[Fi] Fi Users - Describe Your Fi Analysis

[Silveresque]

I'm curious.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I'm curious.

Hm... Fi analysis has two major purposes with me. Creating both moral implementations and moral ideas (i.e. actions and thoughts that do not hurt the individual). These two responsibilities make up my conscience. If either aspect is not fulfilled guild ensues.

ftr - I am 95% sure I truly am an enfp.

 

[Lady_X]

^^ heeey...i didn't know you decided on enfp. you do...in a way...remind me of an old friend that i could never really decide if he was entp or enfp....interesting. he was like an entp with mega fi.

 

[Lady_X]

oh...and about the process...i have no idea. it's so instinctual. it's like the porridge being exactly right haha

 

[Silveresque]

Hm... Fi analysis has two major purposes with me. Creating both moral implementations and moral ideas (i.e. actions and thoughts that do not hurt the individual). These two responsibilities make up my conscience. If either aspect is not fulfilled guild ensues.

ftr - I am 95% sure I truly am an enfp.

Could you maybe describe the process, rather than what you use it for? How do you go about deciding what is moral? How do you come to your conclusions?

 

[gromit]

Feels right or wrong at a gut level kind of.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Sure... Ne comes up with an idea (true story commencing) let's say in order to cure cancer you were to use unborn children cells to create antibodies for specific cancer cells and implant them in live children so they grow up with an abundance and as such when/if cancer of a certain kind grows then the already created antibodies will detect and destroy before a tumor is grown. Now we have what some consider moral implications. stem cell research. Now my conscious comes into play and says hey... Doing this children would be of great pain to some people is it truly worth it? Usually it comes down to "no" in which I go back to the drawing board... However, if it passes the test (greater good and all that junk) then it goes into how to go about this touchy subject with as much respect for life (in general usually just so happens this about humanity) as possible. If humane implementation cannot occur we go back to the drawing board again. This process is actually quite quick because it is extremely visceral like [MENTION=5418]Lady X[/MENTION] has mentioned.... This was spur of the moment thinking so take it for that.

 

[Lady_X]

yeah to come up with an answer for you we would have to ti it to death after the fact haha the fi judgment just is...because the principles already are...so when you look at a square you know it's a square you don't spend time processing why or how you know it's a square. you just do...because you've already established what a square looks like.

 

[Silveresque]

When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.

How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?

 

[Lady_X]

i think several of us just said haha but occasionally when dealing with something i'm unclear about i'll spend time thinking about why something bothers me....sometimes certain feelings will take you by surprise and you do need to reflect more on it.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.

How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?

We contemplate... Te's job comes into play not only for implementation, but identification of why it's immoral. Looking into the environment in order to understand the issue. We don't analyze why through analysis of the emotion, but through our environment... Yes.

I feel like I need to edit this a lil more. We look at the emotion, but we don't analyze if the emotion is valid by analyzing the emotion itself in respect to a societies morality, but by the effects of the cause. If it pains us to think about it that aspect of the environment is deemed 'wrong' or 'bad' only as far as the situation itself. That same cause may have great effects in a different situation, thus through our perception gray area occurs even if the judging function is more decisive (black & white).

 

[wolfy]

When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.

How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?

I don't detach to see if it makes sense logically. More to see how it fits into a framework, is it congruent with other things I believe? Do things check out at a gut level? I'd check if action is logical or going to have the effect I want.

 

[Qlip]

I'm trying to understand Fi, myself. This is how I see it at the moment. I guess I have this internal map, or table, or diagram of how things should relate to each other in context of an ideal situation and I'm always checking situations and actions against it to see if they are right. 'Checking the map' doesn't take any effort, it's actually more like I am on the map, or am the map. The map itelf can be changed and updated. But only after truly understanding a new dynamic will that happen.

 

[Adasta]

It's something like this:

[Theory/idea/argument/etc.]

Hmm. How does this theory make me feel? Good or bad?

If good then what type of good? Elated? Generous? Happy? Romantic?
If bad, why bad? Does it make me angry? Upset? Unsettled? Do I feel challenged?
If challenged, do I feel bad because I have to reevaluate? Or is it that the premises are wrong?
If the premises are wrong, how do I explain that? How can I explain in words the way this "wrongness" makes me feel, and why?

At its most reductive level, Fi assigns moments of emotionality to compartments within the "soul". If something touches upon one moment, then I relive it. If I read a book and there's an episode in it I like, it might remind me of a pleasurable moment that fits that context. If there's a romance scene, I recall a romance I had and then live it again.

In terms of analysis, sometimes a theory can crop up that makes me shudder. I think "Oh God, that's certainly wrong. That doesn't correlate with what I've felt before at all!"

 

[OrangeAppled]

I kind of have pre-built concepts of how I feel about everything. You could say there is something of a model in my head of how the world would ideally be, especially concerning MY life, and every time I come across something, I immediately see how it fits with or contradicts this model. I then evaluate it accordingly & form a judgment; at first, this often emerges in the moment as a "feeling-tone" which is not so much an emotional reaction as it is a pre-verbal judgment, a sort of mental atmosphere. I think people call this a gut-feeling, but it's a knowing of yourself more than an instinct about other things. I resist emotional reaction to things though, so what I'm left with is more of a Ne impression with a Fi judgment flavor.

If I'm so inclined, I will analyze the nuances of this reaction/impression & the thing itself & form a line of reasoning as to why it does or does not fit in with my ideal. In this way, Fi is holistic and then breaks into parts if/when necessary. In small matters, I don't feel the need to examine all the parts & may make no judgment, but in large matters I always do, especially if I am seeking to harmonize two seemingly contradictory feelings. Things are rarely black & white. I don't view things in simple terms like "good" or "bad", but there's a spectrum, and context makes a difference. I would say things are varying degrees of "acceptable" and "unacceptable".

I often don't reach conclusions right away due to Ne - I put off making a decision until I get more info. I may feel a sway already because I have that immediate feeling-tone, but I don't need to make a final judgment just yet. I'm allowing a picture to form before I compare it to my "ideal model". I may begin analyzing the parts as they come in, or I may simply choose to suspend all decision making for now & see how something develops. As feelings emerge more clearly, then it's easier for me to analyze the nuances.

The way I perceive things via Ne can change how I evaluate something, and so my opinions may change over time, but my core ideals rarely change.
This is why context is important. Sometimes personal values which branch off these ideals will alter due to new info, but the base concept remains.

A concept really gets refined through fantasy. Sometimes, I am not as emotionally moved by experience as much as I am through what I imagine. I've realized that daydreaming is a forum where I explore how I feel about stuff I've never experienced; I have real reactions to what I imagine & it's informative as to how I would feel in a given situation. This is how I build & refine my ideals. This is how I explore the "essence" of being human and see what is necessary, important, and meaningful in life.

 

[Silveresque]

I kind of have pre-built concepts of how I feel about everything. You could say there is something of a model in my head of how the world would ideally be, especially concerning MY life, and every time I come across something, I immediately see how it fits with or contradicts this model. I then evaluate it accordingly & form a judgment; at first, this often emerges in the moment as a "feeling-tone" which is not so much an emotional reaction as it is a pre-verbal judgment, a sort of mental atmosphere. I think people call this a gut-feeling, but it's a knowing of yourself more than an instinct about other things. I resist emotional reaction to things though, so what I'm left with is more of a Ne impression with a Fi judgment flavor.

If I'm so inclined, I will analyze the nuances of this reaction/impression & the thing itself & form a line of reasoning as to why it does or does not fit in with my ideal. In this way, Fi is holistic and then breaks into parts if/when necessary. In small matters, I don't feel the need to examine all the parts & may make no judgment, but in large matters I always do, especially if I am seeking to harmonize two seemingly contradictory feelings. Things are rarely black & white. I don't view things in simple terms like "good" or "bad", but there's a spectrum, and context makes a difference. I would say things are varying degrees of "acceptable" and "unacceptable".

I often don't reach conclusions right away due to Ne - I put off making a decision until I get more info. I may feel a sway already because I have that immediate feeling-tone, but I don't need to make a final judgment just yet. I'm allowing a picture to form before I compare it to my "ideal model". I may begin analyzing the parts as they come in, or I may simply choose to suspend all decision making for now & see how something develops. As feelings emerge more clearly, then it's easier for me to analyze the nuances.

The way I perceive things via Ne can change how I evaluate something, and so my opinions may change over time, but my core ideals rarely change.
This is why context is important. Sometimes personal values which branch off these ideals will alter due to new info, but the base concept remains.

I can see that Fi and Ti are really very similar in their processes. I think the difference is not so much a formula as a feeling--that is, logic alone can't classify and distinguish the two functions, you have to feel the difference. Or perhaps I just haven't thought of the right words to describe that difference.

A concept really gets refined through fantasy. Sometimes, I am not as emotionally moved by experience as much as I am through what I imagine. I've realized that daydreaming is a forum where I explore how I feel about stuff I've never experienced; I have real reactions to what I imagine & it's informative as to how I would feel in a given situation. This is how I build & refine my ideals. This is how I explore the "essence" of being human and see what is necessary, important, and meaningful in life.

Hey, I do the exact same thing! Maybe it's a 4 thing.

 

[Southern Kross]

Great answer from [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]

When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.

How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?

Yes, I experience something similar but I don't try to analyse the feeling/reaction. I do have some provisional trust in that reaction; I treat it like a compelling, instinctive hypothesis but I have learned that its important that I seek out more information before I put absolute faith in it. I go into Ne mode; I try and explore the arguments for and against that conclusion and consider other possibilities. If the reaction seems justified I will go with it, if not, I will usually get an adjusted secondary reaction and continue the process from there. I don't believe I ever accept there is no answer; I just assume I don't know it yet. I also always see all things in shades of grey - failure to do so is to miss the possible implications in various situations. In other words, there's an answer but there could be a lot of complexities involved; not everyone's going to like it, maybe not even me.

As an aside, I find true, lose-lose, moral dilemmas are like Fi kryptonite. It interferes with the ability to experience a gut reaction about to what is right because both choices are unthinkable. In such cases, if I'm not entirely paralysed by indecision, I find I may make a choice based on extremely detached, and even heartless, criteria - which is very unlike me.

 

[Silveresque]

I see so many similarities and so few differences. Perhaps Fi and Ti are really the same function with different preferences attached. I mean, if both are fully capable of using emotion as well as detached logic when analyzing and making decisions, then the difference must not be a matter of capability. With that ruled out, the difference must lie in the simple matter of preference. While Fi users are capable of detaching to analyze the pros and cons more objectively like Ti, they will always feel more comfortable making subjective decisions. The reverse is true for Ti users.

The other possibility, of course, is that when we speak of Fi users detaching like Ti users would, they may actually be using a different function, such as Te. But as Te will always be present in someone who uses Fi, how can we differentiate the two? Where does Fi end and Te begin? Too much remains undefined.

 

[Southern Kross]

I see so many similarities and so few differences. Perhaps Fi and Ti are really the same function with different preferences attached. I mean, if both are fully capable of using emotion as well as detached logic when analyzing and making decisions, then the difference must not be a matter of capability. With that ruled out, the difference must lie in the simple matter of preference. While Fi users are capable of detaching to analyze the pros and cons more objectively like Ti, they will always feel more comfortable making subjective decisions. The reverse is true for Ti users.

The other possibility, of course, is that when we speak of Fi users detaching like Ti users would, they may actually be using a different function, such as Te. But as Te will always be present in someone who uses Fi, how can we differentiate the two? Where does Fi end and Te begin? Too much remains undefined

Well, here's a theory I have - let me know if you think it doesn't work.

I think the most central difference is that Fi gut reaction occurs in a more primordial, fundamental manner, than Ti. Of course this is impossible in a literal sense - it has from somewhere and be influenced by something but at the same time Fi seems to have this quality of something arising from nowhere. Ti seems more to be an instinct about an approach to help explain the essence of things, it gives direction on how to problem solve, whereas Fi instincts are more in direct contact with the essence itself. It like what [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] said about pre-built concepts; its an ideal image of something that exists in a preformed state in our minds. In our most basic approach to life we are simply evaluating whether each thing/behaviour/moral view etc around us matches that image; people are continually holding up possible, real-life examples and we compare it to the internal ideal, and we ask, "hmm, is this it?"

Of course, like Ni users, we have to be careful not to put complete trust in this. Bias can influence the perception of that ideal and we can end up going in the wrong direction. You see this often with young Fi users: jumping to conclusions, thinking in black and white terms, blindly prejudiced against certain people or concepts etc. This is why more mature Fi users will be more cautious and will seek further assistance in the decision-making process through other functions. It will be more analytical about it and more aware of the complexities involved. This is where it could start to resemble Ti more because it is seeking to test, explore, explain and define that essence/ideal in a logical manner. However, this is a secondary process, an attempt at a fail safe, not a primary process as it is with Ti.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I see so many similarities and so few differences. Perhaps Fi and Ti are really the same function with different preferences attached. I mean, if both are fully capable of using emotion as well as detached logic when analyzing and making decisions, then the difference must not be a matter of capability. With that ruled out, the difference must lie in the simple matter of preference. While Fi users are capable of detaching to analyze the pros and cons more objectively like Ti, they will always feel more comfortable making subjective decisions. The reverse is true for Ti users.

The other possibility, of course, is that when we speak of Fi users detaching like Ti users would, they may actually be using a different function, such as Te. But as Te will always be present in someone who uses Fi, how can we differentiate the two? Where does Fi end and Te begin? Too much remains undefined.

I think the bolded is a primary difference in simple terms. Fi doesn't need to detach to analyze though; in fact, it does the opposite, putting things in personal terms in order to determine value in relation to being human (essentially, the self is the human "testing ground"), but that doesn't make it irrational. The idea that one needs to detach to reason is from a thinking perspective. Of course, that could depend on what you mean by detach. I can view things in terms of how it stirs emotion without actually being emotional. In fact, this is my state when I empathize with others; I often do not become emotionally affected myself.

Jung says as much:
Everything, therefore, that we have said about introverted thinking is equally true of introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought.

He does not mean felt here as in emotions, but that everything is processed according to value, whereas with thinking its processed according to a definition separate from value.

Both Ti & Fi types are categorized together by Jung as "Introverted Rationals". They both judge based on an inner standard & use reason to do so, but Fi is focused on valuating in terms of the self & being human & Ti is focused on classifying in terms of other things (not people or self). Fi forms concepts of value & Ti concepts of definition. The reason emotion is more closely associated with Fi is because emotion informs cognition in determining value (which neuroscience studies confirm). The key word there is informs; it does not determine value on its own. Emotion is simply another piece of info considered as relevant or a signal that something needs attention (ie. much like hunger signifies the need to eat, but you rationally decide how to act on that physical feeling).

I used to have this in my sig, from Psychological Types & it notes the difference between Feeling & Thinking in a very simple way (and this would apply to Fe/Te also):

Feeling is primarily a process....that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. Feeling, like thinking, is a rational function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason...