Fi Function "Selfish" ... Uh nope?

[Peter Deadpan]

There are also different sorts of self-centeredness. I think the word "selfish" implies actively taking things away from other people. There is an implicit cost of being a selfish person and it means you don't care about the needs of others, but take from them to gain something yourself.

I think the term "self-centered" tends to be seen the same way, but I see it as a broader definition. I've known self-centered people who were very kind and even generous, but they tended to live most of the time in their own little world neither taking or giving that much, so their life wasn't based on constant transactions with others, whether giving or taking.

I have a sort of dichotomy here where I can get overly swept away into the needs of someone else, or close myself off into my own little world. I don't have as strong a need to have social validation, so I don't need to have exchanges with others and have them tell me how kind or generous I am, and so I don't have the same motivation as people who need this a part of their identity. Please know that I think people who do need that are very helpful and good in the world. I don't mean that it's bad just because they get something out of it too. That's good.

I think i am a little self-centered, actually, but I think I am a kind, generous, and well-meaning person, but unlike an extrovert or Fe driven person, I'm not always involved with people for good or bad, so I don't do as much good and help as they do. I am more often lost in my own funny little world, and I can be oblivious to others, but I also don't ask that much of others, so my inner ethics are consistent. I also try to give something to the world through creating art, so it is an expression of that solitary little inner world, and a way for me to connect without connecting.

Edit: The times I've gotten very swept away into the needs of someone else, there was always a sense of trauma and emergency. I gave it a name, "panic attachment" because sometimes it was ongoing relational style and not a single incident.

Very well said.

 

[Vendrah]

Wow this thread is growing fast. Page 3 in less than 24 hours.

I partially know the explanation, like 80-90% of it.

First, I already found that claiming to be inaccurate (Fi = Selfish), but perhaps that is a subject for later.

Second, the source of the sources is Jung. I dont like Jung's writing, because it is not really clear. He is so unclear that most analysis of his text are "Jung interpretations", because things can get very high discussable due to the lack of clarity. "Jung means that", "No, your interpretation of him is not correct, he said this!". Sum that with Jung himself stating Fi as being the most difficult of the 8 cognitive functions to describe. Jung never directly stated Fi to be selfish. However...

[Fi description] (...) It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. (...) Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself.

[Fi type description] (...) This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and [p. 495] petty tyranny. This produces a type of woman most regrettably distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty. But this change in the picture leads also to neurosis.
(...)
But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects. Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel ‘what others think’. Naturally, others are thinking, all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues, etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours, he must make convulsive efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card. Such a development must lead to exhaustion. The form of neurosis is neurasthenic rather than hysterical; in the case of women we often find severe collateral physical states, as for instance anæmia and its sequelæ.

Websites that we read like one that [MENTION=22236]OldFolksBoogie[/MENTION] (please dont offend him, hes been a nice guy so far, in the threads I showed up, he even explained and help me clarifying stuff), tends to have cognitive function descriptions that I do think follows this process:
- First, Jung described the cognitive functions
- Second, some post authors starts to write books extending the cognitive functions. One of the most famous ones are Dario Nardi and Linda [I forgot the surname, Berenrs?]. They were already interpretation.
- Then, the website, based more or less on these kinds of books, put a resume of a description that remembers these sources.

So, at one point, someone interpreted Jung descriptions (these parts, the cognitive function is only one chapter) as "Fi = Being selfish", and you have it: Fi is selfish, so lets put selfishness on the type descriptions.

Pay attention that you will rarely see any dichotomy website doing such claims. Thats because their process are different (I like the cognitive functions but I do think the dichotomy sites gets a better type description). Dichotomies website relys on source that passed through "soft" science.

Now, I already wrote a big Fi description on my own blog, where I explained some stuff including arguments about why this idea is wrong. However, after I wrote that, it came to my attention that perhaps Jung meant that Fi types which are neurotic are selfish. Id rather continue this last line later, here are my arguments:

Jung Fi deserves some important observations, since some Jung descriptions of Fi are against FP and/or Fi data or against descriptions of INFP, ENFP, ESFP and ISFP types. First, Jung association of Fi with tyranny. It happens that, as I am going to mention on connection of Fi with Big 5, Fi is the most positive correlated cognitive function with Big 5 Liberalism (Openness to Experience facet). Although I wont enter in details due to controversy, generally, the more “Fi users” a country has, higher are the freedom indexes related to it. There is also an internal inconsistency of Jung, since in one passage, Jungs says that “Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas”, giving to understand that primordial feeling-values of Fi includes Freedom (which is correct according to stats).
(...)
Fifth, and finally starting refer to post-Jung descriptions, some Jung descriptions pass an impression that Fi is selfish, and a good part of community does interpret Fi types as being selfish and some descriptions describe that Fi is easily observed when people act selfishly. Although in definition all pure introverted cognitive functions are equally selfish, statistics on empathy, which are controversial ones (so I wont share, only mention), shows that Fi, Fe and Ne are related to empathy, rather than only extraverted cognitive functions (that’s based on threads of Typology Central that people share test results related to empathy, based on multiple tests and threads). There is no correlation between being Extroverted or Introverted in cognitive functions I/E (Dario Nardi concepts) and being empathetic. Looking wider, approximating NOT being selfish with Big 5 Agreeableness, Fi got the highest correlation with Agreeableness from all cognitive functions, passing even Fe (although facets have different results), although high neurotic INFPs tends to have low Agreeableness (perhaps the selfish description was aimed to described a neurotic Fi type?). Sakinorva cognitive function test, perhaps inspired on this misconception, have the following statement: “You are fiercely individualistic and pride yourself on your uniqueness”, where the type rank of that statement is: 1 – INTP;2 – INTJ; 3 – ENTP; 4 – ENTJ; 5 – ENFP; 6 – INFP; (…);12 – ESFP;(…);16 – ISFP. Although it is good to state that this statement not only refers to being individualistic, but also being unique, so it works more or less for the sake of measuring types and selfishness (also, the lowest types in empathy doesn’t follow that sequence).

It happens that, with that stuff in mind, Jung very likely means that Fi people are selfish if under neurosis, because for INFPs with >80% Neuroticism, in average, has low Agreeableness in Big 5. Perhaps he meant the same with tiranny. So, it seems that people interpreted Jung wrongly (and I put no faults on them, that text needs more clarity), confusing a neurotic trait as a regular and normal trait of Fi.

Thats basically 80-90% you will need to explain the issue, I think.

 

[miss deceit]

What happened, after you finished humiliating me you pussied out of the thread? fucking dickheads, no wonder the typology community is so toxic, barbarian filled.

Ah I see you here with your trolling as well, got bored of PerC I see.

Anyway, it seems that wherever you go, the "toxicity" seems to follow you. It would seem that because the only consistent variable in that is you - so perhaps you could do some introspecting and realise that you can also be toxic from time to time. Before you try to turn this on me because I know you will try, yes I'm aware that I can be a toxic asshole too which I am admittedly trying to improve on.

Now, about the post in question - Fi doesn't always equal selfishness BUT you seem to want to pull a no true scotsman fallacy and say that anyone who is selfish isn't an Fi user. Anyone of any type can be selfish, including Fi doms.

 

[Tonitrum]

Ah I see you here with your trolling as well, got bored of PerC I see.

Anyway, it seems that wherever you go, the "toxicity" seems to follow you. It would seem that because the only consistent variable in that is you - so perhaps you could do some introspecting and realise that you can also be toxic from time to time. Before you try to turn this on me because I know you will try, yes I'm aware that I can be a toxic asshole too which I am admittedly trying to improve on.

I created this to clarify the whole "Fi = Selfish" fiasco going on in the typology community, [MENTION=22236]OldFolksBoogie[/MENTION] on the other hand claimed that random piss poor quality site he linked it is the ultimate truth of MBTI, which is far from truth but just random unreliable stereotyped garbage. I have entered that site many times during my time in the typology community and most of the type descriptions are generalised garbage at best.

After disagreeing, he edited his post, sneaking the "You must be self-centered" insult, then second later made another post about him bailing out of the thread, because he is afraid that it will turn into a fight, which he already instigated already from the sneaky edit insult he put in one of his posts.

Regarding you 'Improving', uh sorry to say this but you arent improving. You have been consistently shown aggression towards me and always went out of your way to put me down, even if it doesn't concern you. I really dont want to hear another "I'm aware that I can be a toxic asshole too which I am admittedly trying to improve on" excuse to justify your hostility against me, because you never really did and you just sound hypocritical.

Not to mention the fact that you thanked a certain post in question that indirectly threatens my own physicality in PerC, which I taken huge offensive from:
https://www.personalitycafe.com/mye...rself-type-person-above-318.html#post43885109

And aside from the fact that you certainly lack any intuition to see both sides of the debate, instead of picking up sides and play the devils advocate and turn up other users against me in the proccess, I can assume the only reason why you always keep responding to me (Even if it shouldn't concern you) was the reason you want to provide me your stupid mental gymnastics, which in this case, just stop please, I'm not interested.

Now, about the post in question - Fi doesn't always equal selfishness BUT you seem to want to pull a no true scotsman fallacy and say that anyone who is selfish isn't an Fi user. Anyone of any type can be selfish, including Fi doms.

What a load of speculative nonsense, my posts mentions the fact that Fi = Not selfish, where the hell did you see me pointing out that Non-Fi types are 'selfish'?

 

[miss deceit]

I created this to clarify the whole "Fi = Selfish" fiasco going on in the typology community, [MENTION=22236]OldFolksBoogie[/MENTION] on the other hand claimed that random piss poor quality site he linked it is the ultimate truth of MBTI, which is far from truth but just random unreliable stereotyped garbage. I have entered that site many times during my time in the typology community and most of the type descriptions are generalised garbage at best.

After disagreeing, he edited his post, sneaking the "You must be self-centered" insult, then second later made another post about him bailing out of the thread, because he is afraid that it will turn into a fight, which he already instigated already from the sneaky edit insult he put in one of his posts.

Regarding you 'Improving', uh sorry to say this but you arent improving. You have been consistently shown aggression towards me and always went out of your way to put me down, even if it doesn't concern you. I really dont want to hear another "I'm aware that I can be a toxic asshole too which I am admittedly trying to improve on" excuse to justify your hostility against me, because you never really did and you just sound hypocritical.

Not to mention the fact that you thanked a certain post in question that indirectly threatens my own physicality in PerC, which I taken huge offensive from:
Write 5 things about yourself and type the person above. - Page 318

And aside from the fact that you certainly lack any intuition to see both sides of the debate, instead of picking up sides and play the devils advocate and turn up other users against me in the proccess, I can assume the only reason why you always keep responding to me (Even if it shouldn't concern you) was the reason you want to provide me your stupid mental gymnastics, which in this case, just stop please, I'm not interested.



What a load of speculative nonsense, my posts mentions the fact that Fi = Not selfish, where the hell did you see me pointing out that Non-Fi types are 'selfish'?

Fi doesn't equal not selfish though, Fi users like any other type can be anywhere on the scale of selfishness. Everyone is at least a little selfish, in my opinion, and that isn't a bad thing. So yes, I do see both sides of the debate but I believe that both extremes in the case are wrong - that being said Ni has nothing to do with seeing both sides of the debate. The thing is, I'm not trying to turn anyone against you and I never have, your attitude is what does that. I don't care enough about you to try and turn people against you.

Don't act so innocent as well, because let's not forget you misgendered me and were transphobic towards me on a number of occasions so yes, I have shown aggression towards you because of the passive aggressive attitude you have had towards me. I never said I was improving, I very clearly used the word "trying" for a reason.

"Even if it shouldn't concern you"
Why shouldn't it concern me? I am a member of this forum and as such I don't see why I shouldn't get involved in discussions about a topic I find interesting to discuss. Selfishness is a very interesting topic to me, because I am curious to see why people find selfishness to be "bad" or "wrong". To me, it's makes a lot of sense to be selfish - everyone has their own goals, so why shouldn't we strive to achieve them?

 

[Lazinc]

Introverted feeling can be selfish.

But what bothers me is that people think that being driven by internal feelings means being impulsive and caring only about your feelings (?). I have seen several times people voting for characters like isfp or esfp with the argument "this person was driven by what he felt and only thought about his own feelings". This shows that they think that is what "Feeling" is.

I have also seen people typing a person as a "fi-user" because the person was driven by internal gut feelings, but gut feeling has nothing to do with Feeling in a Jungian sense. '-'

The problem is that the term Feeling (even in Portuguese and German) is very general and can refer to a lot of psychological things. The typology ends up depending on the meaning of the words..
This shows how poor some languages still are, because they don't have a wide variety of words for psychological states.

Feeling can refer to the state of consciousness, values, egoism, moods. Can even be used for Sensation and Intuition.

 

[yeghor]

T an F functions = Freud's ego = Sense of self (goals, values, identity)
Se and Ne functions = Freud's id = primal needs and impulses (hunger, lust, fear, hate, murder etc)
Si and Ni functions = Freud's superego = Conscience (internal rules applied so as to suppress id and ego desires in favor of others)

High T/F = High ego (self-centeredness, individualism, egotism)
High Se/Ne = High id (impulsivity, lack of control/restraint, disinhibition)
High Si/Ni = High superego (conscientousness, other-centeredness, collectivism, inhibition)