Baffled by Fi

[VagrantFarce]

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Although this thread is still related to the OP, I would like people to know that I'm going to be actively banning people from this thread, beginning with simulatedworld.

SW, you have either started or dominated a handful of threads where any productive discussion about Fi has been pulverized beyond anything useful. You have made your opinion and views glaringly apparent on the matter and anything else at this point is viewed as active trolling, baiting, and antagonizing of other members. For anyone else who decides to jump on the sinking ship you will be consigned to the same watery grave.

Thank you for your cooperation.

The views on Fi that I have expressed in this thread are significantly different from those conveyed in the threads you're referring to.

For one, in this thread no denigrative remark has been made about Fi exclusively let alone people whose temperament is greatly influenced by that function. In general, my commentary was on typology as a whole with no specific emphasis placed on a certain function. One of my claims was that temperaments alone entail no behaviors or personality features which contradicted simulatedworld's conclusion regarding this topic. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone who read my posts could perceive this remark or the theme of the message as antagonistic.

Furthermore, as many other members who have posted in this thread may attest, very little, if any antagonism has occurred in the discussion above.

 

[Eric B]

No, despite what various people who haven't actually read Jung will tell you, having a conscience doesn't necessitate Fi, and Fi users don't have a monopoly on morality. Ti-ers either don't use Fi at all or very rarely tap into it, since doing so requires one to set aside the basic fabric of Ti's decision-making (which Ti-ers very rarely do.)

is just as much of a "conscience" as Fi; its "moral" decisions are just based on an impersonal conception of consistency and congruence instead of actively personal feelings. A Ti+Fe person's morality comes from a combination of this and Fe's observance of externalized moral standards.

I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying this, but the people who claim to use both Fi and Ti regularly have rarely actually read the original source material (Psychological Types) and don't understand that functions are pieces of one's value system from which the worldview is derived--not descriptions of particular actions. It's truly extraordinary how many people on this forum have no idea what they're talking about in this regard.

You'll get people telling you that any time you make a logical/impersonal decision you're using Ti and any time you make an ethical decision you're using Fi, but that's not the case. Jung never definitely said that we do or don't use all eight functions; he said he was uncertain about whether the "shadow functions" are ever truly used, and that if they are, use of them would require tremendous energy and happen very rarely.

So you don't switch between Fi and Ti routinely; you're either Ti+Fe (in which case you derive logic from an internal standard and ethics from an external one) or Fi+Te (in which case you do the opposite.)

Now, as for what Fi actually is, it's a form of introverted Judgment based on personal emotional values which rejects the idea that internal value judgments should be made on an impersonal basis (and therefore flatly contradicts Ti), focusing instead on the user's feelings and what they dictate subjectively about morality and ethics.

Uhh yeah, by a long shot. He invented all the cognitive process labels.

It's truly hilarious to me that like 95% of the forum thinks they use all the functions, but this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what functions actually are.

Again I will stress that "using a function" = being under the influence of a particular type of worldview. It does not = doing some particular action that people of that worldview are usually good at. This is REALLY important.

So "using Ti", for instance, means holding the worldview that logic should be derived from an internal standard of innately consistent natural reason, and that logic exists and maintains its consistency independently of any external variables.

"Using Ti" does not mean, "Durrr I solved a math problem by thinking logically." Fi+Te can solve math problems by thinking logically just as easily; unfortunately, almost everyone on this forum performs function analysis incorrectly by focusing on the action performed instead of the worldview/perspective that motivated the reasoning for that action.

So when I tell an Fi-er, "You don't use Ti", a lot of the time they get upset and won't listen because they think I'm implying that they can't think logically, but that's not at all what I mean--all I mean is that they don't derive logic from a subjective internal standard. Fi-ers use Te to derive logic from objectively verifiable external conditions; "using Ti" or "using Fi" only refers to the ultimate source of your conception of logic/ethics.

Reading Jung will show you that that's not at all what cognitive functions actually are.

Which means they're not actually "using" that function. Doing something that people with that function are good at doesn't mean you're actually using that function. If you're not doing it because you value it innately for its own sake, because it constitutes a crucial piece of your total worldview, you're not using that function--your four regular functions are just doing things that people with functions you don't use are often good at. That's not "using" the other functions at all.

Again Psychological Types makes this pretty clear in explaining the nature of cognitive functions. They are not skill sets; they are value systems. Some skills are frequently associated with some value systems, but using a given skill doesn't automatically imply subscription to the value system commonly associated with it.

What you're saying definitely makes sense, but then you do seem to be treating "the functions" as totally separate things, which is what leads to the very sorts of assumptions your debunking.

The way I understand it (largely from Lenore Thomson's explanations) is that an ego chooses its internal world, and then chooses Thinking as its dominant function. Hence, an "introverted, Thinking type". Since the external world is initially rejected, that explains why you get the earlier belief Seymour mentioned, that all three other functions are in the opposite orientation. But according to Lenore, it is Jung/Beebe's "Puer" complex that orients the Tertiary function to the dominant attitude. The auxiliary and inferior remain opposite, of course.

So, Feeling is rejected or suppressed from his internal world, and the external world is rejected or suppressed for his Thinking. Feeling and the outside orientation end up paired together, hence, when he does need to make a feeling judgment, it will tend to be extraverted.

Looking at it this way makes it easy to see that the "shadows" can come up a lot, because all they are is suppressed functions or orientations. The dominant introverted Thinker will generally turn to his auxiliary Perception when he need to engage the outside world. But there are times when he will directly turn his Thinking outward. This is not a desired situation, but it is often needed to back up his internal judgment. It will also come out and oppose others when the ego's dominant is threatened. So you can see here the beginnings of Beebe's archetype system. Likewise, in even more stress, when Thinking (or the tertiary perception) does not solve the problem, the person may turn his internal world towards Feeling. This will generally be very negative, though at times, it will transform the situation.

The way I explain this,
it is under stress that the normal inhibitions we have to using them are removed, and they erupt in an "emergency" and usually haphazard sort of way.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's a figure of speech. No need to nitpick.

Its not nitpicking, the word choice in the context of this discussion has significant implications. If we are to regard a function as a character, we are attributing personality qualities to types. By doing so, we are giving affirmation to Keirsey's conclusion that a person's type is a significant part of their identity and knowledge of their type can allow us to predict his or her behavior.

Conversely, if we do not regard a function as an entity that has a personality, we are giving sympathy to Bashtavenko's axiom of Principles of Typology; which is that the study of typology is altogether irrelevant to personality theory. In other words, according to such a theory, knowing a person's type tells us very little about their identity. Such an approach opens the door to a purely philosophical analysis of type. A result of this accomplishment is radical: type is reduced to a mere unconscious tendency which represents nothing but a person's habits of mind that are not easily altered by his experiences. As an additional implication of this discovery is that a person of a certain type in one culture will likely have a strikingly different personality from his counterpart who was born and raised in a significantly different cultural climate. Secondly, under certain circumstances, a person will exhibit behaviors that are very different from those associated with his type. For instance, an ISFP may be expected to be laid back and disorganized or so the Neo-Keirseyan theorists would lead us to believe, yet if he or she is to work in a very conservative, corporate environment, this person could well display character qualities that are associated with Te. Altogether, it amounts to a refutation of the conception of type as the essence of an individual's personality.

 

[Night]

The views on Fi that I have expressed in this thread are significantly different from those conveyed in the threads you're referring to.

For one, in this thread no denigrative remark has been made about Fi exclusively let alone people whose temperament is greatly influenced by that function. In general, my commentary was on typology as a whole with no specific emphasis placed on a certain function. One of my claims was that temperaments alone entail no behaviors or personality features which contradicted simulatedworld's conclusion regarding this topic. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone who read my posts could perceive this remark or the theme of the message as antagonistic.

Furthermore, as many other members who have posted in this thread may attest, very little, if any antagonism has occurred in the discussion above.

While I can't speak directly to proteanmix's use of the term, "SW", I think it reasonable to contextually presume that she wasn't referring to you, SolitaryWalker.

Instead, I suspect she was referring to the other "SW": SimulatedWorld.

 

[onemoretime]

You still could conceive of it in materialist terms - Functions are simply common cognitive pathways or procedures at handling the signals sent through our brains. Instead of relating it to egos or other esoteric concepts, it's simply "a person generally uses these particular pathways when interpreting and acting upon information, either based on inborn preference, or response to environmental stimuli".

 

[proteanmix]

The views on Fi that I have expressed in this thread are significantly different from those conveyed in the threads you're referring to.

For one, in this thread no denigrative remark has been made about Fi exclusively let alone people whose temperament is greatly influenced by that function. In general, my commentary was on typology as a whole with no specific emphasis placed on a certain function. One of my claims was that temperaments alone entail no behaviors or personality features which contradicted simulatedworld's conclusion regarding this topic. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone who read my posts could perceive this remark or the theme of the message as antagonistic.

Furthermore, as many other members who have posted in this thread may attest, very little, if any antagonism has occurred in the discussion above.

While I can't speak directly to proteanmix's use of the term, "SW", I think it reasonable to contextually presume that she wasn't referring to you, SolitaryWalker.

Instead, I suspect she was referring to the other "SW": SimulatedWorld.

Yes, SW=simulatedworld, not solitarywalker.

And also I said:

Although this thread is still related to the OP, I would like people to know that I'm going to be actively banning people from this thread, beginning with simulatedworld...

No one has been removed from the thread, but if this thread goes the direction of the other two threads on Fi I will be banning people and Public Enemy #1 has already been selected based on previous behavioral patterns.

Carry on with discussion.

 

[Poki]

The dominant introverted Thinker will generally turn to his auxiliary Perception when he need to engage the outside world. But there are times when he will directly turn his Thinking outward. This is not a desired situation, but it is often needed to back up his internal judgment. It will also come out and oppose others when the ego's dominant is threatened. So you can see here the beginnings of Beebe's archetype system. Likewise, in even more stress, when Thinking (or the tertiary perception) does not solve the problem, the person may turn his internal world towards Feeling. This will generally be very negative, though at times, it will transform the situation.

The way I explain this,
it is under stress that the normal inhibitions we have to using them are removed, and they erupt in an "emergency" and usually haphazard sort of way.

I do this pretty much all the time when others dont understand my decision trying to explain why I do what I do and why I made that decision. Like I am wanting you to point out a hole in my logic so I can fix it.

 

[Night]

You still could conceive of it in materialist terms - Functions are simply common cognitive pathways or procedures at handling the signals sent through our brains. Instead of relating it to egos or other esoteric concepts, it's simply "a person generally uses these particular pathways when interpreting and acting upon information, either based on inborn preference, or response to environmental stimuli".

Physical materialism is probably one of the more 'scientific' ways of connecting Functional Typology to a more rigorous, absolute metric otherwise outside the compass of MBTI.

Yet, does this action violate the scope of MBTI by extending it beyond a philosophical context, into what could be considered an empirical realm?

 

[Poki]

I do this pretty much all the time when others dont understand my decision trying to explain why I do what I do and why I made that decision. Like I am wanting you to point out a hole in my logic so I can fix it.

So to reverse this Fi generally makes decisions based on feelings and when trying to explain or show can turn those feelings outward? I do seem to get the impression that people confuse this outward Fi with Fe. Possibly it makes them feel manipulated and gets tied to Fe and think this person is doing it to get a response as opposed to just Fi turned outward and used to show their internal world.

 

[onemoretime]

Physical materialism is probably one of the more 'scientific' ways of connecting Functional Typology to a more rigorous, absolute metric otherwise outside the compass of MBTI.

Yet, does this action violate the scope of MBTI by extending it beyond a philosophical context, into what could be considered an empirical realm?

I'd say not, more that it provides a starting point for the process of integrating material neurobiochemistry and analogical psychology.

 

[Night]

So to reverse this Fi generally makes decisions based on feelings and when trying to explain or show can turn those feelings outward? I do seem to get the impression that people confuse this outward Fi with Fe. Possibly it makes them feel manipulated and gets tied to Fe and think this person is doing it to get a response as opposed to just Fi turned outward and used to show their internal world.

In what little experience I have with the topic, externalizing Fi will generally manifest in more of a "want" scenario - the user will try to flex understanding to serve a perspective and/or an ideology that benefits his/her particular set of interests (not to necessarily presume a sense of selfishness or shallow emotional range; rather, that the act simply serves to advance a particular set of ideals important to the user).

Externalizing Fe is more a means to advance the particular ideology of a group or community of people, often irrespective of the personal cost it has on the individual Fe user.

 

[Night]

I'd say not, more that it provides a starting point for the process of integrating material neurobiochemistry and analogical psychology.

So, as a general rule, it could be said that certain philosophical pretext provides building blocks for subsequent scientific enquiry.

 

[Little Linguist]

Okay, I'm going to try VERY HARD to avoid sliding into Folk Typology (let's place bets to see if I manage not analyzing my thoughts and feelings by analyzing my actions - DOH!).

What motivates me? Well...let's see. When I get up in the morning, and I don't feel very well (uh, oh, slippery slope of FT sinking in) I think, "Okay, you have to go to work. Stop being a lazy ass. You won't be able to pay your bills. Imagine what your husband would think! You have to be good. Besides, I want respect, and I just can't lie around in bed - that would be irresponsible. Damn, I would love to sleep. But oh well, come on....get....up....now....that's right.....You can do it....Lazybones! Clear your brain! Sit up! Or you'll fall asleep again. That would be bad."

Sometimes, I'll wake up in the middle of the night and be like, "OH MY GOD! I SLEPT IN!!!!!!!! HOLY CRAP.....OH PHEW, it's only 3 a.m. Thank God for that."

Sometimes I will have nightmares that I slept in too late, wake up, and think I actually have. How weird is that?

(Once again, FT, okay, stop that now!)

So, I'm awake. I feel much better. YAY. My thoughts are clearing. Now my thoughts go hoppety-hop-hop-here-hop-there----swim around in that lake, hop over to this lake....And then, I think:

"OKAY. Now, let's go over the schedule of the day, shall we? Okay, first I need to organize this. Then, I need to do that. Next, we have to do that. But first I have to plan that. Now let's brainstorm....Well, A then H then Z then BCDEF then P then Z again then G....Holy shit, how did I get there??? Well, let's see, I have G then it was Z, then P, then FEDCB then Z again, and then....SHIT what was then? Oh, yeah it was....ayyyyyyyyyy...aitch...THEN A. Ahhh, cool I remembered my train of thought backwards. Holy shit what am I thinking now? I was supposed to plan my day!!!! FERK I'll never plan my day if I go on like this, and then my class will be crap, and I'll get fired, and I won't be able to pay my bills, and then I will have to declare bankruptcy and I'll never have a house or kids, and then my husband will divorce me, and I'll have to move back to the States, where I hate it, because the politics is so shitty. Man, I'm so glad I live here....the health care system really sucks in the States, not to mention the economy is going to hell....FERK!!!!!! I'M SUPPOSED TO BE PLANNING MY CLASS DAMN IT!!!!!!! I want this class to be perfect! I want to wow them. Imagine if they clapped afterwards like the other class. That would be SOOO AWESOME. I wonder what they are going to be like today? Will they be good? What if I haven't planned enough. Oh damn it, yes, I think I should plan C then R then S oh, but I also have Z and D..."

*husband comes in and taps me*

*I jump about four feet in the sky*

"Holy SHIT you scared me!!!!!"

"Huh, it's just me...."

"Yeah, but I...oh, never mind."

"Are you okay??? Or do we need to call the doctors?"

"Nah, it's all good."

Go back to thinking:

"Okay, where the hell were we? Oh, yes, planning....BOOM Idea A T R E W Q O S....Damn it, where's a pen and paper when you need one??? Yes, that can lead to this, and this can lead to that, and if that doesn't work, I can always use this!!! Right, and then if that happens, we can do that, and if this happens, we can do that, and...."

"Why are you so serious?"

"Huh?"

"You look grumpy....are you okay?"

"Yeah, I'm just concentrating."

Go back to thinking:

"Damn, why do I always look grumpy when tired? Do I do that often? What do others think? Am I pissing off my husband? What is he thinking right now? I hope he's okay. And what do my students think? Are my students happy with me? Well, they must be. But then they have been looking a bit tired lately. Is it my fault? Am I boring them? Maybe I should try something new. Yes, that would be good. Something new. But what? Well, I have this, or we could try that. Yes, that would make them happy. But what if it doesn't? Well, then we could do this other thing. But that might not go over well, and that would be really crappy if it didn't. I want to make sure they are really happy. Maybe they would even go to my boss and tell her what a good job I did. I hope so. I hope my job is secure, but it should be. And if it isn't, who gives a crap, because I can just get another job because I'm a damn good teacher. But what if I'm not? What if I'm just fooling myself? What if everyone hates me and I am just too stupid to realize it? Oh, come off it, stop being silly, sure they like you! Would the others freaking clap if they didn't like you? Oh phew, true, only shitty groups don't like me, and that's their freaking loss..."

"Aren't you?"

"Huh?"

"You're working until late tonight, aren't you? What's wrong with you today?"

Go back to thinking:

"Sigh. Here we go again. Grumpy moments 'R' us. Damn it, why can't he leave me alone when I'm thinking in the shower. Idiot. Whenever I WANT to spend time with him, he's on the computer, but when I need to think he's all over that. FERK THAT. Go back to bed. Dumbass. Wait a freaking minute, where the hell was I? DAMN IT I GOT DISTRACTED AGAIN. Okay, wait....it....was....um....ohhhhh right, planning my damn class. Will I EVER get a chance to plan this damn class?"

*door slam*

"Oops, someone's pissed. Ay yi yi, what did I do this time? Is he mad at me? Why is he mad at me? What should I do now? Oh ferk. Okay. Well, um....yeah....I guess I really shouldn't have....but I had to....but....WAIT A DAMN MINUTE, I didn't do anything wrong here, but did I? Am I a bad wife? Should I have paid more attention to him? What if he runs off with Kristin or someone because I don't pay enough attention to him? But surely that isn't the case. No, that wouldn't happen because I just....Wait a minute, why am I being so anal retentive today? Oh, yeah. I'm tired. And grumpy. And want to sleep. And can't concentrate. My crazy class. Guess I'll have to wing it again. ***fuzzy feeling in tummy*** Ferk I hate it when I have to wing it. I like to be prepared. Ironically, some of my best classes are great when I am not prepared, but damn it, it makes me nervous, and I hate that feeling. Maybe I should quit. Then I wouldn't have to do the stupid class. OH SHUT UP you're just saying that because you're nervous. You can't QUIT because you do not feel prepared. Isn't that kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water?

OKAY FOCUS....DAMN....IT. Do this! NOW! Okay. Deep breath. So let's go over this again, now, shall we?......."

I hope that didn't sound too neurotic. I'll probably delete it afterwards.

 

[onemoretime]

So, as a general rule, it could be said that certain philosophical pretext provides building blocks for subsequent scientific enquiry.

You have to have a hypothesis to have an experiment, don't you?

 

[Night]

You have to have a hypothesis to have an experiment, don't you?

Absolutely.

Yet, is clinical experimentation possible with the MBTI?

 

[Sniffles]

ROTFL! That's so cute LL. As before I could easily relate to your thinking process(as we established in my blog that one time ) although I'd be throwing in some thoughts related to Existential philosophy mixed in with thoughts about general themes of Far Eastern history.

 

[onemoretime]

Absolutely.

Yet, is clinical experimentation possible with the MBTI?

If you develop a correlation between neurological pathways and Jungian functions, you then begin to develop a means of experimentation.

The starting point is development of that correlation.

 

[Poki]

ROFLMAO, LL should post these more often Would help people tremendously with what goes on in an Fi's mind. I enjoyed that

I can actually picture someone at there desk with there head in there hands utterly lost trying to make right from wrong and wrong from right.

 

[Night]

If you develop a correlation between neurological pathways and Jungian functions, you then begin to develop a means of experimentation.

The starting point is development of that correlation.

I think this is where our positions differ.

With these terms, I don't believe that there's any real way to establish baseline "classic" scientific methodology in analysis.

While we could certainly create and protect certain observations and hypotheses - even make some clinical-sounding predictions, I don't think we could independently introduce things like the blind experimentation or even clinical trials - there just isn't enough objectivity in our Jungian variables.

Absent a falsifiable set of variables, I don't see this getting off the ground.