Effects of INxJ tertiary functions

[Athenian200]

I say Ti, mostly based on the thread where you described the dilemma of whether or not to sit in the chair. You seem to want to apply a type of logic to social norms and etiquette. It's like your Fe is wired into Ti.

If you are an ITJ, you Fi isn't very detectable. The INTJs may want to deny it, but their Fi is quite apparent. If you're an ITJ, I don't see much Fi in your posts.

I was just thinking of these two posts, and they started me thinking about INxJ tertiary functions, and how they typically manifest. I think that due to the dominant Ni, they might manifest slightly more than in other types (although this may actually be applicable to any type with a dominant perceiving function). While I think I understand how Fi manifests in INTJ's and will attempt to describe it here, I want to hear some outside opinions.

I have observed that healthy INTJ's typically have a certain kind of personal integrity that makes the idea of being wrong, deliberately misleading someone, or in some cases even behaving unjustly rather abhorrent to them. This is partially based on their Te, to be certain, but the way this Fi works in service to Te is apparent in other ways, such as their tendency to refer to themselves and their own state when discussing emotions, and that their emotional preferences/standards don't seem to be affected much by what others think of them (at least not in the same way mine are), all hinting that Fi > Fe for them.

Regarding INFJ's, I have less to go on. The only (potential) examples of INFJ's and Ti I actually have to offer are myself and toonia. I likely don't understand the nature of Ti well enough to speculate here, but I would guess that it is the reason I seem to tend towards trying to understand something as well/precisely as possible, and nitpick about points most people would consider insignificant. toonia seems to display a similar tendency in the the former, but I'm not sure about the latter. This could also be the source of the 5 wing many INFJ's reveal in Enneagram testing (They usually test as 4w5).

So, does anyone have ideas to share regarding this topic?

 

[Natrushka]

the way this Fi works in service to Te is apparent in other ways, such as their tendency to refer to themselves and their own state when discussing emotions, and that their emotional preferences/standards don't seem to be affected much by what others think of them (at least not in the same way mine are), all hinting that Fi > Fe for them.

I don't know that it's typical of INTJs but my Fe is in jeopardy of withering away. Fi/Fe are something I'm only starting to understand.

This is Fi, yes? I cannot stand to be what I see as "two faced", i.e., talking behind someone's back and being nice to them to their face. It's fake and I refuse to particpate. I'm not openly rude to them, I prefer to ingore them unless they make that impossible.

Whereas this is Fe:

I don't mean to imply, by the above Fi example, that I am impolite; quite the contrary. In social situations I am polite and observe common courtesy - holding the door open, saying "Thank you" for example.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is Fi, yes? I cannot stand to be what I see as "two faced", i.e., talking behind someone's back and being nice to them to their face. It's fake and I refuse to particpate. I'm not openly rude to them, I prefer to ingore them unless they make that impossible.

I have always been a little confused between Ti and Fi behavior in some circumstances.

For example, what you describe is something I feel too -- but to me it tends to be intellectualized. I see it merely as a matter of consistency and logic, that things have to be uniform and coherent... including my character. I remember when I was a teenager and just thought Fe stuff was completely stupid, even though I did not want to stir up trouble; to me, it was inconsistent to show one thing but believe another inside, and I hated it.

So it seems to me that either Fi is much broader in scope, or that Ti can mimic Fi, just in more impersonal ways. But how can I compare my subjective internal experience to yours, and thus determine that yours was more personal/Fi and mine was more impersonal/Ti? I don't know the answer to that.

I don't mean to imply, by the above Fi example, that I am impolite; quite the contrary. In social situations I am polite and observe common courtesy - holding the door open, saying "Thank you" for example.

Nowadays, I'm fine with most Fe stuff, if I think it comes out of an honest intention to be kind or polite to someone and not a desire to mislead or put on airs.

I think this is partly due to changes inside of me. I now generally WANT to be courteous to everyone and open to a connection with them, because I think everyone is of equal worth regardless of how much like me they are. (At worst, I will just avoid people who I think have poor character or find myself repulsed by on a personal level, thereby avoiding the temptation to lie.) Therefore the Fe that is expressed is still consistent with my inner nature/character.

Sorry for the tangent; I will think more about tertiary functions and login later on the issue...

 

[Natrushka]

I have always been a little confused between Ti and Fi behavior in some circumstances.

If it confuses you I don't feel so bad. <wiping brow>

For example, what you describe is something I feel too -- but to me it tends to be intellectualized. I see it merely as a matter of consistency and logic, that things have to be uniform and coherent... including my character. I remember when I was a teenager and just thought Fe stuff was completely stupid, even though I did not want to stir up trouble; to me, it was inconsistent to show one thing but believe another inside, and I hated it.

FWIW, the reaction I have is almost visceral. It. Just. Isn't. Right.

 

[Athenian200]

This is Fi, yes? I cannot stand to be what I see as "two faced", i.e., talking behind someone's back and being nice to them to their face. It's fake and I refuse to particpate. I'm not openly rude to them, I prefer to ingore them unless they make that impossible.

Well, I would say that the first few parts sound like more like Fi to me, but I think we need an INFP to tell us more. I think that last one might be more related to inferior Se under stress, though.

Whereas this is Fe:

I don't mean to imply, by the above Fi example, that I am impolite; quite the contrary. In social situations I am polite and observe common courtesy - holding the door open, saying "Thank you" for example.

That is fairly standard and is related to Fe, but most types learn to do similar things. Those are basic Fe skills that everyone uses. You seem to understand fairly well.

I have always been a little confused between Ti and Fi behavior in some circumstances.

For example, what you describe is something I feel too -- but to me it tends to be intellectualized. I see it merely as a matter of consistency and logic, that things have to be uniform and coherent... including my character. I remember when I was a teenager and just thought Fe stuff was completely stupid, even though I did not want to stir up trouble; to me, it was inconsistent to show one thing but believe another inside, and I hated it.

Interestingly, it never used to bother me to lie so that people would think better of me, but I never did so unless the truth was particularly negative, because I didn't really care to be two-faced (for fear someone would find out and be angry with me), although I would if I felt I needed to.

So it seems to me that either Fi is much broader in scope, or that Ti can mimic Fi, just in more impersonal ways. But how can I compare my subjective internal experience to yours, and thus determine that yours was more personal/Fi and mine was more impersonal/Ti? I don't know the answer to that.

Actually, if my understanding is correct, Ti does mimic Fi in impersonal ways. They both observe a standard derived from observation, and it's likely that once Ti acknowledges emotion, it can use a similar standard derived from the impersonal. I'm pretty sure that I see Fi and not Ti in INTJ's because their T is already outward, and their internal feeling standards have that Fi "vibe." Ti would add a certain extra precision to INTJ's in areas they don't usually have it, and this standard is the source of their feelings, and I think it matches up internally with the style they use to evaluate things externally. The impersonal part is already on the outside, and you can tell it's directed by internal emotion.

Nowadays, I'm fine with most Fe stuff, if I think it comes out of an honest intention to be kind or polite to someone and not a desire to mislead or put on airs.

For the record, I believe that Fe types have no desire to mislead or put on airs. We only do that if we feel threatened socially, and then we feel kind of guilty about it.

I think this is partly due to changes inside of me. I now generally WANT to be courteous to everyone and open to a connection with them, because I think everyone is of equal worth regardless of how much like me they are. (At worst, I will just avoid people who I think have poor character or find myself repulsed by on a personal level, thereby avoiding the temptation to lie.) Therefore the Fe that is expressed is still consistent with my inner nature/character.

That is a difference between us. I intrinsically believe that some people are necessarily better than others. I naturally tend to see people and society hierarchically. This could be related to Fe.

Sorry for the tangent; I will think more about tertiary functions and login later on the issue...

Apology accepted.

 

[Natrushka]

I'm pretty sure that I see Fi and not Ti in INTJ's because their T is already outward, and their internal feeling standards have that Fi vibe.

My Te and Ti score nearly identical when tested. I actually come out, in order of preference, Ne/Te/Ni/Ti/Fi/Si/Se/Fe. Regardless, I agree with you, at least in my case. A definite "Fi" vibe.

 

["?"]

I was going to give Joe Butts definition of Ti and Fi on the teritiary, however I don’t understand how it can be different for INTJ/ISTJ and INFJ/ISFJ respectively. At that level, I don’t think the Ni/Si dominance will be decisive. Here is the excerpts from Lenore Thomson’s Wiki page:

As a Tertiary Function, Ti leads IFJs to.... ?
...."advise others on the wisdom of their choices"(edited from Lenorep.231 on INFJs.) vis a vis Ti as a primary attribute. Also, tertiary Ti leads to an important emphasis on personal experience. Yet unlike dominant and secondary Ti, tertiary Ti can often lead sweeping generalizations induced from sparse evidence. Tertiary Ti leads can lead to a narcissistic focus on your own experience, or the experience of people who stand with you. If someone disagrees with you, then they must be naive. This kind of narrow view is often used defensively. Especially when combined with dominant Ni, tertiary Ti can be used to defend bizarre theories that are completely unfalsifiable. An example of tertiary Ti is the feminist concept of "authority of experience," and its use thereof. This concept is used to exalt the experience of women who toe the party line of feminism, but feminists aren't always so quick to acknowledge the experience of women (and men) who disagree with them. For example, a woman who works in the pornography industry and claims that she has been exploited is considered to be speaking gospel, but a woman who works in the porn industry and says that she enjoys it is speaking heresy.

As a Tertiary Function, Fi typically leads ITJs to retreat into solitary actions that have no constructive worldly effect but are aimed at providing a justification for calling themselves good people. Another example is obsession with the purity of one's soul. For example, being a vegetarian while working at Taco Bell--not out of any great love for animals (the person might hardly know anything about what cows are like), but to be able to say, "Well, at least I never ate any animals." Or engaging in pointless acts of honor, like maintaining super-self-control or "doing one's duty" or going down with the ship. Nothing is gained by going down with the ship; it's a hyper-introverted act aimed at providing a rationalization for one's goodness without regard to real-world consequences. Nearly all of these tertiary-Fi acts involve refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something. They're a retreat from the world--or rather, a rationalization for disregarding worldly matters.

 

[Totenkindly]

At that level, I don't think the Ni/Si dominance will be decisive. Here are the excerpts from Lenore Thomson’s Wiki page:

Fudge, I'll have to go there again... and dig out my copy of her book -- I forgot she might have covered all this. Thanks for the quotes. (FWIW, I'm not sure that Ni/Si would prove distinctive either.)

 

[Athenian200]

Fudge, I'll have to go there again... and dig out my copy of her book -- I forgot she might have covered all this. Thanks for the quotes. (FWIW, I'm not sure that Ni/Si would prove distinctive either.)

It might well be the inferior that changes it. But since Ni and Si view the world so differently, I personally think even the tertiary function is bound to be used differently. I think many ISFJ's use their Ti in a more concrete way than I do (When/if I use it).

But tell us if you find anything insightful in that book.

 

["?"]

It might be the inferior that changes it. But since Ni and Si view the world so differently, I think even the tertiary function is bound to be used differently. I think many ISFJ's use their Ti in a more concrete way than I do (When/if I use it).

Which is the reason that I did not quote Butts from typelogic. MBTI and Jung are adamant that you can only use one attitude at a time, therefore you cannot introvert two functions simultaneously.

If you are at the teritiary level, then there are several introverted functions that may or may not be used before you reach back to the dominant function (for example: INTJ= Ni, Si, Ti, Fi), regardless of the speed of disintegration to that level. It would seem logical that Ni and Si would come from two different perspectives, coloring the perception of Ti or Fi when a type goes to the teritiary level. Then again, and I would agree that neither would make a difference at that level. Ergo all ITJs and all IFJs would look similar.

 

[RDF]

Well, I would say that the first few parts sound like more like Fi to me, but I think we need an INFP to tell us more. I think that last one might be more related to inferior Se under stress, though.

I'm probably much weaker on functional analysis than many here. But that never stops me from giving my opinion.

I tend to think that the Dominant and Auxiliary functions are the main players, and the rest are all kind of a haze that are at various stages of development or non-development. The Tertiary function in particular comes out and becomes a big player at times of stress or conflict; for example the Joe Butts definitions of tertiary Ti and Fi that are cited in ?'s post strike me as use of Ti and Fi under stress and conflict. But otherwise, the unstressed use of the Tertiary function remains as hazy and negligible as the other lower functions. Thus I would class the Tertiary function as just one more of the generally hazy non-playing functions (on a daily unstressed basis).

As a result, I tend to think that all our normal, unstressed reactions to things come largely from our Dominant and Auxiliary functions. Input from lower-level functions comes largely in the form of good habits we've developed (for example, cultivating habits of Fe social politeness) or specific talents we've developed (for example, deliberately developed Si data-gathering skills).

I have always been a little confused between Ti and Fi behavior in some circumstances.

For example, what you describe is something I feel too -- but to me it tends to be intellectualized. I see it merely as a matter of consistency and logic, that things have to be uniform and coherent... including my character. I remember when I was a teenager and just thought Fe stuff was completely stupid, even though I did not want to stir up trouble; to me, it was inconsistent to show one thing but believe another inside, and I hated it.

So it seems to me that either Fi is much broader in scope, or that Ti can mimic Fi, just in more impersonal ways. But how can I compare my subjective internal experience to yours, and thus determine that yours was more personal/Fi and mine was more impersonal/Ti? I don't know the answer to that.

In this case, I would say that all people have a visceral reaction to the contrast between sincerity and insincerity, the same way that all people have a visceral reaction to the contrast between love and hate or the contrast between acceptance and rejection. Those things get drilled into us in early childhood as part of routine socialization, probably even before most of the individual MBTI functions develop. The only difference is how the individual chooses to express that reaction as adults. For example, an INFP will react to insincerity via Fi, while the INTP will react to insincerity via Ti. That is, presumably the underlying visceral reaction is the same in both cases, but the INFP will choose to express his reaction in emotional terms whereas the INTP disregards the emotional channel and evaluates and expresses via an intellectual channel.

INxJs might be a slightly different case. The dominant function for INTPs and INFPs is a Judging function, whereas the dominant function for INxJs is a Perceiving function (Ni). If INxJs have a strong reaction to insincerity on the level of a "Judgment," then it may indicate that they are reacting to the insincerity via their Auxiliary (Judging) function (Fe in INFJs and Te in INTJs). For example, in their dealings with other people, if they spot insincerity in another person they react with an instant dislike for that person. (Meanwhile their Perceiving Ni might see insincerity as just a factor to be evaluated in internal evaluations.) But that is speculation on my part, since I'm not an INxJ.

Getting back to the Tertiary function: I would write off the Tertiary function as a contributor to feelings about insincerity (except under conditions of conflict and stress). I don't think people need to go searching out Fi in oneself in the lower functions in order to dislike insincerity. All of us, regardless of type, seem to be able to recognize right vs. wrong and even react strongly to it, as a result of basic socialization when we are growing up. IMO, our functions don't have anything to do with recognizing right vs. wrong; instead, they only reflect how we react to right vs. wrong. And a good interaction between the Dominant and Auxiliary functions will give us all the tools we need for that. IOW, there's no particular reason to delve past our Dominant and Auxiliary functions except where specific skills are demanded by the environment or we desire to develop those skills ourselves.

To expand on that last point: For most cases, it seems to me that a good interaction between the Dominant and Auxiliary functions will 1) give all of us adequate doorways to both the inner and outer worlds; 2) give all of us both a Judging function and a Perceiving function with which to carry out the full cycle of evaluation and decision; 3) and as a result, give all of us a couple different ways (J and P) to react to and express the internalized, universal evaluations of right and wrong that were drilled into us as a result of basic socialization when we are growing up. After all that, skills coming from the lower functions are just icing on the cake--they are supplementary tools that we can develop or not, depending on our environment and personal needs.

Don't ask me to prove all this; I can't. I'm just kind of throwing this out as anecdotal experience. (Athenian200 asked for INFP input on Fi, and I got thinking about it.) This is just my own evaluation of how I myself use my Dominant and Auxiliary functions, as opposed to how I've developed individual skills from my lower functions. And my Tertiary function (Si in INFPs) seems to fall in with the lower functions, in that the unstressed use of the Tertiary function is simply one more skill to be developed, and then turned on and off as needed. (In practice, I certainly don't see Si data-gathering as part of my natural, visceral reaction to anything except stress and conflict.)

 

[Athenian200]

FineLine: That was an interesting generalized view about the functional positions, and I thank you for being so detailed. But you didn't describe how you experience Fi, and I think that might be particularly helpful. We're analyzing things against a particular idea/theory here for the sake of discussion, and while it may or may not be right, we want the input regardless so we can each see if the correlation makes sense to us, and decide for ourselves if there's a connection or not.

 

["?"]

I was just thinking of these two posts, and they started me thinking about INxJ tertiary functions, and how they typically manifest. I think that due to the dominant Ni, they might manifest slightly more than in other types (although this may actually be applicable to any type with a dominant perceiving function). While I think I understand how Fi manifests in INTJ's and will attempt to describe it here, I want to hear some outside opinions.

I was too busy to respond to this initially, but I have not read some basic principles that may need to be considered first. I think that we can agree that all eight functions are used within each type, not just four as some claim. Secondly, does this entire dialogue not depend on whose function theory you prescribe to? Lenore Thomson says that the weakest and next to weakest functions cannot be developed, therefore a futile gesture. However, tertiary in itself means third place. So, one’s tertiary should be easily developed, since it will be ahead of five other functions.

The question remains, whose theory you prescribe to. For INFJ for example, Lenore Thomson believes the function order goes something like this Ni-Fe-Si-Te-Fi-Ne-Ti-Se. Thus, the teritiary function would be introverted sensing (Si) and the weakest function Se. Ti would be next to the weakest function, therefore almost non-existent. However since Ni and Ti are almost identical in usage, Ni would not be that important. Similarly, since Se and Te are very closely related in usage, then Se would not be as important for the INFJ type. On the other hand, John Beebe says that the order for INFJ is Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si, putting Ti in third as teritiary and having Te and Si as almost non-existent. Since Jung says that the weakest function will be the opposite of the dominant, two arguments can be made for either side. Jung either meant literally opposite in both function and attitude or he may have referred to the fact that it’s opposite in function, however since you cannot extravert or introvert two functions simultaneously, the true opposite will be of the same attitude.

In the end, is the actual teritiary function the third function, as defined or is it the next to last type function. Either way for the INFJ, the teritiary may be Si or Ti based on that assumption , or Te/Ti based on it being next to last.

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say Beebe's theory. And we are also assuming that all types have all functions, but that only four are normally being used consciously, while the other four are usually used by the unconscious to supplement (but may with development be used in a limited way consciously, or else be compensated for by the other conscious functions).

In my case, for instance, I know I have Fe, but I might not have Fi directly. I mostly determine my emotional state via external rules and ideas. I may have Fi unconsciously, but I think I have to rely on input from my Ni insights, Ti analysis, and reflected Fe to determine what it is. In other words, I sort of have to use other people as emotional "mirrors" to see my own emotions. I can even infer my current state by noticing trends in how I perceive other's emotions. If my initial perceptions of them seems to be skewed more one way than it was at a previous time in a similar situation, I know the difference is my own feelings being reflected back. My stronger awareness is of what other people should be feeling in a given situation, based on certain rules and ideas, however. So my feeling is directed outward, but it's easily reflected back and analyzed.

 

[Totenkindly]

Hi, Fineline... I didn't even know you were here, until your "driveby posting."

Clarifying something about Si -- which is that it seems more to be the internalized stable "inner map" that can be used to provide clarity when the outer world of data becomes too confusing to deal with.

So for INxP, it seems that the stress point would drive us back away from the chaos of Ne perception to the inner picture that we've developed over a lifetime of what the world supposedly is like, what our priorities are, what gives us focus and lets us ignore enough of the outer stimulation in order to cope.

Si as a Tertiary would seem to be the entrenched point where we just throw our hands in the air, dig in, and say, "I am not moving from this stance" whether or not it is completely sensible or matches with all of the Ne patterns/data floating around or is even logical (Ti/Fi) per se.

Used maturely, it would seem to be more of an "anchor" point where we can retreat during times of unavoidable chaos, where we find ourselves questioning everything and just need to get a focus on things.

So mature Si allows itself to be examined and updated, even while providing an anchor; immature Si is just thrown up as a defensive shield, to keep out input we do not personally like or don't want to deal with, and is calcified.

 

[RDF]

FineLine: That was an interesting generalized view about the functional positions, and I thank you for being so detailed. But you didn't describe how you experience Fi, and I think that might be particularly helpful. We're analyzing things against a particular idea/theory here for the sake of discussion, and while it may or may not be right, we want the input regardless so we can each see if the correlation makes sense to us, and decide for ourselves if there's a connection or not.

Okey-doke.

As a rule, Fi judgments are rooted deep. In a sense, I can practically remember back to when those moral imperatives were beaten or guilted into me as a child, and they still retain the sense or the power of being imposed from an indisputable source of rightness (an angry parent, teachers, etc.). As such, it's easy to dig in my heels when acting on them, because they feel so incontrovertible that it seems like their rightness should be recognized by the rest of the world as well, as soon as I point them out.

On the other hand, I'm older now and I've learned to trust my Fi judgments as far as I can throw them. Especially in society, Fe rules seem to hold more sway. Also, Fi judgments are largely just morals, and morals depend on the context and the environment. (When in Rome...).

So my Fi has been ground down and sanded down to the point that I'm honestly not all that bothered by insincerity (talking behind people's backs) when I encounter it. As sins go, it's a fairly negligible one. Basically, I've learned not to judge other people. I still judge myself in some ways. But other people--not so much anymore. (And not even myself all that much these days. )

That's actually normal progress for an INFP. As we grow up, we learn that the world doesn't operate by our rules and we increasingly cease to judge the world and instead apply our Fi only to ourselves and our own actions. Later in life, to the extent that we increasingly recognize ourselves as part of the world, we don't even apply our judgments to ourselves.

In other words, Fi is something of a moving target in INFPs.

So if you want a "purer" version of how Fi reacts to insincerity, you should probably hear from a younger INFP or ISFP. As I get older, Fi isn't such a strong influence in my life. I accept input from my Fi, but always with a truckload of salt. As a corrective to what I see as a frequently faulty Fi, I try to find other prisms (functions) within myself through which to see things, in order to find more ways to evaluate and judge.

 

[Totenkindly]

...Later in life, to the extent that we increasingly recognize ourselves as part of the world, we don't even apply our judgments to ourselves.

So how does Fi actually act in an older INFP type, specifically? What tangible purpose does it serve; how is it recognized? (I'm all a-curious now. )

 

[RDF]

Hi, Fineline... I didn't even know you were here, until your "driveby posting."

Clarifying something about Si -- which is that it seems more to be the internalized stable "inner map" that can be used to provide clarity when the outer world of data becomes too confusing to deal with.

So for INxP, it seems that the stress point would drive us back away from the chaos of Ne perception to the inner picture that we've developed over a lifetime of what the world supposedly is like, what our priorities are, what gives us focus and lets us ignore enough of the outer stimulation in order to cope.

Si as a Tertiary would seem to be the entrenched point where we just throw our hands in the air, dig in, and say, "I am not moving from this stance" whether or not it is completely sensible or matches with all of the Ne patterns/data floating around or is even logical (Ti/Fi) per se.

Used maturely, it would seem to be more of an "anchor" point where we can retreat during times of unavoidable chaos, where we find ourselves questioning everything and just need to get a focus on things.

So mature Si allows itself to be examined and updated, even while providing an anchor; immature Si is just thrown up as a defensive shield, to keep out input we do not personally like or don't want to deal with, and is calcified.

Fair enough. That's much more comprehensive than mere "data-gathering" as I described it. Nonetheless, I would still perceive Si as something I do under stress and not much at all in unstressed conditions.

Here's the full definition of unstressed Si from CognitiveProcesses.com:

Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference--for example, noticing that some food doesn't taste the same or is saltier than it usually is. Introverted Sensing is also operating when we see someone who reminds us of someone else. Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, our body responds as if reliving the experience. The process also involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience. With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen. There can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture and protect what is known and long-lasting, even while what is reliable changes.

As an unstressed function, I can recognize some parts of it. To the extent that Si involves comparisons with the past, Fi also spends a lot of time in the past. But as a rule, Fi tends to extract emotional data rather than sensory data. Fi is fairly oblivious to sensory data, so I don't have a big past store of sensory data from the past to delve into.

I don't even remember facts, faces, etc. very well at all. INFPs traditionally seem to have a diffuse, global memory rather than detail-oriented one. As a result, I develop lots of research, organizational, and storage tools to support me at work rather than bother trying to remember facts and numbers myself. I've learned not to trust my memory for anything. I even forget my own phone number on a regular basis, even though I call it daily to talk to my wife. [Edit:] And I always dial. I never program anything into speed-dial, because that way I'll forget it permanently and won't know it when I use a strange phone.

As for deliberately trying to develop a good unstressed Si, I've played around with paying more attention to sensory data in the present and then trying to remember it by placing myself in the past in a sensory way. But it's tough. It sure doesn't come natural.

At least, that's my quick evaluation of it.

 

["?"]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say Beebe's theory. And we are also assuming that all types have all functions, but that only four are normally being used consciously, while the other four are usually used by the unconscious to supplement (but may with development be used in a limited way consciously, or else be compensated for by the other conscious functions).

I have always sided with Thomson's theory, but Beebe's does make more sense in it's application, for all of the reasons that you list. This is how I see them in myself as an ISTP:

1. Ti - Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision. Analyzing your options using principles like comfort or or “Red is a power color.”
2. Se - Experiencing the immediate context; taking action in the physical world; noticing changes and opportunities for action; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing “what is.” Noticing what was available, trying on different items, and seeing how they look.
3. Ni - Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols. Envisioning yourself in an outfit or maybe envisioning yourself being a certain way.
4. Fe - Connecting; considering others and the group—organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting to and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others. Considering what would be appropriate for the situation: “One should or shouldn’t wear…” or “People will think…”

Little or no use:

Te - Segmenting; organizing for efficiency; systematizing; applying logic; structuring; checking for consequences; monitoring for standards or specifications being met; setting boundaries, guidelines, and parameters; deciding if something is working or not. Sorting out different colors and styles; thinking about the consequences, as in “Since I have to stand all day…”

Si - Reviewing past experiences; “what is” evoking “what was”; seeking detailed information and links to what is known; recalling stored impressions; accumulating data; recognizing the way things have always been. Remembering the last time you wore a particular item or the last time you were at a similar event—maybe even remembering how you felt then.

Ne - Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts. Noticing the possible meanings of what you might wear: “Wearing this might communicate…”

Fi - Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for. Evaluating whether you like an outfit or not: “This outfit suits me and feels right.”

 

[RDF]

So how does Fi actually act in an older INFP type, specifically? What tangible purpose does it serve; how is it recognized? (I'm all a-curious now. )

I still get input from Fi. But like I say, I don't particularly trust it.

In general:

Let's take the case where I see an iNtuitive disparaging Sensors; my Fi may tell me that he is being mean to Sensors, but I won't take action on that alone. I'll do a back-up check by researching what the professional MBTI community says about using type to disparage people. If my Fi coincides with what the MBTI scientific community says, then and only then I'll feel that I can indulge a little Fi crusading.

Personally:

At my time in life, one particularly prominent aspect of dealing with Fi on a personal basis is the game of coming up with ways to avoid guilt. Like I said, I still get input from Fi, largely in the form of feeling guilty about things: Am I "green" enough? Should I be worried about global warming/politics/the homeless, etc.? Can I take short-cuts at work, or do I always have to deliver 110 percent? What happens when I get caught between obligations to bosses and subordinates at work? Should I feel bad about being gruff toward a cashier in a store? Should I stop for the fellow on the road with a flat tire? And so on.)

But I'm a pretty busy fellow, and I don't have time to live like a saint. So I work through the guilt in various ways (depending on the nature of the activity and the nature of the guilt). I tell myself there are other (external) ways to measure behavior--what's legal vs. illegal, when in Rome make like a Roman, [Edit:] using established, impersonal administrative procedures to deal with issues in the workplace rather than crusading on the basis of personal sentiment about the parties involved, etc. Frankly, I treat a lot of the signals coming up from Fi as static and white noise. I find that if I ignore the signals long enough on a particular issue, they go away after a while.

That's not the entirety of how Fi affects me personally, but it's a good example of what I meant by ducking the judgments coming from Fi.

[Edit:] To me, it's just a question of shifting priorities. A similar case might be where an INTP spends the first part of his life devoted to work and intellectual pursuits. But at a later stage of life, he may start questioning his priorities and begin putting more time into family and social pursuits, deliberately tuning out a natural inclination to retire to the study and play with numbers in his free time. I don't know if that's a direct parallel, but sometimes we make big life changes and deliberately choose to tune out the signals we thought so important earlier in life.