[Jungian Cognitive Functions] The difference between Fe of INFJ and Fi in general?

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Well i see objectivity being seeing something as it is and subjectivity being seeing only some sides of it.

People are unable to see anything as they really are, because to see something as it is, you would have to see EVERYTHING in it and its impossible to not put some sort of subjective view on it. For example if you look at a ball, you can see, yes its a ball, but thats not all there is, the ball is made of molecules that you cant see(and we could take this to quantum physics level also). At the point where you say that molecular structure or the working of quantum mechanics of the ball is irrelevant to the ball, you are taking a subjective view on the ball.
Not to mention when we see a ball, we are inserting our own understanding of what the ball is, how we feel about balls etc, that cant be taken away, thus preventing us to be objective about the ball.

In conclusion, people are always subjective and unable of being objective about anything.

Yeah, yeah, I know. But like Mal said, semantics circle jerks are boring. I think the ob/sub discussion makes for interesting food for thought.

I use the terms daily in my work. They work for me.

 

[INTP]

Yeah, yeah, I know. But like Mal said, semantics circle jerks are boring. I think the ob/sub discussion makes for interesting food for thought.

I use the terms daily in my work. They work for me.

Why use terms that arent fitting right to the situation rather than other terms that are describing what you are teying to communicate way better?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

lol. not following.

 

[Mal12345]

Objective and subjective as terms for functions are pretty crappy imo, since they arent really displaying the true nature of the functions and are misleading. That is unless you do it like jung and redefine subjectivity and objectivity. But if you do that, then you have to explain the definitions for subjectivity and objectivity and people who want the dummy version of MBTI arent willing to go that deep..

It's no different than labeling functions "judging" and "perceiving" (or variations on same). It's just pop psychology. But we can't all be Geniuses like Jung, and anyway, I prefer Kant.

 

[INTP]

lol. not following.

Talking of objectivity when it comes to functions isnt very well fitting term. Complaining about me being nitpicking on semantics doesent change this fact.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Talking of objectivity when it comes to functions isnt very well fitting term.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[INTP]

It's no different than labeling functions "judging" and "perceiving" (or variations on same). It's just pop psychology. But we can't all be Geniuses like Jung, and anyway, I prefer Kant.

Its a different thing. Jung gave a new definition for all these terms, subjective, objective, judging, perception when he used them.

Now when we talk of objectivity in this topic or talk functions being objective or subjective to people unaware of what jung meant with all this, what you say gets a new meaning and differs from what jung said.

This isnt same when it comes to judging and perception.

 

[INTP]

I respectfully disagree.

Even without defining objective and subjective as jung defined them? Why?

 

[Ginkgo]

I respectfully disagree.

Same.

 

[Mal12345]

Its a different thing. Jung gave a new definition for all these terms, subjective, objective, judging, perception when he used them.

Now when we talk of objectivity in this topic or talk functions being objective or subjective to people unaware of what jung meant with all this, what you say gets a new meaning and differs from what jung said.

This isnt same when it comes to judging and perception.

Agreed, but when it comes to Myers-Briggs, pop psychology comes first.

 

[Mal12345]

You know, come to think of it, I think many of us are just dissatisfied with Jung's archaic and obscure terminology. Should psychology be as unapproachable to the average person as Kantian architectonic?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Even without defining objective and subjective as jung defined them? Why?

Well, I was having a little brainstorm with Mal's terms. I've noticed sometimes ntps have a hard time when njs break into a new thought processes merging different points of view. I am not a Jungian scholar, nor do I need to be to think about and explore functions and how they work.

But since you brought it up, I looked in my Psychological Types and on pages 8-10, Jung gives a pretty nice description of subjectivity and objectivity in psychology, and nothing about what he says there goes against what I suggested, and, in fact, it supports it. He does qualify that an objective psychology of type needs to be a conscientious process conducted by one that is aware of his own individuality.

But I was speaking more to the fact IF we contemplate extraverted functions that are pure and untainted by subjectivity, they would stand as objective manifestations because they are happening in the world outside of us. Fe is feeling exerted onto others, Te is thinking about and gathering data. A robot could be programmed to function in an Fe and Te way, if it could be programmed with all the infinite possibilities of response a human could think of. (think about Iron Man's robot--it is purely objective, yet uses Fe and Te).

Intuiting and sensing are objective when extraverted as well, though irrational, with an infinite possibility of information. But if we could assess all the information any extraverted function provided, and free it from our own personal subjectivity, theoretically, it would be purely objective and viewed the same by everyone.

We don't experience it like this, however, because we take it back in and apply our subjective functions to it, making it biased and unique to our own way of being.




And if you come back with some definition Jung had for subjective and objective, I think that is really beside the point, though interesting.

 

[Mal12345]

And if you come back with some definition Jung had for subjective and objective, I think that is really beside the point, though interesting.

I'll offer this, just in case: "Quite generally, one could describe the introverted standpoint as one that under all circumstances sets the self and the subjective psychological process above the object and the objective process, or at any rate holds its ground against the object."

That statement from page 12 of PT is quite telling in itself.

 

[Venom]

i think the thing about Fi and "from the heart" is Fi users often think in terms of "fuck context, this is what it is", when we're thinking about our feelings or values, and therefore our expression of such things is often "unfiltered".

I think Fe can fuck context just as well as Fi... Because Fe will be more AWARE of the context it's deciding to fuck, doesn't preclude it . Fe is about creating and understanding roles, vibes and emotions of people, situations and other things. If your an asshole and turning down roles people serve up to you, you can STILL be Fe as long as you come at it with you are actively deciding and JUDGING these external opportunities, vibes and roles. I think Fe is closer to Te than it is to Fi in many respects. Or at least it's equally close, Fe and Te, as Fi and Fe.

 

[Venom]

You know, come to think of it, I think many of us are just dissatisfied with Jung's archaic and obscure terminology. Should psychology be as unapproachable to the average person as Kantian architectonic?

Kantian epistemology brings some sanity to Jung, imo. Not sure that's a compliment to Jungs accessibility

 

[Mal12345]

Kantian epistemology brings some sanity to Jung, imo. Not sure that's a compliment to Jungs accessibility

If the subject matter is difficult, then the terminology will be obscure. Jung is not difficult, he's just being obscure. That is known as obscurantism.

But do I really know this for a fact? Freud was an admitted obscurantist. It was not his goal to be understood by the general public. Jung simply carried on the psychiatric tradition of obscurity.

So it takes a leap of faith to jump from Kant to Jung when there were so many influences in between.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'll offer this, just in case: "Quite generally, one could describe the introverted standpoint as one that under all circumstances sets the self and the subjective psychological process above the object and the objective process, or at any rate holds its ground against the object."

That statement from page 12 of PT is quite telling in itself.

Yeah. So that reinforces the nature of introverted functions being subjective, no.?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'll offer this, just in case: "Quite generally, one could describe the introverted standpoint as one that under all circumstances sets the self and the subjective psychological process above the object and the objective process, or at any rate holds its ground against the object."

That statement from page 12 of PT is quite telling in itself.

Yeah. So that reinforces the nature of introverted functions being subjective, no.?

 

[skylights]

I think Fe can fuck context just as well as Fi... Because Fe will be more AWARE of the context it's deciding to fuck, doesn't preclude it . Fe is about creating and understanding roles, vibes and emotions of people, situations and other things. If your an asshole and turning down roles people serve up to you, you can STILL be Fe as long as you come at it with you are actively deciding and JUDGING these external opportunities, vibes and roles. I think Fe is closer to Te than it is to Fi in many respects. Or at least it's equally close, Fe and Te, as Fi and Fe.

lol yeah, Fe actually consciously chooses the context it's fucking, Fi is just like "i'm not even going to consider this".

i agree that the pairs are equidistant. Fi shares a good deal in common with Ti, too... you can see it especially when you compare types like INFP/INTP and ENFP/ENTP. we have a lot of similarities in terms of the way we operate, even if we're judging off different bases. i imagine the same holds true for pairs like ENFJ/ENTJ. the ENFJs i know certainly tend toward the same sort of longterm mobilization that ENTJs do, just for different reasons.