SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
It's interesting and amusing seeing how passionate some people with Fi can be. It seems like it would be to draining to maintain that, does it fluctuate a lot or is it pretty steady. Do you constantly sort of adjust your internal emotional state according to whats going on externally or is it more calm and controlled internally until something notable occurs externally.
What do you think?
Is it possible to maintain a controlled state of mind without organizing it? It will remain static by itself?
That is implausible. Emotion responds to whatever it is stimulated by. This can only change if the person has a conscious agenda that goes against the current influx of emotion. Such an agenda could only be established with Thinking.
In other words, if you think logically, you can have a mindset that runs contrary to your natural emotional reactions, if you do not, then you inevitably follow the course elected by your emotional reactions.
Fi can only remain static if and only if the external stimuli remains static as well. Environments that produce such consistent stimuli are very rare, almost non-existing.
Thus, almost in all cases Fi fails to remain static.
One may ask, what about the internal filter of valuation that inheres within Fi and not Fe. As the only difference between the two functions is that Fe emotes directly in relation to the object, yet Fi interposes an unconscious filter of emotive valuation between the subject and the object.
Should not such a filter give Fi a solid core within itself and therefore prevent it from being easily influenced by the external emotive stimuli?
Not so, because Fi in itself does not apply logical analysis to the emotive valuation, it does not have a clear idea of what this filter of valuation is. All things that lack a clear structure are malleable.
Sorry for returning so late and for skipping so much other good material. But I'll just address this one idea because it was at the core of my objection to your (BlueWing's) viewpoint.
I'm not talking about an inability to observe reality so much as a type of "circumscribed thinking/reacting." Example: The absent-minded INTP professor who runs his life, classes, and family by purely logical principles. He is aware of the emotional side of life, but frankly that side of life seems chaotic to him and so he's too lazy and too afraid of failure to address it. So he simply ignores it and lays waste to the emotions and lives of the people around him. (See the movie "Smart People" for an example.)
Not that Fi is any better. Many INFPs are perfectly aware of things like schedules and boundaries and planning and analysis, but they're too lazy and afraid of failure to apply those things to their own lives. So they ignore those things and lay waste to the plans and lives of the people around them.
In this same context, you frequently arrogate the terms "logic," "rationality," and "reason" to T alone; whereas F only get "emotion" and "fickleness." I'll give "logic" to T and "emotion" to F. But "rational" and "reasonable" aren't merely synonyms for "logical." "Rational" and "reasonable" have broader applications to life.
I see a lot of smart INTPs who engage in wildly irrational behavior by most measures, and who make unreasonable demands of life and the people around them. It's not because they're blind to the realities of life; they just don't want to be bothered dealing with the full complexities of life. Out of laziness and fear they ignore any data that doesn't fit neatly into a simple analytical model they've constructed for dealing with life.
Actually, in practice, it would probably be more accurate to say that the data is usually included but the INTP refuses to act on the data, or acts in a manner contrary to what's expected or in his own interest. Example: a single INTP knows an attractive woman is interested in him, but he's afraid of rejection or failure so he snubs her and drives her away.
Fe tends to spook INTPs. And once the INTP gets comfortable with the concept of simply tuning out uncomfortable facts of life, it gets easier and easier to ignore bigger and bigger chunks of life: Te, Se, Si, etc. INTPs are people, and people are basically lazy at heart.
The INTP's choices and actions are entirely logical within the framework of their own simple analytical model. And I wouldn't characterize that INTP as "wicked" as you've chosen to do; I would prefer to call him lazy and afraid. But in any case, such INTPs are hardly rational and reasonable in the ways they deal with the real world and the people around them. And INFPs do the same thing, albeit using some simplified emotional model (for example, being afraid to take on management roles because they're afraid of Te).
Anyway, that's why I see pure Ti as no more grounded in reality than pure Fi. Both operate as much by exclusion of factors (an attitude of fear or laziness toward toward any environment or actions that don't fit neatly into their model) as inclusion of factors. In a complex world, they're both just running on half of their cylinders. Rational and reasonable analysis and actions in a real-world setting requires being able to incorporate and react to both logic and emotion.
(Oh well, that was kind of rambling. Sorry I don't have time to revise. I'll drop the subject at this point.)
Ti people do things that appear stupid to others, but not due to a failure of rationality.
For instance you mention a single INTP may reject a woman because he is afraid of failure.
You also explain in detail how INTPs want to live a life that is consistent with the model of how they should live that they have in their head.
That is true. In other words, they have a model regarding how they should live their life which is very rigorously outlined often, and they do not wish to stray from that model.
I would imagine INTPs in the situation you describe are more recline to be taciturn not because of a fear of failure, but simply because they are afraid of stepping outside of the boundaries of their model. In many cases, all that this model includes is a requirement that all actions must be thought through as carefully and rigorously as possible.
Relationships are often fuzzy, and because they are difficult to think through carefully and rigorously, the INTP will be tempted to avoid such activities. As you mention, they avoid activities that are not consistent with their internal model concerning how they should live their lives.
It is true that such INTPs may benefit by stepping out of their model and allowing themselves to take actions that are not carefully and rigorously thought through, as for example, jumping into a relationship that does not make much sense on the outset.
However, I would argue (and would like to in tedious detail) why the long term benefits of a carefully though through choice outweigh the occassional drawbacks of such choices.
Hence, I agree with your descriptions of INTP behavior, however, I disagree that it is a mistake on their part to refuse to step outside of their model or in other words, make decisions that are not carefully thought through.
A more plausible alternative that I see is engaging in relationships where the situation is more clear.
This is easily attained in an INTP-INTP relationship, and could be attained if the INTP manages to pursuade his/her non-INTP partner to provide clarity for the current situation.
Thus, my thesis is, it is never desirable to act without having thought things through.
By no means, do not feel obligated to drop the subject, I am quite interested in your thoughts on this matter.