Erasing Beliefs From Fi

[Thalassa]

Since you already formed a close friendship with your lesbian teacher, I would recommend that you at least watch some films with homosexual characters, and use your Fi to relate to the characters (I read that horror movies bother you in a another thread...so I was thinking that watching films impacts you emotionally, naturally) and then maybe your Fi will build more "gut level" empathy toward homosexuals if you relate to them - even through the context of watching films or reading novels - so that you can stop perceiving them as the "other."

I also agree with Jennifer saying that this sounds more like Fe than Fi...

 

[Jeffster]

Read my first post. It mentioned how I have had conflicting values in the past, and still do.

I think you're putting words in my mouth.

I did read the first post. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking questions to try to understand, because I'm not following what led you to want to "erase" your beliefs. Is it because a lot of people don't agree with them? Or because you have truly come to new or different conclusions about them? Because if the latter were true, it would seem as if the "erasing" would have already been done. That's the part that is confusing to me.

By the way, I find the suggestions about "watching movies with homosexual characters to try to relate to them" to be really silly and ridiculous. Or the statements that homosexuality is something akin to being blonde or brunette. That's a really astounding oversimplification.

 

[Ginkgo]

I did read the first post. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking questions to try to understand, because I'm not following what led you to want to "erase" your beliefs. Is it because a lot of people don't agree with them? Or because you have truly come to new or different conclusions about them? Because if the latter were true, it would seem as if the "erasing" would have already been done. That's the part that is confusing to me.

Well, I think my gut reaction stemmed from a belief that is no longer there. However, I want to get rid of it because my current beliefs over-rule my previous beliefs. I hope that makes sense.

By the way, I find the suggestions about "watching movies with homosexual characters to try to relate to them" to be really silly and ridiculous. Or the statements that homosexuality is something akin to being blonde or brunette. That's a really astounding oversimplification.

Yeah, an error in tact, I admit.

 

[Ginkgo]

Since you already formed a close friendship with your lesbian teacher, I would recommend that you at least watch some films with homosexual characters, and use your Fi to relate to the characters (I read that horror movies bother you in a another thread...so I was thinking that watching films impacts you emotionally, naturally) and then maybe your Fi will build more "gut level" empathy toward homosexuals if you relate to them - even through the context of watching films or reading novels - so that you can stop perceiving them as the "other."

I also agree with Jennifer saying that this sounds more like Fe than Fi...

This is what I was thinking. Did you have any specific suggestions? I still haven't seen Brokeback Mountain...

 

[Eric B]

I don't know exaclt what you mean, but from what it appears to be, its not relevant to anything that I said. Deductive reasoning is the most effective way to notice inconsistency in patterns. That is the most closely associated with the Thinking type than any other. The INTP by definition relies heavily on Thinking, the INFP does not. Hence, the INTP is more likely to have the Thinking skill than the INFP. Because of the skill in question, here or she will notice inconsistency in patterns.

This of course is not to say that the INFP cannot be good at Thinking and therefore notice inconsistencies in patterns. Temperament is not personality. A temperament is a mere solidified unconscious disposition. If one is a dominant Thinking type, it is simply quite natural for him to use Thinking (and therefore develop the skills associated with this function). If one is a Feeling type on the other hand, Thinking is the most supressed function, hence it is much less natural for such a person to use that function. Therefore the Feeling type is much less likely to have the Thinking skills that are necessary to notice inconsistency.

Surely, however, with great discipline he may learn to use this function adequately and thereby cultivate the relevant skills to notice inconsistencies in patterns.

What I was talking about was that Mystic asked about moral inconsistencies such as hypocrisy. In Linda Berens' and the Hartzlers' books at least, this is known as "evaluating congruence". (like whether one's actions line up with beliefs).
Though it's true that the line becomes fuzzy when trying to determine whether the standard being judged by is really logic or ethics, and they can both mimic each other, apparently.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't know exaclt what you mean, but from what it appears to be, its not relevant to anything that I said. Deductive reasoning is the most effective way to notice inconsistency in patterns. That is the most closely associated with the Thinking type than any other. The INTP by definition relies heavily on Thinking, the INFP does not. Hence, the INTP is more likely to have the Thinking skill than the INFP. Because of the skill in question, here or she will notice inconsistency in patterns.

Are we even talking efficiency here?
Or what is better?

I'm not sure I even agree with you about what is "most effective."

Sometimes linear logical deduction is most effective.
Other times you can just look at something and know it's "off."

With the former, you get more detail on why it might be off, but there's a chance you'll miss the forest for the trees. For the latter, you'll sense something is off (because of incongruence) long before Little Mr. Logical Deductor will slowly work his way to the source of the problem.

And... if you can meld the two together... now there you have a great inconsistency sniffer.

INTPs are great at noting inconsistencies in argument and context as very specific points of logic ("that did not make sense"). INFPs get pretty good vibes off people ('they're not being sincere, they are being duplicitous in some way") because there are inconsistencies in the pattern of that person's projected personality.

As Eric suggests, this is partly the "moral consistency" thing. Once Ti understands a pattern, it can sync up to it, but the impersonality of Ti seems to deaden it without training to immediately jumping into another moral framework, whereas Fi seems bent on moral frameworks as the point of contact between individuals (rather than the informative impersonal analysis).

Read my first post. It mentioned how I have had conflicting values in the past, and still do. I think you're putting words in my mouth.

I don't know if this helps, and it doesn't describe you per se, but I once heard of a lady who ministered to homosexuals out of her religious conviction. All of her life, she had had a visceral repulsion to gay people -- thoughts of the homosexual act literally left her feeling ill - but she chose out of moral conviction to minister to them as people. I don't know if her physical response diminished over time. And it happens; sometimes we have literal physical and/or gut-level responses to certain thoughts or behaviors, even if our conscious moral choices are far different.

This is what I was thinking. Did you have any specific suggestions? I still haven't seen Brokeback Mountain...

heh. Brokeback was a good movie but I don't think it really presented much of a "model relationship" per se, it was meant to highlight the social stresses of being gay in a repressive culture and imposed masculinity and was about as dysfunctional in some ways as they come. There was the lesbian relationship in "The Hours" (the Meryl Streep couple) that was actually pretty mature.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Other times you can just look at something and know it's "off." .

I do not know reliable this 'looking at something and knowing its off method' is. Such an activity is merely tantamount to trusting an instinct. Can you be sure that your instinct will not steer you wrong? Your ancestors spent thousands of years avoiding things and people who may harm them, however, our circumstances are different from that of our ancestors. Having the physiological constitution that they have passed down to us may be inadequate for the circumstances that surround us.

This of course does not show that trusting an instinct is always inadequate. It is possible for one to teach him or herself a certain skill and after continuous practice that person will be able to use the skills in question without thinking about them. He simply will have an instinct to behave in a certain way and because of his great mastery of the skill, he should be unlikely to make mistakes.

Perhaps if you are very experienced dealing with people and know very well what benign persons are like and how they differ from the wicked, you should have an instinct that informs you of the level of virtue of the person that you are dealing with. However, in this case, we do not know exactly what method we are using to differentiate a benign individual from a malevolent one. It may be based on a very reliable and a rigorous method, however, that seems doubtful to me. No science or a precise calculus has been developed to assess the motives and character of people. Psychology and Sociology are not nearly as advanced as Physics and Chemistry are. Even if they were, people who trust their instincts are rarely informed by psychology and sociology and today we learn more about human personality from novels than from sciences.

In short, my point is that its simply naive to assume that what is called 'our intuitions about people' allow us to spot inconsistencies in human behavior just as successfully as logical analysis would. Surely the intuitive method is quicker than that of deductive reasoning, but not nearly as reliable. For this reason, I am not prepared to concede that the intuitive method is more efficient with respect to understanding people than that of logical reasoning. Efficiency has two components; attaining accurate results and doing so quickly. The intuitive method does not satisfy the former item of the criteria.



Trivial note: A person who notices flaws in character by virtue of the intuitive method is not noticing an inconsistency, he or she is merely entertaining an intuition that something may be wrong with the person that they are dealing with. Even if you do prove that the intuitive method is more reliable, you have not refuted my thesis that only Thinking spots inconsistencies.

Your views on the matter were interesting, yet irrelevant to the discussion that I have started with Eric.

The question that I have for you is, if one is not using deductive reasoning to notice inconsistencies, what method is he or she using to do so? At this point, I cannot imagine how one can observe inconsistencies by reasoning intuitively and not logically. (An intuition is merely a feeling that something is either good or bad, as far as I know.) Perhaps you should explain that more clearly. Maybe we do not have the same definition of intuition.

 

[Orangey]

Hmmm...deductive reasoning deals with propositions. But say person A tells his congregation that watching pornography is bad. Then a few weeks later, one of the members of the congregation sees person A buying pornography at an adult video store. In this example the inconsistency is not between two propositions, but between words and deeds. This type of "inconsistency" does not fall under the purview of deductive logic.

I think the trouble here is with the word "inconsistency" itself. If we take it to mean something strictly technical, then no, as SW said, it would not be correct to describe the mismatch between a person's stated ethics and their actions as "inconsistent." But I think that most people in this thread who have used the word meant it in a much looser sense. Eric B gave a good alternative word when he mentioned "incongruity." Detecting incongruity between a person's words and deeds is not a logical activity.

 

[Thalassa]

By the way, I find the suggestions about "watching movies with homosexual characters to try to relate to them" to be really silly and ridiculous.

That's because you aren't an NF.

People learn through literature and film. They learn about their own humanity and the humanity of others through quality film and real literature. True literature and powerful film engage us on an intellectual and emotional level which can open our eyes to other ways of being - whether that be the experience of someone in a different country, of a different religion, of a different sexual preference, etc.

Novels, in particular, can make a profound impact upon people because they can relate to the main characters or narrator on such an intensely personal level. Some people also have this experience with film ... including my ISFP ex boyfriend, who may be more borderline N than you are, perhaps?....and they have profound ephiphanies through art. Art touches people. I'm not suggesting that Mystic Tater watch some cheap, box office film that stereotypes gays, not at all. I'm suggesting he watches films that centralize around homosexual characters, hopefully with homosexual writers and/or directors, so that he can relate to homosexuals on the level of being human who feel and experience things just like he does.

Mystic Tator feels pain when he watches horror movies. This made me think that quality film would be a good medium for him to have an emotionally profound experience in relation to art (a "safe space") to help recover his beliefs. Of course he should also be around REAL homosexuals too, but films are a place to start.

 

[Thalassa]

This is what I was thinking. Did you have any specific suggestions? I still haven't seen Brokeback Mountain...

Beautiful Thing (gay teens)

Maurice (historical pic, early 1900's, based upon a true story)

All Over Me (lesbian)

Gia (lesbian, true story)

High Art (lesbian)

Big Eden (gay love in a small town)

My Beautiful Laundrette (gay issues amongst other subplots)

The Birdcage (maybe a bit cliche, but such a good comedy)

Tipping the Velvet (the novel is even better than the film, Victorian lesbian drama)

Transamerica (deals more with transgender issues)

Henry and June (bisexuality, based upon a true story)

But I'm a Cheerleader (independent dark comedy about a Christian camp intended to convert gay teens)

 

[Wonkavision]

Ever since I was a child, I have held certain moral convictions that were instilled in me from an unnamed outside source. Erm... . Hint Hint.

Some of these convictions are good, while others I know are bad. However, many of the bad convictions are still there, and I have to let my Ne override them when they are violated. I would elaborate, but I don't want to offend anyone.

So, how might one go about erasing beliefs from Fi?

Another question: Has anyone else who is a dominant Fi user had to face contradictory convictions? I have had this happen to me, and it felt like my brain was being ripped apart.

I can relate a little, but I am a secondary Fi user.


My wife is an INFP, and she reports exactly the same experiences you are describing.


As far as erasing beliefs from Fi---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but if you'll allow me to take a guess, I'll put it this way:

You want to "separate the wheat from the chaff", so to speak---to decide which beliefs you want to keep and which ones you want to reject, right?

I've seen the effect that absorbing religious doctrine has had on my wife, and though some of it's good, some of it really ain't too pretty.

She hangs onto some beliefs that she isn't comfortable with, just in case they're right, but it constantly plagues her, and she feels an excessive amount of guilt.

It's probably scary to let some of it go, because it has been programmed, to some extent, into you by both fear-mongering and subtle suggestion.

I think the key is to decide which beliefs you really agree with, and which ones you're holding onto "just in case."

That may sound overly simple, but I empathize with you, and I don't mean to imply that it's easy.

But in the end, it does you no good to hang onto those "just in case"-type of beliefs.

First, determine which ones are your core beliefs, then slowly, at your own pace, take a close look at the other ones.

It may help to make lists, and to take some time to study multiple views on the particular beliefs that plague you.

I hope this helps, and I'll ask my wife if she has anything to suggest.

I feel for you, my Brotha.

On another note, it has been said that INTPs are excellent at seeing factual inconsistencies. By the same logic, does that mean that INFPs are excellent at seeing moral inconsistencies? If so, what functions are at work?

I, myself, can see hypocrisy a mile away. It shines brightly unto me like a shining star.

 

[Ginkgo]

I can relate a little, but I am a secondary Fi user.


My wife is an INFP, and she reports exactly the same experiences you are describing.


As far as erasing beliefs from Fi---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but if you'll allow me to take a guess, I'll put it this way:

You want to "separate the wheat from the chaff", so to speak---to decide which beliefs you want to keep and which ones you want to reject, right?

I've seen the effect that absorbing religious doctrine has had on my wife, and though some of it's good, some of it really ain't too pretty.

She hangs onto some beliefs that she isn't comfortable with, just in case they're right, but it constantly plagues her, and she feels an excessive amount of guilt.

It's probably scary to let some of it go, because it has been programmed, to some extent, into you by both fear-mongering and subtle suggestion.

I think the key is to decide which beliefs you really agree with, and which ones you're holding onto "just in case."

That may sound overly simple, but I empathize with you, and I don't mean to imply that it's easy.

But in the end, it does you no good to hang onto those "just in case"-type of beliefs.

First, determine which ones are your core beliefs, then slowly, at your own pace, take a close look at the other ones.

It may help to make lists, and to take some time to study multiple views on the particular beliefs that plague you.

I hope this helps, and I'll ask my wife if she has anything to suggest.

I feel for you, my Brotha.

Thank you Wonka. You understand completely.

I see what you are implying with the "just in case" beliefs, but there is no "just in case" for me at this point. I have separated myself from all religious doctrine, therefore these feelings must be a horrible side-effect.

I must say that I was experiencing heavy apprehension toward making this thread, because I didn't want to offend anyone.

 

[Ginkgo]

Beautiful Thing (gay teens)

Maurice (historical pic, early 1900's, based upon a true story)

All Over Me (lesbian)

Gia (lesbian, true story)

High Art (lesbian)

Big Eden (gay love in a small town)

My Beautiful Laundrette (gay issues amongst other subplots)

The Birdcage (maybe a bit cliche, but such a good comedy)

Tipping the Velvet (the novel is even better than the film, Victorian lesbian drama)

Transamerica (deals more with transgender issues)

Henry and June (bisexuality, based upon a true story)

But I'm a Cheerleader (independent dark comedy about a Christian camp intended to convert gay teens)

Thank you marmalade.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Hmmm...deductive reasoning deals with propositions. But say person A tells his congregation that watching pornography is bad. Then a few weeks later, one of the members of the congregation sees person A buying pornography at an adult video store. In this example the inconsistency is not between two propositions, but between words and deeds. This type of "inconsistency" does not fall under the purview of deductive logic.

I think the trouble here is with the word "inconsistency" itself. If we take it to mean something strictly technical, then no, as SW said, it would not be correct to describe the mismatch between a person's stated ethics and their actions as "inconsistent." But I think that most people in this thread who have used the word meant it in a much looser sense. Eric B gave a good alternative word when he mentioned "incongruity." Detecting incongruity between a person's words and deeds is not a logical activity.

One can construct a moral framework where an individual's assertion that something is good requires him to do what he claimed has been good. In other words, when he says that X is good, he is really making two propositions; X is good and I therefore have to do X.

If he only claims that X is good and fails to do X, then in effect he disavows the claim about X.

In a context such as this, deductive reasoning can be used to spot inconsistencies in this respect. However, in a typical moral discourse where the words are defined in a completely conventional manner, no inconsistency occurs when one claims that something is good yet fails to do what he has claimed to be good.

 

[Ginkgo]

One can construct a moral framework where an individual's assertion that something is good requires him to do what he claimed has been good. In other words, when he says that X is good, he is really making two propositions; X is good and I therefore have to do X.

If he only claims that X is good and fails to do X, then in effect he disavows the claim about X.

In a context such as this, deductive reasoning can be used to spot inconsistencies in this respect. However, in a typical moral discourse where the words are defined in a completely conventional manner, no inconsistency occurs when one claims that something is good yet fails to do what he has claimed to be good.

You have a point, but your missing an extroverted component as well. This component is present when I project my image upon others and expect them to act as if I would. I am not sure if this is purely due to Introverted Feeling. Possibly a combination of Fi and Ne.

So, in this respect, I often find myself feeling as if society should have the same moral outlook as I do. Therefore, I can often feel hypocrisy when people don't act in accordance. This behavior is present in many INFPs, including the ones in our avatars. EDIT: Nevermind, I thought that your avatar was a portrait of William Shakespeare.

EDIT: Hypocrisy was a poor word in this context. I implied a concept along the lines of "moral inconsistency".

 

[Orangey]

I think the trouble here is with the word "inconsistency" itself. If we take it to mean something strictly technical, then no, as SW said, it would not be correct to describe the mismatch between a person's stated ethics and their actions as "inconsistent.

However, in a typical moral discourse where the words are defined in a completely conventional manner, no inconsistency occurs when one claims that something is good yet fails to do what he has claimed to be good.

We are saying the same thing. It's a matter of word choice. If we call these typically "hypocritical" acts "inconsistent," then we imply that they are in some way illogical. As you pointed out, unless we have some sort of moral-logical framework, there is no way such acts can be considered illogical.

Yet on some level, perhaps on a practical, day-to-day level, we have a sense that there is something out of place when someone says one thing and then does another. We could call this "incongruity" as Eric B suggested. That way there is no suggestion of irrationality when we say that person A acted incongruously to his professed morals.

 

[Jeffster]

That's because you aren't an NF.

So, if I were an NF, I would believe it's a good thing to submerge yourself in homosexuality? Somehow I doubt all NFs believe that.

People learn through literature and film. They learn about their own humanity and the humanity of others through quality film and real literature. True literature and powerful film engage us on an intellectual and emotional level which can open our eyes to other ways of being - whether that be the experience of someone in a different country, of a different religion, of a different sexual preference, etc.

Obviously you misunderstood my objection. It's not ridiculous because I don't believe this can occur, it's ridiculous to suggest that it is necessary to do this in order to "understand" homosexual people. I'm obviously not opposed to learning, but I don't like the idea of a sort of a self-propagandizing session. My "Fi" has beliefs against THAT!

I'm not suggesting that Mystic Tater watch some cheap, box office film that stereotypes gays, not at all. I'm suggesting he watches films that centralize around homosexual characters, hopefully with homosexual writers and/or directors, so that he can relate to homosexuals on the level of being human who feel and experience things just like he does.

Is that really in doubt, though? Did/does Mystic Tater truly consider people with homosexual desires to be alien beings of some sort? Otherwise, that's pretty silly. Objection to homosexual behavior is not limited to those who think of people who engage in it as some sort of different creature that "feels and experiences things" in some different way.

Of course he should also be around REAL homosexuals too, but films are a place to start.

Why? Why should he do this? Is there some sort of quest to somehow make yourself a "complete" person by being around people of all lifestyles that are foreign to him? While he's at it, should he spend time with a primitive tribal people that believes homosexuals are possessed by demons and are hanged for it? If not, then it is only people that fit your personal idea of what is acceptable that he should try to "be around" for some sort of "intellectual" education?

 

[Thalassa]

So, if I were an NF, I would believe it's a good thing to submerge yourself in homosexuality? Somehow I doubt all NFs believe that.



Obviously you misunderstood my objection. It's not ridiculous because I don't believe this can occur, it's ridiculous to suggest that it is necessary to do this in order to "understand" homosexual people. I'm obviously not opposed to learning, but I don't like the idea of a sort of a self-propagandizing session. My "Fi" has beliefs against THAT!

self-propagandizing? dude, I'm not gay. I'm a woman who likes men. I was trying to help Mystic Tator.

Is that really in doubt, though? Did/does Mystic Tater truly consider people with homosexual desires to be alien beings of some sort? Otherwise, that's pretty silly. Objection to homosexual behavior is not limited to those who think of people who engage in it as some sort of different creature that "feels and experiences things" in some different way.



Why? Why should he do this? Is there some sort of quest to somehow make yourself a "complete" person by being around people of all lifestyles that are foreign to him? While he's at it, should he spend time with a primitive tribal people that believes homosexuals are possessed by demons and are hanged for it? If not, then it is only people that fit your personal idea of what is acceptable that he should try to "be around" for some sort of "intellectual" education?

He should do it BECAUSE HE WANTS TO. I didn't walk up to this thread and say, "hey you should submerge yourself in gay film or literature to become more open-minded." HE WANTS TO. The thread is specifically about him wanting to overcome his emotional aversion to homosexuals, and I was just trying to be helpful.

He wants to educate himself. I was just making suggestions. I really don't know what you're going on about. I didn't walk up to some random person and suggest that they watch gay films.

My personal idea of what's acceptable has nothing to do with it.

 

[Jeffster]

This is one of those times I really believe that stuff about different types speaking different languages.

marmalade, I didn't call you "gay" or say that you came up with the ideas you suggested out of nowhere. I objected to the concept, no matter who was expressing it, and you happened to be the one that replied to me about it. Obviously your personal idea of what's acceptable does have something to do with it. I doubt if Mystic had said he wanted to become a Nazi, you would have come up with film suggestions for good white supremacist messages. Although, I dunno, maybe you would have.

 

[Thalassa]

This is one of those times I really believe that stuff about different types speaking different languages.

marmalade, I didn't call you "gay" or say that you came up with the ideas you suggested out of nowhere. I objected to the concept, no matter who was expressing it, and you happened to be the one that replied to me about it. Obviously your personal idea of what's acceptable does have something to do with it. I doubt if Mystic had said he wanted to become a Nazi, you would have come up with film suggestions for good white supremacist messages. Although, I dunno, maybe you would have.

I understand what you're saying now, and I admit that the Nazi white supremacist film suggestions made me laugh though in reality that would be horrible.

Yes, if I thought that Mystic Tator was right to feel that homosexuality is unacceptable, I surely wouldn't be making film suggestions, you're right about that.

Are you saying that he should feel that way? I'm not arguing, just trying to clarify.