User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 51

  1. #31
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    It seems strange to say that Fi and Fe are two very different functions (different enough to fuel months of arguments on this message board in the past), but then turn around and argue that the two functions don't actually manifest themselves in any meaningful or observable differences in how the different types live their lives. Would you say the same about Te vs Ti? Ne vs Ni? Se vs Si?

    But then I guess I'm being "simplistic and biased."

    Oh well, I'm done here.
    Just to clarify: I was responding to the article linked in the OP and wasn't trying to critique you or your response to the OP. I apologize that my intent was unclear and that it came across as a personal slam. We all have our own perspectives, and I was trying to explain why I found the article unsatisfying from my own perspective and understanding.

    I certainly wasn't trying to shut down communication or silence dissent. And again, I'm sorry that my "tl;dr" came across as a harsh attack. It wasn't meant as such.

    I do think it's worth talking about why and how perspectives differ, rather than merely that they do (which is clear). Is it different enneagram types, instinctual types, life experience, type development, other?

    Might also be interesting to find out how people find Vicky Jo's materials helpful (and I have, at times), and how her material rubs some people the wrong way (which it does me in some ways)... because it seems like part of the issue may be how persnickety individuals are about word choice and connotation.

  2. #32
    Google "chemtrails" Bush Did 9/11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    eNtp
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    γ Ni
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    Fe is apparently a decent function--unless it's in the dominant position, in which case it's the embodiment of all that's evil and wrong with the world ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    it seems like part of the issue may be how persnickety individuals are about word choice and connotation.
    Yup. People have a tendency to read personal offense between the lines. It's a shame. The cynic in me says that it would be good to have a thesaurus on hand, though, so that each individual word in a writeup can be pedantically chosen to minimize offense.

    Feeling offense at some statement is fine. It's natural. Figuring out what's offensive to oneself, why it's offensive, and what other possibilities exist in how it can be read--that goes a long way in figuring out what the message actually is. Then, the message can be evaluated on merit.
    J. Scott Crothers
    aka "Bush Did 9/11"
    Founder, Truthtology, est. 1952
    Prophet and Channel, God Almighty
    Author, the Holy scripture Elevenetics

    "Just as jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, so too cannot the unshakeable pillars of Truthtology ever be shaken, whether by man, nature, or evidence."
    - Elevenetics

  3. #33
    You have a choice! 21%'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    The article seems a bit shallow, IMHO. It's like "Wow I just realized that Fi has good points too so I'm going to write an article about it to enlighten the masses (because I'm an understanding and tolerant person)!" by someone who doesn't really understand the functions.

    I think the reason why it has been so hard to define the functions is that a lot of conceptualization is needed, and people conceptualize things differently. Even "warm" and "cold" are experienced differently by different people, so no one can ever agree on what a function is.

    My (Ti) approach is to read loads of descriptions by different people and construct my own internal understanding of what the functions are. I have my own definitions that I'm happy with and I don't feel the need to make other people use my definitions, because there's not one 'correct' single way to define it.
    4w5 sp/sx EII
    Likes Southern Kross liked this post

  4. #34
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    The quack is back!

    Vicky Jo fails to grasp Fi and creates more dumb stereotypes?

    Shocker!

    I don't think this is even worth the energy of refuting.... it's so much WRONG that there's nothing else to say about it.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe
    Likes violett, Hard liked this post

  5. #35
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Bah. Just the usual stonewalling. I've seen 75-page threads in the past where you, Peacebaby, OrangeAppled, and Seymour insisted that no one was allowed to define Fi but you guys. And then you yourselves never defined it in any meaningful way. You guys Ne the subject to death and never let it come to closure. It's just the usual Fi control-freakism and stonewalling. It's all push-back and no substance.

    It's why some discussions will never go anywhere. Material on Fi is discussed in the typology community at large, in books and articles, but it can't be discussed here because of loud pushback from a small coterie of control freaks.
    Is there some personal annoyance of yours at not being heard? Forgive me, but I am not familiar with you (perhaps you've changed your name? That throws me), but the aforementioned posters are established, regular posters who put a lot of energy and thought into these discissions. If their posts get recognition or have influence, then that is why, not any control-freakism or stonewalling.

    I will say that your attitude here seems to only reflect your viewpoint. You also present quite a contradiction: have we avoided any discussion that leads to a meaningful definition or have we dominated them with our own definitions? You cannot claim both.

    Of course I and others can disagree with your take on things just as you can disagree with our individual takes on Fi. If there is consensus among some of us on Fi, it is no grand conspiracy to block others in discussions. Rather, both disagreements and agreements in these discussions help distinguish what is Fi mentality/personality and what is individual quirks or misunderstanding of theory. I find these discussions fruitful and in-depth, not remotely sidestepping.

    I've gotten tons of feedback via PMs, VMs, quotes, and reps where people (especially Fi-doms) tell me that my descriptions of Fi are spot on for them. I've probably spent the better part of my posting time discussing Fi, to the point where I feel I've almost exhausted the subject and may be tiring others with it. I've spent a lot of time reading on Jungian theory and building my understanding, as well as constantly refining my own phrasing when discussing the functions. I will be arrogant and say I don't see that many others presenting the same level of analysis. I will also say that much of what I've read came from authors who are not Fi-Dom, so I'm not sure how I'm not accepting views on Fi from non Fi-dom.

    To suggest this has mostly gone nowhere is simply not true for me or many others. I've polished my own grasp and feel pretty happy with whatever insights I've imparted to others. Feedback from other Fi-dom has confirmed to me this is NOT just my personal experience. You seem to interpret our closure as stonewalling instead of having already discussed the topic to death and discovered much consensus among other Fi-dom.

    So maybe these Fi definitions (because I have offered definitions ranging from a brief phrase to a wall of text) are not "meaningful" for you, but they have great meaning for me as well as for many others, many of whom also identify as Fi-dom.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

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

  6. #36
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I absolutely agree with the loyalty point. This isn't to say Pe dom/aux isn't loyal, but FJs interact less with the immediate moment and more with our internal concept of a person (built from accumulated experience of them). We wont recognize immediate harmful behavior as harmful behavior until enough of it builds up to put a dent in the internal concept.
    This is such a useful way of putting it - I rather like it and find it illuminating. I'll try to remember it in future. Some quick questions:

    - So for you is getting to know someone a process of building up an internal picture of them? Is that the way you experience gaining gradual familiarity - like filling in the blanks?
    - If you know someone well do you evaluate their behaviour as a closed system (ie. their current behaviour in contrast to their established patterns of behaviour) or is it partially weighed against your experiences with others?
    - How would you contrast that with the Fi manner of evaluating others? I mean of course it's quite different but it can use internal concepts of human behaviour too. How do you see the differences?
    - And what did you think of what @Seymour said about Fe defining boundaries through relationship roles? Does that gel with you?

    Quote Originally Posted by 21% View Post
    I think the reason why it has been so hard to define the functions is that a lot of conceptualization is needed, and people conceptualize things differently. Even "warm" and "cold" are experienced differently by different people, so no one can ever agree on what a function is.
    Exactly. However, I don't think this renders those impressions meaningless. If FJs commonly experience Fi as cold then that is a pattern worth noting and exploring. It's just that it may end up saying as much about Fe as it does about Fi.
    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

  7. #37
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    If FJs commonly experience Fi as cold then that is a pattern worth noting and exploring. It's just that it may end up saying as much about Fe as it does about Fi.
    I don't think I've ever experienced Fi as cold. Quite the opposite actually. I always see it as warm (sometimes annoyingly so).
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes GarrotTheThief liked this post

  8. #38
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    I experience FE and FI as issues involving communication.

    But the heat of a person or the warmth of their heart comes from their soul and spirit!

    I know cause viking warlords came to me in a dream and delivered the message - that's a metaphor for an intuition I couldn't describe otherwise.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes Evee liked this post

  9. #39
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    - So for you is getting to know someone a process of building up an internal picture of them? Is that the way you experience gaining gradual familiarity - like filling in the blanks?
    I suppose so?

    - If you know someone well do you evaluate their behaviour as a closed system (ie. their current behaviour in contrast to their established patterns of behaviour) or is it partially weighed against your experiences with others?
    Well it's not even possible for it to be an entirely closed system- I mean, as infants/children we get an idea of what 'experience of others' is like, and we apply that for the rest of our lives to the people we get to know. But the more I get to know an individual, I'd say the more 'closed system' my familiarity with that individual becomes? The people I've considered my closest friends- what I know about them is because it's information I've accumulated about them, as individuals. But then, the whole reason I chose them is because- weighed against my experience with others- they were the individuals who stood out and with whom I had the most meaningful exchanges. Maybe I don't understand this question.

    - How would you contrast that with the Fi manner of evaluating others? I mean of course it's quite different but it can use internal concepts of human behaviour too. How do you see the differences?
    Almost immediately after I posted, I realized we ALL interact with our own internal concept of other people. In the end, that's all ANY of us really have to go on. But for FJs, that internal concept is more based on the entirety of past experience of that person- not just the entity immediately in front of us. The more time and experience have gone into shaping an internal concept, the more we use that internal concept to interpret incoming information from that particular source.

    - And what did you think of what Seymour said about Fe defining boundaries through relationship roles? Does that gel with you?
    I think so, I'm not entirely sure I understand it. I tend (and I think, INFJs tend) to have boundaries based on my experience of individuals- the extent to which past experience (of that person) dictates I can trust their judgment (not their "motivations", but their judgment- and whether their values make their judgment incompatible with my own*) is the extent to which I don't have much of a boundary with them. I've explained my theory of the NiFe 'tier mechanism' before (I don't feel like looking for it just now, nor do I really have the energy just now to explain it well again)- it sounds like that's what he was explaining, but it's somewhat confusing to me to phrase it as "defining boundaries through relationship roles/obligations." I'd say it was more about defining boundaries based on experiential data that accumulates from interacting with/observation of different individuals- the boundary I have with each person I know has been customized according to my past interaction with/observation of them specifically.

    *In this way, I think that our boundaries are subject to our personal values- but we take notice of the individuals with whom our personal values don't jive and place the boundaries on those people (unless further observation reveals the initial assessment was incomplete, which *will* happen if someone else's values *do* jive and they remain in our periphery), whereas it sounds like Fi does this in the other direction? The instinctive boundary isn't placed directly on the people so much as the immediate information coming from them? eta: And honestly, I think I might be going more into NiFe territory instead of effectively representing the Fe side of things here.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari
    Likes Seymour liked this post

  10. #40
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I suppose so?
    I know it's a weird question if this is what you do naturally (it is basically unconscious then). I asked it because I suspect that it's so different to how I approach getting to know people.

    Well it's not even possible for it to be an entirely closed system- I mean, as infants/children we get an idea of what 'experience of others' is like, and we apply that for the rest of our lives to the people we get to know. But the more I get to know an individual, I'd say the more 'closed system' my familiarity with that individual becomes? The people I've considered my closest friends- what I know about them is because it's information I've accumulated about them, as individuals. But then, the whole reason I chose them is because- weighed against my experience with others- they were the individuals who stood out and with whom I had the most meaningful exchanges. Maybe I don't understand this question.
    No, you understood the question perfectly well. This was helpful.

    Almost immediately after I posted, I realized we ALL interact with our own internal concept of other people. In the end, that's all ANY of us really have to go on. But for FJs, that internal concept is more based on the entirety of past experience of that person- not just the entity immediately in front of us. The more time and experience have gone into shaping an internal concept, the more we use that internal concept to interpret incoming information from that particular source.
    I understood what you meant by it, though - the context gave it more meaning. I interpreted it as seeing a familiar person as a series of cues that reflect an internal model of them. The behaviour itself holds little meaning until it filtered and read through the lens of the model. There's a wholeness to it too when it gets to a certain stage, like drawing a circle around the person and saying, "everything I need to know about you to make sense of you, lies within this circle" - taking into account who they are, who they were and who they potentially are in their entirety, in isolation from time or context. That person is then (relatively speaking) individuated from the common human behaviour model that you apply for the less familiar general population. Correct? We all do the internal concept, but the Fe brand is more of a blueprint that has filled in for that individual in their totality (?), used to compare the reality to the schematics (and vice versa).

    If this is all vaguely accurate, it's very different to the Fi approach (well the FP approach). I guess I observe common, fundamental behavioural threads across all people or types/groups (gained through experience and introspection) and apply these to individuals I come across. There really isn't a single model, nor do I look at a person as closed system. I wouldn't have a clue how to do that, in fact. When I meet someone it is with an openness - ready to let their demeanour to speak to me so I can pick up on 'behavioural threads'. I can't judge them because I haven't got a hold on their attributes enough to even measure them against something else. Once I start to register impressions of them I need to compare them to other manifestations of such impressions in myself or others and figure out what that tells me about this person. Perhaps seemingly counter-intuitively, this method feels like the best way to respect the individuality of the person. I suppose by recognizing their qualities as common to some or all people I feel as thought I am recognizing their inherent humanity. I don't know how this works with those I'm familiar with compared with those I'm not. I don't think there is a difference...

    So here's the weird thing where Fi is seen as being more attentive to the individual and Fe to the group, but from this angle, it's the other way around. I always describe an analogy for F differences as: Fi starts with the individual and steps backwards to view the wider context, whereas Fe starts with the wider context and then moves toward the individual (to which I attribute the relative impression of 'warmth' in Fe and 'coldness' in Fi). I just didn't realize the degree that Fe can hone in on that individual. I wonder if FJs feel that people are more inherently 'knowable' as a whole, than FPs do.

    I think so, I'm not entirely sure I understand it. I tend (and I think, INFJs tend) to have boundaries based on my experience of individuals- the extent to which past experience (of that person) dictates I can trust their judgment (not their "motivations", but their judgment- and whether their values make their judgment incompatible with my own*) is the extent to which I don't have much of a boundary with them.
    So is that a direct connection for you: compatible values correlates to reliable judgement? Is compatible judgement something Fe users really look for?

    Is this distinction between motivation and judgement significant to you? Do you feel that Fi users often wrongly conflate the two?

    *In this way, I think that our boundaries are subject to our personal values- but we take notice of the individuals with whom our personal values don't jive and place the boundaries on those people (unless further observation reveals the initial assessment was incomplete, which *will* happen if someone else's values *do* jive and they remain in our periphery), whereas it sounds like Fi does this in the other direction? The instinctive boundary isn't placed directly on the people so much as the immediate information coming from them? eta: And honestly, I think I might be going more into NiFe territory instead of effectively representing the Fe side of things here.
    What part does Fi do in the other direction?
    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
    Likes thoughtlost liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Development and resolution of the dominant function
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2012, 05:16 PM
  2. In your own words, describe how each of the Cognitive Functions play out in your life
    By FalseHeartDothKnow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-21-2010, 02:31 AM
  3. Getting the feeling function wrong
    By donut1975 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 12:37 AM
  4. Strict separation between introverted and extraverted versions of the same function?
    By tcda in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 07:51 PM
  5. Images of the Cognitive Functions
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-21-2008, 07:15 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