively delve into "logic and reason" and set "feelings" apart as unreliable. It's a feeling: it might be useful, it might not be useful, but its an entity unto itself, not an aspect of oneself.

    Te sets "ideas" as apart from oneself. It's an idea: it might be true, it might not be true, but as an idea, it is an objective entity on its own, not an aspect of oneself.

    Fi, if we continue to follow this pattern, naturally delves into "feelings," and with Te sets ideas apart. Now, keep in mind, it isn't that Fi/Te regards feelings as "reliable," but rather that its what one keeps intimate, close-to-the-chest, whose expressions are tentative because they're unreliable. ... Where Ti keeps its expression tentative because it might not be true.

    Thank you for this, Tallulah. I've long been trying to figure out how to best encapsulate Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te. It's obviously there and I see it in everyday interactions, and applying that knowledge makes things SO MUCH smoother for me. But I'm still trying to delve into the how and the why. I'm wondering if that at some point one "just decides" how to regard "ideas" vs "feelings", that one is tentative and the other is asserted? I've had this ideas juggling around in my head for about a year, and they still haven't settled into an obvious pattern, so I think that I may have some piece or another slightly off. After your input, I still feel that something is missing, but you've clarified several specifics for me, so I feel a LOT closer to a real understanding than before.

  2. #152
    Emerging Tallulah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6,028

    Default

    That was awesome, uumlau! I think we're definitely on the same page, and you've given me a way to think about Fi that I can relate to.

    This was also very helpful:

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau
    Keep in mind, I'm not insulting Fe, and I'm Te aux, so I'm used to being the one doing the offending in this regard. The key to realize is that the verbal expressions of those who emphasize extroverted judging only SOUND half-assed. There is an introverted perceiving function that has also analyzed and collated and so on, but the extroverted verbal communication would be crippled if one tried to explain "the whole truth, omitting nothing." Just as Ti understands that no one knows the whole truth, so does Te. It is the mode of communication and its underlying assumptions that differ. Te people fully understand that, too, we just speak about it differently.
    So maybe the extroverted judging functions are more nuanced than their modes of expression would have us believe? That often they know about certain data, have considered it, but are also trying to streamline and cut out the extraneous or (on a case-by-case basis) irrelevant thing, in a seemingly impersonal way?

    I like this. You're saying essentially what I was saying, but with different emphasis. I emphasized that their expression is impersonal. Note that I mentioned the feelings are the same, where I said:

    (I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is not how one feels feelings.)

    Fe naturally sets "feelings" apart from oneself. As Fe/Ti, the preference is to subjectively delve into "logic and reason" and set "feelings" apart as unreliable. It's a feeling: it might be useful, it might not be useful, but its an entity unto itself, not an aspect of oneself.
    Yeah--I was having trouble with the bolded, but after reading the rest, the explanation, I think the difference in our approaches is just semantic. I think we are saying the same thing. I was wanting to distinguish that we don't see feeling as separate from ourselves...we see it as too bound up in ourselves and hard to use without any external checks and balances, as fidelia was saying. I had a friend once who couldn't see that just because she had a feeling about something didn't make it true. She was often very paranoid and she projected her fears onto others. She would never wait to see if there was any basis in reality for feeling that way. Time and time again, experience would bear out that she hadn't needed to worry about that feeling--or at least not to give it much credence after checking. In her case, her feeling was very, very much a part of her, but not very useful as data. In fact, it was sometimes quite harmful, to herself and to others. So, yes, we regard the feeling as something that may or may not be true/useful, but I don't think we consider it not a part of us. We do try to detach ourselves from them. I like the way you described the objectification of the idea or feeling. It definitely explains the tendency of Fe or Te to come off as too blunt or directive.

    Thanks for your thoughts, too! I feel like things are becoming more clear for me with these explanations.
    Something Witty

  3. #153
    Iron Maiden fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    11,129

    Default

    I don't remember a point where I ever just decided how to regard feelings or ideas. In fact, it was so much a part of my landscape that I wasn't even aware that anyone else saw it differently until interacting more closely with people oriented the opposite way. Even then, I wasn't sure of where the hitch was in the way we saw the world, just that at times we spoke different languages and it was very frustrating. Both saw the other as demanding or annoying in some way, without realizing why. Through a few bouts of conflict with NFP types, the picture is emerging much more clearly for me not only of what the dynamic or difference in orientation of thought is, but also in where our priorities seem to diverge the most sharply. This is extremely useful information in trying to foster more productive discussion without it becoming all about accommodating one person or the other and without it escalating to the point where an outburst is needed to make the point that toes are being stepped upon. I emailed many Fi users on here asking how they see Fe Fi conflicts coming on and found that most had a hard time defining how they knew. They just knew what kind of statements would rub their fellow Fi users wrong. I knew what bothered Fe users, but it seems easier to define because it is more openly expressed, talked about and viewed similarly. Fi users are very reluctant to speak for others because of their need for precision and individuality. This however, gives much more of an overall map of how to avoid potential traffic jams and take a different route instead to get to the same destination. Rather than requiring a complete understanding of every Fi user out there, understanding what types of things are held near and dear and what are regarded as more fluid and flexible helps both with communicating a message accurately to them in the way I want it to be perceived, as well as perceiving their message more as intended.

  4. #154
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    (EDIT: I took too long to post this so I missed the last few posts - that what you get for working and posting at the same time . Apologies if I repeat or appear off topic)

    Another interesting post uumalau. I think that you should start a Ti-user/Fi-user discussion to try to further explore some of these points. When I learn such things about Ti, it makes me wonder how much I really understand it.

    Just to respond to some particular points (again with the compressing):
    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    So, when Ti is "being mean," so to speak, it is speaking tersely and directly, which will often come out as Fe: terse and direct Fe feels mean. Especially for a Ti dom/aux, Fe doesn't develop the skill to soften such blows until much later in life, and even then, old habits die hard. So when Ti hears something that it thinks is stupid or silly or otherwise "unreasonable," it comes out as kind of an Fe admonishment, "Stop being so unreasonable," rather than, "Could you please clarify that for me? I don't understand what you mean."

    The trick for Fi to deal with this, especially with Ne, is to learn to recognize the pattern, such that one understands what is really going on: that usually someone criticizing an idea in a "mean way" is just employing a valid manner of expression, in a Ti/Fe sense. Other Ti/Fe types won't take it as "mean," but interpret it in their own context. The "attack" isn't "personal." It just feels that way. It's OK in the Ti/Fe sense to express oneself that way, because talking about your idea in that way is off limits. This is especially the case since usually Fi is expressing some kind of Fi-understanding, which linguistically maps to Fe, so Ti/Fe talks about it in Fe-ish terms, which turns around into feeling like an "attack" Fi-wise, even though it's just simple crosstalk: two people talking about the same thing with very different modes of speech.

    In other words, when Ti/Fe expresses ideas in Fe mode, it ceases to sound objective or dispassionate to Fi/Te (in Te dispassionate mode), and it is rendered subjective (Fi) and therefore personal.
    So in reaction to a confusing Fi/Te perspective, the Ti/Fe user thinks, "That makes no sense to me" and it comes out as, "That's just crazy talk"? And they don't consider this an attack on them or their ideas?

    I confess I find this thought process rather baffling.

    Where does the terseness come from? Is it an expression of annoyance with a perceived Te rigid, "why don't you prove it", know-it-all-ness?

    The weird thing is that I rarely clash with Ti dom/auxs in real life over their bluntness and my stubborn beliefs, which makes me think this might be a result of the fact that the discussion is written and consequently, tone becomes interpretive.

    A good NFP friend put it to me this way: it is best to assume that other people are nice and mean well, and that any harsh words are merely accidental. Yes, this means that once in a while, a real player with bad motives might come along and take advantage of one's kind spirit, but it does a world of good for avoiding the stupid fights that never needed to happen in the first place.

    What surprised me when I heard this: I'd been living like that for years, except with a slight twist. I don't assume that they're nice, per se, but I do assume they have their reasons, and most people aren't so stupid as to gratuitously verbally attack others "just to be mean," and those that are that stupid are not worth my time. So I assume it's just a misunderstanding until they prove that they really are that mean/stupid, at which point I don't attack, I ignore.*
    Fair enough. I do in fact tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in life. But I do recognise that many people simply don't care enough about others to check their behaviour and, for example, restrain themselves from making a inappropriate comment. My ISFP friend has a saying I really like: "a lot of people are nice but not necessarily kind".

    You kind of hurt your own point, here. "I'm perfectly reasonable until someone else is unreasonable." Yeah, and so is everyone else, each with their own definition of "reasonable."

    I am about to play with words, here, but there is a concept that is very much parallel to this: replace "reasonable" with "respectful."

    One thing I've often heard, especially from younger folks, is that they'll show respect to someone IF that someone shows them respect.

    Can you guess where that leads?

    Some misunderstanding is interpreted as disrespect, so one becomes disrespectful in turn, at which point the original person, who intended no disrespect (though may not have been as overtly respectful as the subject demands), is now fully justified by this principle to become disrespectful
    ...
    And in all cases, don't attack. Not even to "defend yourself." Such attacks do not defend your integrity, but rather violate it. If it's wrong for them to attack you, even assuming that they mean it, you commit as great a wrong by attacking in return.

    Keep in mind, I'm not saying "don't defend yourself," but answering an attack (real or imagined) with an attack changes the discussion into a fight, and the discussion of the original idea dies. By not attacking, by not entering the fight, you remain able to defend your ideas, refining their expression such that they are better understood. This is how you defend your integrity.

    *After all, "ignorance is bliss!"
    Oh, I agree. I don't wish to defend a position of "I'm nice to you as long as you're nice to me", nor that "lashing out at people is OK".

    What I meant was that it has been repeatedly implied that a rational, dispassionate discussions with NFPs about emotion-based subject matter is impossible; that NFPs getting emotional and taking things personally is somehow inevitable in every situation. In reality our intentions are to have detached discussion, sometimes even for the expressive purpose of helping the NTs to better understand us by speaking their language. It can feel like a slap in the face when they don't pay us the same respect and instead respond with such attacks (perceived or otherwise) and negativity.

    Of course it is better to be restrained and not engage in such conflict. We are actually attempting to understand others' perspectives, its just so much harder to empathize with another when they distance you with negative language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    I think Te bugs Ti because we go, "How could you possibly know that for sure? How do you know you haven't missed something crucial?" Is this how Fi feels about Fe?
    I believe so. It may be a fair comparison however it isn't usually as overt as that.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  5. #155
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    As for "not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with," from what I've observed, it is that while there is a fear of looking stupid, the real value is a need to "be reasonable." That's where it gets personal. Other people being unreasonable or illogical or what have you, seems to be innately offensive to Ti, such that it is for all intents and purposes taken as a personal affront. (Not that it is felt as such, but it is shunned/rejected as such.)

    My main point, in terms of the personal, is that it's almost instinctive, to the point that one wonders why it isn't obvious to others.
    Definitely this! I think I personally run into problems when all that's given is the judgment affront, along with a subtext of "if you're too stupid to know already, you're not worth explaining it to." The assumptions (on both sides) that things are obvious really becomes deadly in these kinds of conflicts. It's really not obvious, and just giving the judgment "you're mean" or "that was stupid" (or whatever) just triggers reactivity that appears to come out of nowhere to the other side. Then it's all over except for the crying and recriminations.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Keep in mind, I'm not insulting Fe, and I'm Te aux, so I'm used to being the one doing the offending in this regard. The key to realize is that the verbal expressions of those who emphasize extroverted judging only SOUND half-assed. There is an introverted perceiving function that has also analyzed and collated and so on, but the extroverted verbal communication would be crippled if one tried to explain "the whole truth, omitting nothing." Just as Ti understands that no one knows the whole truth, so does Te. It is the mode of communication and its underlying assumptions that differ. Te people fully understand that, too, we just speak about it differently.
    I think there's also a different weighting process... where Je favors some utility after a certain point. While Je doesn't make claims about capturing every detail, it does seem to make claims about "the truth that works." That doesn't necessarily indicate a shallowness of understanding, but it does seem to indicate some cross-contextual utility.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Similarly, Fe doesn't mean one feels different emotions or assert substantially different truths, but rather than their mode of expression involves different underlying assumptions than the Fi mode.
    I think the mode of experience and attention are also different. Fe seems more likely to put aside inconvenient emotion, but Fi seems more likely to want to stop and explore it fully. To borrow from other threads, Fe seems to regard emotions as "the dangerous (and unreliable) dragon in the basement" where Fi regards them more as "the trusted pet or child." (more below)

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Te sets "ideas" as apart from oneself. It's an idea: it might be true, it might not be true, but as an idea, it is an objective entity on its own, not an aspect of oneself.
    I still think Ti is more obsessed with the integrity of the process of reasoning, not in the individual ideas themselves. The emotional investment (for INTPs, for example) seems to be more in the process (and their competence in it) than the exact outcome. I don't think you can say exactly the same thing about Fi and feeling.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Fi, if we continue to follow this pattern, naturally delves into "feelings," and with Te sets ideas apart. Now, keep in mind, it isn't that Fi/Te regards feelings as "reliable," but rather that its what one keeps intimate, close-to-the-chest, whose expressions are tentative because they're unreliable. ... Where Ti keeps its expression tentative because it might not be true.
    Feelings are quite reliable in their way. They can be recalcitrant and inconvenient, but never meaningless. They (as mentioned above) can be like a trusted pet. Our emotional reactions are not rational, but they always have a cause. The cause may be something we aren't consciously aware of, but with experience and understanding those feelings become important pointers to critical pieces of information that might otherwise be missed. Emotions themselves are not appropriate or inappropriate... they simply are. Expressions of emotions are another matter, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    So maybe the extroverted judging functions are more nuanced than their modes of expression would have us believe? That often they know about certain data, have considered it, but are also trying to streamline and cut out the extraneous or (on a case-by-case basis) irrelevant thing, in a seemingly impersonal way?
    I liked your earlier point about Je being more cross-contextual... the truths it asserts are broader in scope and have more utility. That can come across as ridiculous to Ji, since it's all about fine tuning understanding to a particular context and the truth of the specific out-weighs the truth of the general (which makes sense, since introverted functions are going to be narrower but deeper in scope).

  6. #156
    Emerging Tallulah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour
    I still think Ti is more obsessed with the integrity of the process of reasoning, not in the individual ideas themselves. The emotional investment (for INTPs, for example) seems to be more in the process (and their competence in it) than the exact outcome. I don't think you can say exactly the same thing about Fi and feeling.
    Yessssssss! Absolutely. I am tempted to embroider that on a throw pillow. It's definitely more about the process than the individual idea. There is integrity in the process. The product is ever-changing with updated data. The process is what will eventually get you there, hopefully with minimal detours.

    As an aside, my comp 1 students are writing their research papers on controversial current events. I am always asked if I'd be offended by a certain topic, as they don't want to step on a teacher's personal values system unknowingly and screw up their grade. :-P I always tell them that I'm impossible to offend with information or stance; the only thing that offends me is a bad argument. If they can build a case for it, and support it with quality sources, I could care less what they argue.
    Something Witty

  7. #157
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Are you saying Fi users are different and they will talk to people they don't 'trust'? I don't think that's what you're saying.. but I also don't think Fi-ers lack in their own trusted relationships - so would be just as subject to this 'confirmation bias'.
    You are great, cascadeco, and I have some extra thoughts that spring from your posts - not to be critical, but to explore more. I hope that's OK with you.

    To try to tackle this, Fi users tend to 'trust' people who allow them the freedom to have a different POV and not feel threatened by it, nor invalidate their feelings off the hop. They get a click of resonance, kind of hard to explain I guess. Fe is (to my thinking) more about finding people who support a POV ... and that is what makes the click happen for Fe users. Thus, ideas, ergo the process of reasoning, are less challenged? Fe users are already Fe-ing each other, using the right words, the right tones, and then tentatively passing the idea around to see if it is right or not. Agreement with ideas over time make the space safe for the initial bonds of friendship to form.

    I see it as Fi validate vs Fe support ... validate has more wiggle-room for a whole different bunch of opinions to exist within. What do you think?

    I find this a bit offensive, honestly - the phrase 'group that I make a posse with'.
    Indeed - I use certain words with intention, to evoke a response. It is a word that has some inferred connotation, and I apologize if it does since I am not using it to offend, I use it like a spark, to ignite more thoughts, feelings, conversation. Imagine it being offered over with a mischievous wink ... and what else you have shared here now is fabulous:

    But for the most part I don't have a 'group', and I've often felt like I'm totally on my own. And as some know, I am incredibly *anxious* half the time I post my actual thoughts, simply because I don't know the types of responses I might get or the challenges I might encounter. So the fear factor is not unique to dom-Fi. I mean.. this post itself... I'm very anxious about it. So it is 'unsafe' in the sense that it's wholly out of my control how others will react/respond, but no more unsafe than it is for anyone else who chooses to be more open on the boards in any of the threads on here.
    Expand on that for me ... what feels anxious for you here? Why do you feel that way posting this particular post? Dig into that, really turn it over and over ... and I would love for you to share any conclusions, even preliminary thoughts; it has great potential to add to this thread.

    Additionally, on my own end, I viewed those threads as quite straightforward: General, high level descriptions of the functions, the purpose of both to be generic and objective *definitions*, not subjective personal experiences with the functions. And since they were published, there wasn't a 'point' per se, in those threads per the intent of the OP, to nitpick. No point, because they were simply outlines of an already published thing, and it's not like it was going to change what was already 'out there', published.
    @bold: You make a great point, and obvious too, but what else the point, then, to make 8 threads? If for reference only, why not all 8 guides in one thread, as 8 distinct posts? Each having a thread was like an invitation, in my mind. Else, to just say - thanks - or, wow great guides? Saying that an aspect stood out as problematic is as valid a construct as praising them; in fact, both positions need to be received with an element of skepticism. How is it then, that agreement is easily accepted but criticism not?

    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    So, while it does seem neat and tidy, I'm having a hard time buying the "Te/Fi are more detached from their ideas", while "Fe/Ti more detached from their feelings."
    "Detached" is the problematic word here I think ... maybe self-identify, trust instead ... ?

    So, to my mind it's as much a communication style, as anything. For example, someone makes an starts a thread with an OP, and an NFP (for example) posts, "The OP sounds off to me. It evokes a particular feeling (or sense of wrongness/dissonance/whatever)." For an Fi-er, that's an invitation to take a closer look at what the underlying cause might be, not a complete judgment of the OP. Then, suppose another NFP says, "Yes, it evoked emotion/feeling X in me as well." And pretty soon NFPs start analyzing and picking things apart.

    But I think that's not all how it falls on the ears of others (especially the NTPs). They simply hear someone inserting their emotions (note it comes across as pure emotion, not as a valuable input into an Fi-based Feeling judgement). From their {Fe} perspective, it's as though someone stands up in the middle of a lecture and says, "OMG! I just bit my lip because I was chewing gum." Followed by another person saying, "Yeah, that happens to me, too! What's up with that?!?" Immediate emotional/feeling responses are not something to be aired in public and discussed. Instead, the idiots who start talking about a ridiculous personal issue disruptively should be shot down and taught how not to be disruptive.
    I laughed out loud reading the OMG! ... thanks for that. The Fi underlayer seems totally invisible to Fe (in INTP's esp I think), then emotions and emotional motivations are inferred from the words & word construct they hear or read or see.

    Maybe Fi posts should be read with that Pawz text-to-movie thingy ... that's about as emotional as I feel sometimes making an IRL Fi declaration, aside from feeling scared it will be negatively received. The emotions are the first clue and precede the exploration, then I work it 'til I can express it cogently and make it more detached.

    Here of course, my point is that on the forum I let the first Fi thought get some air, but that's the hard part for people to deal with, isn't it?

    So, to me the underlying issue is partially about the somewhat unique relationship Fi-ers have with their emotions. Their emotions are not, themselves, Feeling judgments but they do point the way. They are our "early warning detection system," and so have worth in and of themselves. So, when we share our subjective feeling-based response to something, we are sharing potentially valuable information.
    That's exactly what I wish everyone realized when they see / hear it happen ... since I work with so many Ti people IRL, I always have to rephrase my feeling tone ("This feels like the wrong idea ...") to something like: "Hmmm, have you considered a different platform upon which to base this application? Platform XYZ has a number of limitations that could inhibit our future development path, what else do you guys think we should explore?"

    Ti users, at least in my experience, seem incapable of the opposite translation though. Ideas as to why are welcome ...

    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour
    I don't think it's offensive at all and it does explain a big challenge for Fi, in particular. Te and Ti are logically based, and so can be more easily communicated and separated from their context. You can validate them externally. Fe has a external social framework it uses for validation. Fi lacks any of that, and can be very difficult to articulate. Most of us are forced, by training and necessity, to learn to turn "something feels off here" into a "(semi)-detailed (perhaps metaphor laden) explanation of why things are wrong." But again, we are continually translating out of our native tongue to do so, and some of us are better at it than others.
    Excellent point.

    It's as though there's someone deliberately singing out of key during a choir practice. Yes, you can try to ignore them and keep singing ("no one is stopping you from singing, after all"), but the chances of actually getting anything worthwhile done drops to near zero.
    Wonderful metaphor. The whole post is in fact, very resonant to me, interested to hear if other Fi-ers feel that way too.

    The emotional tone created is part of why it's not just ignorable. It's disruptive and stops real communication and the sense of a shared Fi process (something relatively rare for us).
    And I want to stress how much I treasure being able to share that Fi process around here, how precious it is, then when other posters try to cajole us beyond the discussion space we are creating, admittedly, it is hard to ignore.

    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    It's a lot of stuff to address here and I don't really have the energy to do so, but this whole "the emperor wears no clothes" metaphor comes across as disingenuous. To me (I speak for no group) it's implying that Fi holds some kind of truth that no one else recognizes or is so dangerous that it must be suppressed and squelched. Does that not seem over the top and stretching it a bit or is it me?
    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Fi hones in on inconsistencies in values, connotations and aesthetics. It can be a relatively small inconsistency (like noticing the connotation of a particular word choice is off) or a big, ethetical one.
    I've put these two thoughts together with intention ... and in fact, every word in that whole OP of mine has an intention behind it. So let's explore.

    proteanmix, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the topic in thread. It's very welcome here, and I would love to enter into more conversation with you.

    Examining your first para in conjunction with Seymour's thoughts is where I would like to start. First - focus on a "small thing" that Fi would likely hone in on, like word choice, and second - a "large thing", such as a value-based ethical concern.

    The "small thing" that immediately caught my attention was the choice to use the word "disingenous" ...

    –adjective
    lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

    Translation to Fi ears: You are insincere.

    Now, I am not taking it that way, I know it's not likely you mean it like that, although I do think you are probing around the issue and seeing what strikes a chord. So, know that I am not offended.

    Think about this for a minute though: if Fi users are here in a thread, wanting to create a space where we can speak honestly to our Fi and how we express it on the forum and amongst ourselves, what purpose would being insincere serve here? If Fi users feel somewhat marginalized already, uneasy to speak freely about Fi, how would being disingenuous serve to help further our exploration of ourselves? How would it benefit the group, how would more people feel "safe" if we weren't being frank? It would be patently illogical to be insincere at this moment, wouldn't you think?

    And although you can likely think of multiple reasons for why a thread like this exists, what agenda it has, it only has one: to help Fi users feel like they can be themselves on this forum and be protected within the established rules of the forum. As a secondary benefit, I hope it is educational as well.

    A phrase that's been tossed around in this thread is "my radar has gone off and I must investigate." So be it. I also think when "radar" goes off part of investigating it is checking to see if it's even functioning correctly. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, but I'm going to say this plainly: checking with others who are likely to share your perspective isn't a very thorough, reliable, or trustworthy way of checking.
    No, checking with others is not a statement that would piss me off, or likely any mature Fi user - yes, quality control checks are essential. Refer to my thoughts above too, about what I see as a common Fi maturation process, but quality control is itself one of the purposes of this thread. This is articulating a feeling I get from being on the forum for a while. I have witnessed how these discussions play out, I see Fi users' responses and reactions, it leads to a pattern that becomes more and more recognizable and one that is more and more troubling.

    Since I have a more natural vantage point to see that Fi POV, and I feel myself impacted by forum dynamics as well, I raise the questions to all - is this a "safe" Fi place? And as I said above, I use the word "safe" with intention too ... it's a word that has potential to resonate with Fi users. I need as many people as possible to feel they can truly say how they feel right now, to show that opinion en masse, to help foster the potential for positive growth together as a community.

    As for the radar metaphor, I liked how uumlau expanded it to radar vs sonar. Realize too that if we say Fe is radar, since Fe is visible to Fi users, we can function with rudimentary radar ourselves, because we can watch and study the rules of our world. But even the most practiced of us Fi users misread our radar from time to time. And our sonar too ... but it seems harder to convince non Fi users that sonar even exists.

    How is your "voice" repressed? You certainly have the majority even if you don't use it. It seems to me that NFPs have very much taken advantage of having the mic, over and over again. Which is fine, no one is stopping you that's what makes the forum active and communal. Just please don't do the whole unsafe, victim thing. I definitely agree with orobas that your message is weakened when you come at it from this angle. And it's not even a matter of it being true, and no one being receptive to it and shut it down. I frankly don't see adequate foundation for the premise. I speak for myself and not any group.
    Now, for the "large thing": Does one have to have personally experienced ethnic discrimination to acknowledge it exists and to try to help eradicate it? Does one need to have had a serious illness in order to feel compassion for another person who is struggling to overcome one? Oh, it's true you won't really understand ... but do you have to be in my shoes to believe what I say to you? Or can you take a leap of faith here and believe what I tell you? In fact, you don't even have to make any leap of faith. Take my hypothesis and gather your own empirical data - use the Se, see how things go down and really look at both sides, reserving judgement. There is an issue - I can assure you that Fi users don't feel protected to share their Fi vantage point on the forum. Heck, maybe it's true that it would be impossible to help make this a place where everyone feels equally represented, heard and safe. But is it not an aspiration worth reaching for?

    If NFPs don't feel "safe" on this forum is it necessarily a problem with the forum or it a problem more central to yourself...that you don't feel comfortable not that some outside force is making you feel uncomfortable. Then I'd ask if others also felt uncomfortable to see if there are any similarities. But once again, I realize that's my Fe talking; figuring out is it just me or am I the only one is a big deal to me...I don't view my feelings as automatically justified and valid without seeking some external confirmation.
    Remember, what Fi users find harassing is not the same as what Fe users do, and the evidence is all around us.

    Yet that's an excellent point - Fi users do need to develop strategies to deal with their own internal discomfort, and most of us invest a great deal of time growing ourselves in order to maximize our successful interactions in the world. But, there are times here on the forum when comments from other users clearly add nothing to the debate and are intended to be at best distracting and at worst, personally vindictive. Is it enough to say, "Just ignore ignorant posts" or "Report people who harass you". If one doesn't have the same vantage point for what constitutes harassment, how can any actions be meted out with equity?

    And talking to others is what I am doing here, as a huge nod of affirmation to Fe ... I am using Fe tools to try to make my point. The point is that there are a lot of people sharing a common POV in this thread, and I know of other people who just don't even bother trying to share it any more. This IS that external confirmation, one can see the common patterns, the common way of expressing it, all through this thread and over the forum, time and time again. I am not sure how else I could do this on the forum, since it is a written medium.

    The question that comes to me is why were the others so neutrally received and commented on, while the Fi QR was totally wrong, nothing was right about it, completely off-base and unrepresentative of Fi. If the author was accurate enough to get the others right, why was the Fi one so wrong? Certainly, they would have gotten some of the others wrong as well? There did seem to me to be a Princess and the Pea/Goldilocks situation going on that it was never going to be right no matter what.
    @bold: True, some folks said it felt wrong and proceeded to try to explore the why of that. It's what Fi does. It's how we explore. Thankfully, with enough time and effort, we do get to inner and outer consensus.

    Once the princess found the pea, after all, she got a good night's sleep.
    "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. #158
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    If we really want a thread talking about Fi in an Fi way, it's easy enough to create a thread and ask that only Fi-doms (INFPs and ISFPs) contribute. Or whatever specific group we want to hear from.

    But to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even read such a thread. I saw lots of those threads over at INFP-gc when that message board was still alive, and those threads were devastatingly bad. They were one-sided and simplistic. Frankly, it's the things that are "mocking, hurtful, and cruel" that add depth and keep us honest.

    Look, here's how I see these things:

    If you really want an in-depth discussion of Fi, I think it's imperative to include all types. Fifty percent of all types are going to have at least some direct, personal experience of Fi, and that experience is going to vary widely depending on whether they're experiencing their own Fi as Dom, Aux, Tert, or Inferior. (I think the Inferior experience can be especially invaluable, since inferior functions almost have to be consciously re-fashioned in order to bring them under control; I'm disappointed that the other thread didn't have more ENTJ/ESTJ input.) The other fifty percent of all types are probably going to have some experience of Fi from the outside; i.e., they'll have family or friends or co-workers who are Fi-Dom or Fi-Aux. To some extent, these latter fifty percent are going to have the best input on what constitutes Fi on a general or universal level.

    To the extent that Fi has some universal traits or features, the latter fifty percent (the non-Fi types) are going to be best positioned to identify those things. We Fi-Doms are not opaque, after all. We actually wear much more of our hearts on our sleeves than we like to admit. I've mentioned that my wife and I are both INFPs; I also worked in an INFP-heavy field (translation). As such, I see INFPs from the outside and I agree with the latter 50 percent when they say that we're much more identifiable, homogeneous, and predictable than we like to admit.

    Yeah, there's going to be a lot of shouting in a thread open to all types. Some possessors of Fi are going to take a very personal approach and say, "I experience my Fi as such-and-such, so the description of Fi should be such-and-such too." Other personality types are going to get frustrated at that kind of personalization of an objective thing--a cognitive function--and they're going to raise a fuss about it. And they're right to do so. As I said, their job is to keep us honest.

    My solution: I've found that the non-Fi types are generally willing to back off and give us some room to discuss things when asked politely. But in return, we have to keep the discussion "honest." IOW, I can't individually personalize the function and try to make the thread specifically about how I manifest my own Fi personally. The thread shouldn't be about me. If I try to make it about me, the non-Fi types are going to object. And naturally, my feelings are going to get hurt, since I've made the thread about ME.

    To make a comparison:

    It's like having a thread to define what constitutes "a good and complete definition of the female face." Other threads will be devoted to what constitutes "a good and complete definition of the male face" (in place of Fe), "...the female body" (Ni), "...the male body" (Ne), "...the female reproductive system" (Ti), and so on. You get the picture.

    So in the thread what constitutes the female face, let's say we have invited women, men, medical doctors, artists, beauticians, plastic surgeons, movie actresses and actors, transgender people, etc. Some are going to speak from an insider's (woman's) point of view, and some are going to speak from an outsider's (man's) point of view. Issues of beauty and ugliness are going to come up; issues of political correctness and gender politics are going to come up. There will be questions of what constitutes "femininity"--is it a synonym for female appearance? And so on. But the discussion can probably handle all of that.

    So what's going to kill the discussion? It's when one or maybe several individuals try to turn the debate into a discussion of their own face and how it specifically embodies femininity. Sure, sometimes an individual example is illuminating, especially one that breaks all the rules (as in "the exception that proves the rule"). Still, the discussion has to return back to universal rules pretty quickly, or people are going to start objecting. And frankly, you're setting yourself up for some cattiness if you try to insist that you yourself exemplify the ideal of feminine looks. Also, some of the participants have seen it all, and they're going to get a little irritated if the discussion hangs up too long on features that may seem unique and individual to one person but really aren't all that uncommon to people who have seen a lot of cases.

    Okay, getting back to Fi: What happens when someone personalizes the discussion, tries to make the thread about themselves and their relationship with their Fi, and they are dismissed by the other participants? What happens when, for example, I speak up and the other participants say things to me that that are "mocking, hurtful, and cruel"? I feel ashamed, and I learn a lesson.

    Frankly, I think shame is a wonderful thing. As I grow older, I come to have more and more respect for it, both in receiving it and doling it out. When I feel ashamed, it's a good reality check. It almost always means that I'm relying too hard on one cognitive function (in my case Fi, usually) and that it's time to engage another cognitive function. I've gotten too wrapped up in my own needs, and it's time to look around me and recognize the needs of the other people sharing the room or the thread.

    In the case of those who personalize the subject matter to the point of making the thread "about them"--and then end up feeling ashamed when the point they are making is dismissed or rejected--the lesson is simple enough: You need to put your point in other language that the other participants will respect. Use a little Te and research the subject. Find some indication that the phenomenon exists outside the single example of you alone; back up your assertions with a citation from experts, or point out where the phenomenon is visibly manifested on the message board itself.

    Or use your Te to compartmentalize: Learn to discuss Fi only in threads where NFs can post, i.e., where you can create your perfect audience, and stay out of threads for the entire population of 16 types.

    In other words, don't let your Fi get injured; bring in another function (usually Te for Fi-Doms, though sometimes Fe is useful too) for support and reinforcement. Be realistic about what the situation demands if you really want to win your point. Remember the cardinal rule for performers: Know your audience.

    To sum up: If you really do want an open, freewheeling discussion about Fi with some real depth, then you need to invite in other types. Fifty percent of all types are going to have at least some direct, personal experience of Fi, and the other fifty percent of all types are probably going to have some experience of Fi from the outside. But that's a lot of variety of experience. You aren't going to get a free pass with that crowd.

    In a freewheeling discussion venue like this one, there's no harm in bringing up a personal observation of whatever nature. But by the same token, there's no harm when others dismiss it or even ridicule it. If you really think your point has validity, then be realistic about what the debate situation demands. Don't let your Fi get injured; bring in another function to counterbalance your Fi and put your argument in language the other participants will respect.



    I think it needs to be retitled, "Fi Gone Wild," and then we can post pictures of Fi-Doms on spring break pulling their shirts up over their heads. Both sexes are invited of course, in the name of political correctness. The "Quick Reference Guides" are all kind of dead in the water; at least with "Fi Gone Wild," we could get some additional mileage out of one of the threads...

    (Hey it's all pop psychology in the end. Gotta have a sense of humor about it. )
    What I remember in the history of this forum is rediculous levels of baiting from Bluewing and Blackwater and a few others, all under the guise that they were just making some kind of scientific statement about some type or function.

    And in the long run, a few people being jerk-offs may be seem trivial to you, but in the short run, it wouldn't serve this forum to just push under the rug the obvious bias towards a certian form of communication...or the way that some groups of NTs* feed off each-others arrogance and turn some threads into an amen-chorus of how much ____type-or-function sucks. I'd say that within the micro-culture of this forum, the following functions have been marginalized and systematically belittled: both sensing functions and both feeling functions.

    And there is definitely a line to be drawn...a point where repressing one's own preferences to please other people is not THE RIGHT THING to do.

    **I don't even believe in type anymore, but if I did, i wouldn't be under any delusions about the NTs actually being NTs.

  9. #159
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Ok, here's a genuine point I'd like to raise here: I keep seeing it being stated that Fe users have this group support for POV, and it's stated in an almost resentful tone of of THEM VS. ME...but here's the part I don't understand...if "Me" is so comfortable with having a seperate Fi morality, then why do you even want validation by the group?

    And what makes you think that so-called Fe'ers have the support of EVERYONE on the forum, because surely they don't. The board can be observed to be have an overall cohesive whole of members of different types who are more well-known, and then can be broken down further into smaller groups of friends or like-minded people...what some people call "cliques"...and that overall cohesive whole isn't Fe dominant, and all of those "cliques" aren't made up of only Fe'ers, either.

    Why isn't it enough for Fi people to be validated by other Fi'ers? Why do they even want the validation of Fe'ers? That makes no sense to me.

    For example, the mods are a group of people who have a particular code of ethics they'd all like for us to follow. Some of those mods are FPs. Still, they represent a like-minded group, and it's perfectly obvious that not everyone on this board is going to "validate" their sense of morality, evidenced by the rash of threads in protest to various bannings.

    I know I look for support from others, and I could never quite figure out if that was because I was an extrovert, because I had Fe, or simply because I'm an NF. Maybe it's just because I'm human!

    I don't know if you understand what I'm driving at here, but it appears to me that Fi'ers want some kind of group support or validation, and it's apparently not enough for you to have the support and validation of other self-professed Fi'ers? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive of the entire basic nature of the value system of Fi?

    It's not like anyone is getting banned or infracted for expressing their views on Fi. I feel that for the most part I've had pretty free reign to express myself on this forum.

  10. #160
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I know I look for support from others, and I could never quite figure out if that was because I was an extrovert, because I had Fe, or simply because I'm an NF. Maybe it's just because I'm human!
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] INFPs, how much do you feel similars with ESFPs?
    By Speed Gavroche in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-14-2016, 03:27 AM
  2. [ENFP] ENFPs: Do you ever feel like this under pressure or stress?
    By SingSmileShine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 04:56 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFPs - Do you feel the need to constantly (and suddenly) move?
    By Malkavia in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 12:52 PM
  4. [ENFP] ENFPs, do you ever feel more like SPs or NTs than NFs?
    By Elfboy in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 10:19 PM
  5. [INFP] INFPs, Do You Feel Workaday Norms Interfere with Flow?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-24-2008, 03:29 AM

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