[Fi] A Question About Fi

[skylights]

In reading, another thought came to mind. If you have two dom/aux Fi users and on a topic each holds an opposing view to the other who concedes, or what/who decides which one should concede? And one must concede, or be KILLED!!!!

All ideas are welcome. Jenaphor

they will probably both concede. if only one concedes the other will feel bad.

 

[William K]

they will probably both concede. if only one concedes the other will feel bad.

Agreed. They'll both concede and sacrifice themselves

 

[Southern Kross]

In reading, another thought came to mind. If you have two dom/aux Fi users and on a topic each holds an opposing view to the other who concedes, or what/who decides which one should concede? And one must concede, or be KILLED!!!!

Good question. I admit I haven't had too many arguments with Fi dom/aux IRL. Usually when we disagree over something we are very accepting of each others view because we sense it comes from the right place. On top of that we seem to instinctively understand what each other's hot buttons issues are and are extra sensitive when talking about them - as a result arguments are less likely to eventuate.

I'd really like to know what happens when it is a clash over a core value where there isn't as much leeway given - something I haven't experienced. I wonder whether I would be irritated, or even get angry at the 'wrongness' of their view.

 

[Curator]

I am greatly enjoying this thread <3

 

[KDude]

I am greatly enjoying this thread <3

I'm having a hard time contributing to it.

I don't want to get into too many details. I'm usually confident in what may work for myself. I'm more open for suggestions in my life than I used to be, but I'd be lying if I said I take criticism well. I'm still biting my tongue a bit. I can't tell when people are trying to be helpful at times. I especially get upset if they don't even know me (which is something I decide for myself too). As for my own criticisms towards others, there are very generalized areas of morality that I would hope the average person can appreciate, but if they can't, then yeah.. I'm confident enough to clash against it. There was a time when I was more disruptive, but I think somewhere along the way, I learned to be more open and perceiver oriented. I'm still learning that. I don't want to over-contextualize everything to the point of meaninglessness, but there are a lot of grey areas in life, aren't there? When I see them, if anything, I guess I use humor to diffuse those situations. Half of them are absurd enough to laugh about. That or I just stay away from people. Sometimes things become more clear that way.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Does the conceding of both opponents mean that each respects the others opinions, or is it more calling them 'hopeless' and just avoiding that topic all together? Can you still work with them after the tiff (let's say it's a hot button issue), or does the incongruency effect your ability to do so?

 

[uumlau]

That was very helpful uumlau. I do wonder. In the early stages it looks like Te/Fi has a head start as they already have 'certainty', where does (if it does) the Fi/Te get a head start?

edit. Unless it simply is that ENFP's start off less abrasive than their counter.

There is no head start. That's your own bias.

There are certain functions that appear to be more concretely "useful" in the world, and thus it is tempting to assign value in that regard. Te is very concrete and tends toward material accomplishment. Si is similarly concrete and allows for quick learning, especially for most knowledge. Fe allows for great skill with people, if developed, which is another concrete result. Ni and Fi, my dom and tert functions, seem pretty useless in that regard. Yet they are the source of my understanding, without which my Te would be all about counting widgets, rather than turning incredibly abstract ideas into something comprehensible and meaningful.

 

[skylights]

^ indeed. with absolutely no offense intended to non-Fi-users, i personally find Fi incredibly useful. i have no idea how people would be satisfied without much of it. we are all biased to see our own functions in the most useful light because the more adept we are with them, the better we understand their strengths.

Does the conceding of both opponents mean that each respects the others opinions, or is it more calling them 'hopeless' and just avoiding that topic all together? Can you still work with them after the tiff (let's say it's a hot button issue), or does the incongruency effect your ability to do so?

in the situation i am picturing, it means that each respects the legitimacy of one another's identity, experience, beliefs, and right to hold opinions - not the opinions in and of themselves. it means that each acknowledges the other as a "good being". i suppose it could also be acknowledging that you both are dedicated to your values and do not have any intention of abandoning them - i wouldn't call it "hopeless", but an active refusal. or some other things.

sure, you could still work with one another. but it would be preferable to avoid the issue, if it is clear neither of you will give any further. i am much more offended if someone treats me like i am worthless or stupid than if they disagree with me. disagreeing is not so bothersome as long as they are respectful and make an effort to understand why i believe what i do. that would seem fairly consistent across types.

though there are some realms that just cannot be dealt with. if you are okay with slaughtering babies for no real reason, then no, i am not going to work with you. but if you're a conservative, i can suspend disdain for a little while

 

[BAJ]

I don't know. @reflect.

I feel you are trying to lump all Fi users into a box. Even within myself is conflict or harmony between opposing view points. BAJ at age 22 is very different than BAJ at 40. These two dudes may have fought, agreed to disagree, saw each other as lost, or found something to agree on obliquely. I would try to find a bridge. If there is no way to close the gap, can I bridge on something else? Can I expand their mind? Am I open to at least understand and agree on some tangential matter?

I embrace opposing views within myself too. I'm conflicted, and I've held radically different opinions...within myself. Thus, it's difficult to fit just ME in a box, much less Fi users in general.

Outside, I've fought. I've argued with the minister in the pulpit while he's preaching. I've proven by facts. Other times, I have been the bridge myself to help people come to terms between opposing viewpoints, so that some higher purpose may be obtained. As I grow older, I believe I'm less pigheaded, and more likely to try to find something to deflect from the conflict...something that can be agreed on obliquely.

 

[PeaceBaby]

That was very helpful uumlau. I do wonder. In the early stages it looks like Te/Fi has a head start as they already have 'certainty', where does (if it does) the Fi/Te get a head start?

Well, here's another idea for you to consider. I would say Fi doms and aux's are forced to learn how to use Te (at least somewhat effectively) at an earlier age as a result of scholastic endeavours. Most INTJ's (for example, and other tert or inferior Fi users) can avoid having to deal with Fi until life forces their hand. Often somewhere in their thirties. Something to think about.

 

[Thalassa]

Fi creates ethics internally, and it's not just by "being overwhelmed with feelings" it's also by learning, contemplation, and reflection - it's actually a logical function in it's own right - like Ti - except it's ethical rather than rational. Fi can give one a philosophical bent about human relationships, etc. I am of the opinion that people whose Fi is completely WTF selfish actually have underdeveloped Fi, like seemingly-heartless young ENFPs or ESFPs are usually in Ne/Te or Se/Te loops without appropriate levels of Fi.

It also does tend to revolve around universal feelings of feeling empathy for the pain of other beings, and I think those ethics are more feeling-derived. Fi generally realizes that what is right for them isn't right for everyone, but I think even more so combined with Ne rather than Se, it can give one this holistic world view that there is no "right" or "wrong" culture or way of being, yet there are common threads (like respect for life) which connect everyone, for example.

On the other hand, IxFPs with no Te can look really irrational and be frustrating, just like TJs with no Fi can look like borderline sociopaths.

 

[neptunesnet]

it means that each respects the legitimacy of one another's identity, experience, beliefs, and right to hold opinions - not the opinions in and of themselves. it means that each acknowledges the other as a "good being". i suppose it could also be acknowledging that you both are dedicated to your values and do not have any intention of abandoning them - i wouldn't call it "hopeless", but an active refusal.

sure, you can still work with one another. but it would be preferable to avoid the issue, if it is clear neither of you will give any further. i am much more offended if someone treats me like i am worthless or stupid than if they disagree with me. disagreeing is not so bothersome as long as they are respectful and make an effort to understand why i believe what i do.

though there are some realms that just cannot be dealt with. if you are okay with slaughtering babies for no real reason, then no, i am not going to work with you. but if you're a conservative, i can suspend disdain for a little while

To add to this a bit, the trouble I've found in major disagreements with others is when the other person's opinion directly conflicts with a core principle of mine or violates the overriding theme of my value system (in my case, objectification and other kinds of dehumanization).

Example, (someone else brought up abortion in this thread and reminded me of it) the other day I was hanging out with a group of friends and some guys I've never met who were friends of friends. These guys were pretty cool and we were having a good time talking until the conversation veered off somehow on the issue of the potential defunding of Planned Parenthood and eventually onto abortion. One of the guys immediately identified himself as a "pro-lifer" and rather indignantly claimed that there "are no exceptions for any woman" for having an abortion. I disagreed and (if I'm being honest) was very hurt by the conviction of his position as I felt in ignoring these exceptions as valid he was violating basic human rights (my train of thought was something like: "Are not women human, too? Able to and competent enough to make moral decisions of their own will without the stern hand of big daddy government rearing them? Shouldn't they decide what's best for their lives and their bodies?"). Even in my frustration, I still understood, and understand now, his viewpoint as he sees it being in favor of human rights as well, just as I see mine, but I also realized where he very narrowly eliminated and invalidated the experiences of many women who under a wide array of circumstances decided to abort their child. It hurt mostly because he so easily erased those women's stories (and could do so without such an attitude being corrected!). IME, it's people like him who demonize these women in social systems, fight to do so in political ones, and never understand how that may affect them economically. I couldn't help but lose some respect for him for simply not being more compassionate to an experience he wouldn't ever be able to fully understand (although I gather he meant no harm by what he said).


Anyway, that was a long-winded way of saying sometimes when Fi rejects other perspectives or opinions outright, like in my example above, it's because they feel that position is inherently unjust in some way or too limited in scope (leaving out crucial points of evaluation).

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Thank you again for all your replies. I don't mean to box anyone anywhere. I think in generalities and that can get me in trouble at times.

Some quick thoughts before I reply more fully to all of the more recent posts. We use all eight functions, but unequally. (This is the assumption I'm taking) Then what is the difference between an Fi dominant/auxillary and that of the tertiary. I think I'm hinting at something I have already asked before in a different thread, but it seems to me that Fi is a rather universal function. In that all choices are routed through it willingly or unwillingly. How do you distinguish the difference between the dominant and the tertiary for instance. I apologize for my ignorance. It shows when it comes to this function.

 

[KDude]

Thank you again for all your replies. I don't mean to box anyone anywhere. I think in generalities and that can get me in trouble at times.

Some quick thoughts before I reply more fully to all of the more recent posts. We use all eight functions, but unequally. (This is the assumption I'm taking) Then what is the difference between an Fi dominant/auxillary and that of the tertiary. I think I'm hinting at something I have already asked before in a different thread, but it seems to me that Fi is a rather universal function. In that all choices are routed through it willingly or unwillingly. How do you distinguish the difference between the dominant and the tertiary for instance. I apologize for my ignorance. It shows when it comes to this function.

I don't think Fi is universal on it's own. It takes on more of that shape (at least earlier in life) when it works with extroverted perception. The tertiary serves the less inclusive or more focused perspective of Ni or Si. They will make less room than the most introverted IFPs in having some air of generalized "humanity" or curiosity (about people). They'd have convictions, but still an insular vibe about them. And more picky on who they'd open up the lighter sides of themselves with.

 

[BAJ]

Thank you again for all your replies. I don't mean to box anyone anywhere. I think in generalities and that can get me in trouble at times.

Thank you.

Some quick thoughts before I reply more fully to all of the more recent posts. We use all eight functions, but unequally. (This is the assumption I'm taking) Then what is the difference between an Fi dominant/auxillary and that of the tertiary. I think I'm hinting at something I have already asked before in a different thread, but it seems to me that Fi is a rather universal function. In that all choices are routed through it willingly or unwillingly. How do you distinguish the difference between the dominant and the tertiary for instance. I apologize for my ignorance. It shows when it comes to this function.

Most of my replies are personal and anecdotal, so it may be thought that I do not speak for all Fi users. Also, I can be close to the center INXP, and I use both. I believe you are right in that we use all the functions. I agree.

Perhaps when I'm in "Fi-dominant-mode", I'm caught up by feeling. Nothing may be on the surface, but inside I have feelings in my gut, in my muscles, and my whole being. It can be depressive feelings, anger, shame, or elation. It can be in relationship to thought or in response to internal and external imagery. These things are in the lead. The visceral is the factor of decision more than whether something makes sense. I like being led by good feelings, like harmony. In this case, thought may be involved in tandem or conjoined, but typically smaller.

In the harmonious stream...I'm seeking...like a fish seeking fresh water. I'm looking for a way to "fix something" with that person, so that I can be harmonious with them. Also, if there is something very negative (causing depression or anger) in relationship to a person, I'm trying to avoid it, and if I can't then I'll either blow up or have a break down. Of course, there's another option: LEAVE.

When I'm in "Ti-dominant-mode", it's more like a juicy or campfire sort of feeling, like Ummmm, this is interesting. It is more near the mind itself, and not in the body, gut, and whole being. This is what I may get if I'm playing chess, solving a math problem, or thinking about something. Feelings may be there, but they are suppressed or stifled. For example, I may have a feeling of shame while taking a math test (or definitely when I'm getting my ass beat at chess ), but if thought is interesting enough, I may have little feeling at all. Also, feeling doesn't help solve math problems.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I don't think Fi is universal on it's own. It takes on more of that shape (at least earlier in life) when it works with extroverted perception. The tertiary serves the less inclusive or more focused perspective of Ni or Si. They will make less room than the most introverted IFPs in having some air of generalized "humanity" or curiosity (about people). They'd have convictions, but still an insular vibe about them. And more picky on who they'd open up the lighter sides of themselves with.

This question is more for those tertiary users, but how do you start to trust yourself with that Fi function? What is the vital factor that needs to be realized in order for this function to work properly, or be trusted to work properly?

Thank you.



Most of my replies are personal and anecdotal, so it may be thought that I do not speak for all Fi users. Also, I can be close to the center INXP, and I use both. I believe you are right in that we use all the functions. I agree.

Perhaps when I'm in "Fi-dominant-mode", I'm caught up by feeling. Nothing may be on the surface, but inside I have feelings in my gut, in my muscles, and my whole being. It can be depressive feelings, anger, shame, or elation. It can be in relationship to thought or in response to internal and external imagery. These things are in the lead. The visceral is the factor of decision more than whether something makes sense. I like being led by good feelings, like harmony. In this case, thought may be involved in tandem or conjoined, but typically smaller.

In the harmonious stream...I'm seeking...like a fish seeking fresh water. I'm looking for a way to "fix something" with that person, so that I can be harmonious with them. Also, if there is something very negative (causing depression or anger) in relationship to a person, I'm trying to avoid it, and if I can't then I'll either blow up or have a break down. Of course, there's another option: LEAVE.

When I'm in "Ti-dominant-mode", it's more like a juicy or campfire sort of feeling, like Ummmm, this is interesting. It is more near the mind itself, and not in the body, gut, and whole being. This is what I may get if I'm playing chess, solving a math problem, or thinking about something. Feelings may be there, but they are suppressed or stifled. For example, I may have a feeling of shame while taking a math test (or definitely when I'm getting my ass beat at chess ), but if thought is interesting enough, I may have little feeling at all. Also, feeling doesn't help solve math problems.

I like the word you used... "visceral". It brought to mind a question. Are "F"'s more in-tune with their body, more specifically the lower gutteral region where as "T" are primarily seen focusing on the brain. I think theirs an unconscious notion that NF's follow their "hearts", but could it be more of a, like you said, visceral. You listen to, or pay attention to how you physically feel and reject those things from your values. Is that why toxic reactions towards conflict occur?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Fi creates ethics internally, and it's not just by "being overwhelmed with feelings" it's also by learning, contemplation, and reflection - it's actually a logical function in it's own right - like Ti - except it's ethical rather than rational. Fi can give one a philosophical bent about human relationships, etc. I am of the opinion that people whose Fi is completely WTF selfish actually have underdeveloped Fi, like seemingly-heartless young ENFPs or ESFPs are usually in Ne/Te or Se/Te loops without appropriate levels of Fi.
It also does tend to revolve around universal feelings of feeling empathy for the pain of other beings, and I think those ethics are more feeling-derived. Fi generally realizes that what is right for them isn't right for everyone, but I think even more so combined with Ne rather than Se, it can give one this holistic world view that there is no "right" or "wrong" culture or way of being, yet there are common threads (like respect for life) which connect everyone, for example.

On the other hand, IxFPs with no Te can look really irrational and be frustrating, just like TJs with no Fi can look like borderline sociopaths.

The bolded seems strange to me. How does the auxillary get overlooked exactly?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

To add to this a bit, the trouble I've found in major disagreements with others is when the other person's opinion directly conflicts with a core principle of mine or violates the overriding theme of my value system (in my case, objectification and other kinds of dehumanization).

Example, (someone else brought up abortion in this thread and reminded me of it) the other day I was hanging out with a group of friends and some guys I've never met who were friends of friends. These guys were pretty cool and we were having a good time talking until the conversation veered off somehow on the issue of the potential defunding of Planned Parenthood and eventually onto abortion. One of the guys immediately identified himself as a "pro-lifer" and rather indignantly claimed that there are "no exceptions" for having an abortion. I disagreed and (if I'm being honest) was very hurt by the conviction of his position as I felt in ignoring these "exceptions" as valid he was violating basic human rights (my train of thought was something like: "Are not women human, too? Able to and competent enough to make moral decisions of their own will without the stern hand of big daddy government rearing them? Shouldn't they decide what's best for their lives and their bodies?"). Even in my frustration, I still understood, and understand now, his viewpoint as he sees it being in favor of human rights, just as I see mine, but I also realized where he very narrowly eliminates and invalidates the experiences of many women who under a wide array of circumstances decided to abort their child. It hurt mostly because he so easily erased those women's stories (and could do so without such an attitude being corrected!). IME, it's people like him who demonize these women in social systems, fight to do so in political ones, and never understand how that may affect them economically. I couldn't help but lose some respect for him for simply not being more compassionate to an experience he wouldn't ever be able to fully understand (although I gather he meant no harm by what he said).


Anyway, that was a long-winded way of saying sometimes when Fi rejects other perspectives or opinions outright, like in my example above, it's because they feel that position is inherently unjust in some way or too limited in scope (leaving out crucial points of evaluation).

This reminded me of another post I made in a different thread. How do you go about defending your views when they are called into question by other people? How do you go about convincing someone you're right? Do you depend on the strenght of emotion to flow into the person and a revelation occurs from there?

 

[Cybin]

The bolded seems strange to me. How does the auxillary get overlooked exactly?

According to the theory, the auxiliary function can get overlooked because it is in the opposite orientation (I/e) than the dominant. It expends energy to use, and tends to be more deliberate in usage. This is why the tertiary is the relief function, because it is in the same direction as the dominant, it usually appears safer to rely in than the aux.

This reminded me of another post I made in a different thread. How do you go about defending your views when they are called into question by other people? How do you go about convincing someone you're right? Do you depend on the strenght of emotion to flow into the person and a revelation occurs from there?

I hope you don't mind if I give my experience with this.

IME experience, appeal to emotion not only almost never works, it's not a good tactic anyway. My ideas aren't emotional reactions, they are well thought through. I absolutely hate trying to convince someone I'm right, mostly because I feel I'm very inarticulate when speaking. When trying to get a point across, I find that I cannot grasp the essence of why. Everything is very interconnected, and my thoughts on one thing are that way because of multiple strands of reasoning. It's like a spider's web in that of you pluck on strand the entire thing vibrates. So, I try to relay my message by describing the effects of said point and also explaining what I think would work better and why. This is also where the idealism comes in, because at this point I'm less concerned with feasability, and more concerned with a best case scenario. Feasability is secondary and only comes after finding an ideal goal. It's a this point I start to lose people with my 'crazy' goals and people note I'm living in a fantasy, my head is in the clouds, or what have you.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

What keeps you from describing all the aspects of a point? Do you feel as if you'll bore people with all of your connections, or is it that you don't trust the connections you've made?