Baffled by Fi

[Poki]

You've got to keep in mind that neo-Jungian typology contains two distinct definitions of objective. One describes something that is purely physical as opposed to mental, or external to the mind and the other describes something totally different. It describes a simple distance from a person's biases. Only the first definition pertains to the distinctions you've cited, the second does not.

Fe in itself may be objective even when turned inside out, however, when Fe collaborates with an introverted function, a whole new cognitive effect is created: one that is in itself more reminiscent of Fi than Fe. This does not mean that Fe in itself changed, rather in combination with an introverted function, it contributed to a creation of a whole new cognitive entity.

Yes, this cognitive entity is not Fi in the sense that an Fi user explains in regards to putting yourself in their shoes, I have done this before, but you have to know the person to do this accurately which true Fi is good at. Fe turned internal is a judgment of how you think the world is gonna view you. Its not a how would I feel, its a feeling driven by fear and anxiety of how you percieve the outside world is gonna view you. Its our immature shadow, when this occurs I have a world defined and its those close to me, but when its just a vagueness in regards to how everyone views you how would you even start to deepen that into true Fi and pull it into maturity. Or is maturity reached from a different perspective like learning how to only care what certain people think/feel and saying screw everyone else, everyone else is now nothing more than opinions to consider and not worthy.

I think its easier for an inferior Fe to turn it into true Fi then it is for an dominant Fe/Te as the world is who they are obligated to. In the same sense would it just be easier for a inferior Ti to turn Ti into Te?

Hopefully that made some sense.

edit: its not always a fear or anxiety, that was just the easiest example to use.

 

[evilrobot]

Claiming that I use a strictly literalist Jungian interpretation is clearly absurd. Half of solitarywalker's posts in this thread have called me a "folk typologist" for breaking from Jung's method; if there's anyone who's displaying a purist, literalist interpretation of Jung it's clearly solitarywalker, not me.

I’m glad to hear this. Next time I say that people use functions other than their dominant ones, you won’t split hairs over my “misconception” of the word “use” with Jung quotes, since Lenore Thomson puts it the same way throughout her book Personality Type: an Owner’s Manual. To paraphrase Thomson, everyone “uses” all 8 functions at various times, which she describes as “mental processes”, recognizing them as but one dimension of personality. She also goes into how we “use” our alternate or “crow’s nest” functions in support of our top functions (eg, an INTP “using” Fi and Se). Probably SolitaryWalker would disdainfully place Thomson in his Walmart typologist category, but be that as it may, she’s a cut above Keirsey and other pop mbti authors.

With your subjective interpretation of Jung’s model as support, you rigidly assert your opinion that the only correct definition of “use” linked to functions is to designate “worldview” functions, as if that’s the final word on the subject. Yet you protest being labeled a Jung purist and pretend not to have a strong underlying bias (at least when it suits you) against the mbti modifications of Jung’s original typology. You use Jung to give your egocentric assertions authority and then deny doing so, whereas SolitaryWalker is more upfront about his disregard of the mbti system.

Furthermore, if I propose that someone can, for example, possess a mixture of a Ti/Fi “worldview” or “value system”, with one being only slightly dominant, you’ll argue this is impossible, that the two are mutually exclusive, or practically so, in any given person, while parroting Jung quotes and paraphrases. But, again, if called on it, you’ll resist being dubbed a Jung literalist who believes that people are virtually pure function types, and insist that the misunderstanding is my fault for not reading all of your posts (as if you’re constantly upgrading your views about this as you take other people's input into consideration) and/or being advanced enough to understand your intricate, nuanced arguments and Ti semantics.

You spend quite a bit of time on this forum proving how brilliant you are, not to mention pulverizing threads and being “Public enemy #1” in your infantile pursuit of attention. If you’re such a scholar on this topic, how come you’re not using that time to write a book?

*

Here are a few of your quotes on the above to preempt your usual whining over having been misunderstood. I think they should make it clear to anyone reading this that I haven’t misrepresented your views:

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.)

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 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.)

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.

 

[simulatedworld]

The merit of an author's work does not depend on the perspective of his reviewer for legitimation. A work of conceptual integrity would still be a work of conceptual integrity if noone even recognized it as such.A person's certain bias or perspective, as you put it, may prevent him or her from understanding the virtues of a meritorious work, however, this fact alone does not show that the work in question is implausible.

This is a really Ti-oriented position, bolded part especially. It implies that logic exists as a fundamental property of the universe regardless of any external conditions, which is part of what I've been arguing Ti tends to lead people to believe.

If I can provide a sound argument for my view, it does indeed follow that anyone who holds a view contradictory to mine is mistaken.

What if others don't agree that your argument is sound? Who is the ultimate authority on whether a given argument is sound?

Because Jung's work has been regarded as mystical and highly speculative, secondly, the notorious MBTI inkslingers have thoroughly vitiated his scholarly reputation. He is often seen as the grandfather of MBTI. Now, can you even begin to imagine any notion that is perceived as even remotely relevant to such rubbish as taken seriously by genuine scholars?

Well, MBTI was actually taught in my university psychology courses, or at least touched upon as one method of categorizing personality types. So apparently some people in academia do take it seriously. In fact, Jung's typological theories are not really taught in any academic context as far as I know--which doesn't, of course, necessitate that they aren't worth studying, but if you're using "genuine scholars" as evidence, MBTI (unfortunately) gets more attention in academia than does Jungian typology, so perhaps looking at the way academia treats Jung/MBTI/typology is not the best method of judging its validity.

On that note, in Principles of Typology, I have rendered Jung a great service. First of all, I have framed his views in a very systematic as well as a verbally precise manner, thereby giving them their philosophical justification. Secondly, I have extricated his work from the folk typological bilge by showing that his work is not at all similar to that of contempory authors of MBTI books. Thirdly, I have shown how in principle his ideas could be justified by science.

Can you give a precise definition of "folk typology" vs. "genuine typology"?

The fact that scholars have not studied his work carefully does not show that it lacks merit, rather it shows that Jung has been severely misrepresented. In part due to his own rather circumlocutious, vague and unsystematic style of exposition and also due to the low quality work of those who are mistakenly regarded as his successors.

Fair enough, but the distinctions Jung is trying to make regarding the nature of cognition have not yet been explored by science to any degree anywhere nearing complete understanding. If and when neuroscience progresses this far, Jung's ideas on typological categorization may be rendered entirely obsolete.

The trick is observing the words that best display their cognitive habits. Jung was performing the right technique when he was analyzing poetry, philosophy and biographies in his search for type. The MBTI writers were wrong to analyze people's behavior at common-place social gatherings.

So which behaviors are worth studying and which ones aren't? And how do you know the difference?

This is the key term for you to focus on: cognitive behaviors.

Okay, I'd like to hear more about what constitutes a "cognitive behavior" as opposed to any other behavior.

Yes, but this does not mean that his extroverted faculties are working to the extent that they need to be in order to be fully usable. An extroverted cognitive function is by definition stimulated by action rather than passive activity. Merely receiving information will not be enough to ensure that it is engaged to produce its full potential.

So what sort of action must a person be engaged in in order to make full use of his extroverted functions?

Also, isn't it possible that the extroverted functions could be used to some degree, even if not to their full potential, while a person is working in isolation?

A person working on isolation is generally forced to rely on the introverted faculties far more than on the extroverted. Hint: in order to receive information from the outside, you don't need to use an extroverted function. You need to use an extroverted function only to be stimulated to engage in a certain cognitive task from without rather than from within.

Right, I got that much. It just seems to me that even when working in isolation, whatever materials the person has with him (whatever he is working on) could provide enough external stimulation as to make use of his extroverted functions. You say that an extroverted function is defined by "action"; well, what exactly constitutes "action"?

It certainly is ridiculous, I wonder what inspired you to include it in the discussion?

Your implication that extroverted functions cannot be active when a person is working in isolation in combination with your explanation that extroverted functions require external stimuli to operate led me to believe that you don't think such a person is receiving external stimuli.

Observe cognitive tendencies by watching a person's activity where their mind is highly active instead of their mundane daily behaviors. Read their poetry, self-portraits or fantasy essays.

Elaborate more on this point, if you wouldn't mind.

The trouble is that its terribly difficult to sufficiently activate Ne for a person committed to a solitary task.

As an Ne dominant, I must disagree. Whenever I am working on any task (especially a solitary one that I consider to be boring), my mind constantly associates this task with many other things, concepts and situations that are, at face value, entirely unrelated to the task at hand. Connecting the current context with a multitude of seemingly unrelated contexts via abstract perceptions of similarity is virtually automatic for me, no matter whether I am working in a group or on a solitary task.

You need to use intuition to recall those impressions, just like you need to use intuition to perform any cognitive task, from the minute to that of Napoleonic complexities.

Sure, and I contend that an Si dominant person would use the inferior Ne function much more often than Ni in order to do this.

The difference is that I support my views with a solid rationale. I don't have to adhere to the original Jungian views in order to avoid being called a folk typologist, I only need to ensure that my views are adequately supported.

What I'm trying to say is that "solid rationale" is more subjective than you seem to want to allow. What you see as solid rationale may not seem to be solid rationale to someone else, despite your continual implications that your opinion of what constitutes solid rationale is somehow objectively correct.

Good, they've matured past the behaviorist stage in their inquiry. However, where they look for these cognitive tendencies also matters a great deal. Are they looking for these habits of mind in the behavior of their alcoholic uncle Joe that they've seen at a family party when they were five? Are they looking for them in the behavior of Dr.House or Dr.Seus? Or, alternatively, are they genuinely examing the cognitive behaviors of people who were expressing their thoughts at leisure and were not forced to obey any external standard? If it is the latter, then their typological inference would indeed carry far more weight than that of the people in the former camp.

So the key to avoiding folk typology is to focus on a person's behaviors when he's free to express himself fully without any constraints from externally imposed rules or standards?

I don't think I am directly observing cognitive behaviors either. What led you to believe that this is what I was doing?

Your implication that behavior-based typology is invalid led me to believe this was what you were doing. Apparently, it is not universally invalid to look to behavior for typological data; rather, it is the type of behavior and in what context that differentiates folk typology from legitimate typology. Is that correct?

Exactly and this vindicates the claim that every person relies on Introverted perception quite significantly when engaging in a solitary task. He simply is not active enough to sufficiently engage the extroverted faculties.

Even a solitary task involves performing some sort of action and engaging the external world in some way. Where do you draw the line between what is sufficient action to engage the extroverted functions and what is not?

The stimuli needed to get one's extroverted faculties to produce the output that he needs in order to rely on them.
Extroverted functions will need a lot more stimulation than that to ignite. For the meantime, the person you have in mind would have to rely on Introverted Intuition.

Is it your contention that, when I go through the process of association that I described above during a solitary task, I am actually using introverted intuition?

The activity is almost by definition low on stimuli. Generally an extrovert tends to be drained altogether by such an activity unless he happens to have a rich inner life or a captivating mental task to be occupied with. Much of this is because of the nature of his cognitive functions as cognitive functions define his temperament. The extroverted function does not cease to function, but it would be inactive to the point where it appears as if it has stopped functioning.

What if the task with which he is occupied while sitting at the desk provides significant mental stimulation for him (as I describe above)?

In that case Ne-Fi activity that is very reminiscent of Fe should also be severly opposed by that Te process, yet it isn't. Its not because Ne-Fi are above Te in the hierarchy of cognitive efficacy.

Ne-Fi activity is not very reminiscent of Fe because the Feeling component is not stimulated by external means.

Because the function is the same, just the attitudes are different. What the two have in common is that Feeling is the most efficacious cognitive faculty of their psyche, that is by far more important than the natural sources of stimulation for both of these.

That may be true, but I contend that people who make a habit of depending upon internal stimulation for Feeling will often learn to dislike depending upon external stimulation for it to an even greater degree than depending on external stimulation for Thinking.

I see the differecen between the two functions, yet what reason does this give me to believe that the discrepancy is wider than the one between Fe and Ti and or Fi and Te?

It's not the discrepancy between the processes themselves that's the issue here; it's the way people with these tendencies tend to interpret the opposite attitude of their primary functions. See below.

I don't see that. What evidence is available to support that claim?

My evidence for this is really only available through observing the behavior of others. When ExFPs fail to get the results they want through their regular Ne+Fi or Se+Fi, for instance, they rarely seem to behave in a way associated with Fe, but begin to resemble rather childish ExTJ types, commanding and delegating in a coldly impersonal manner (generally this seems to happen because something is stressing them out) in order to get the necessary tasks completed. Kind of like, "Ok, asking nicely isn't working and that's upsetting, so I guess you've forced me to be mean about it!"

When they get into this mode they seem to resemble xxTJs far more than xxFJs; in fact, they rarely seem to do much of anything that resembles xxFJ types at all.

Unfortunately I can't give you any evidence for this beyond my personal experience with people, and the fact that looking at it this way seems to describe their behaviors more accurately for my purposes.

What reason is there to suppose that this antithesis surpasses the one between Thinking and Feeling or other functionally opposed faculties?

I don't see any reason to suppose that the antithesis between Thinking and Feeling, when they are oriented in opposite directions, is all that significant in the first place. I don't find the antithesis between Ti and Fe nearly as significant as the antithesis between Ti and Fi or Te and Fe because, as I mentioned in a previous post, Ti deals with introverted judgment and Fe with extroverted judgment. In short, they don't interfere with each other because they don't make the same types of decisions.

How did you arrive at this view?

Explained above. To recap, I will use ENFP as the continuing example--in my experience, ENFP types, since the most natural way to experience Feeling for them is through internal stimuli, if they discover that this method is not working, they seem to assume that Feeling is not going to work in this situation, so they switch over to Thinking ("I've tried being nice, but it's not working, so no more Mr. Nice Guy!"), which for them is most naturally simulated by external means and expressed through a Te attitude.

Where do you see that? If that is true, you should also conclude that Te people are naturally opposed to Ti people and vice versa, Ne people to Ni and Se to Si. Can you furnish the adequate evidence to support all of those claims? You have to support them all or the underlying principle collapses.

Indeed, I do conclude that. Look at some of the argument threads on this board! All the evidence you need is around you in the form of disagreements between others. Look at the numerous "I don't get Fi!" threads all started by Ti/Fe users, for instance. Note how the TPs tend to align with the FJs and the FPs with the TJs--this is because they share the same preferences for judgment functions.

Every time someone makes a thread about "I really don't get people who use x judgment function", you can see two factions line up: The Ti/Fe-ers (TPs and FJs) vs. the Fi/Te-ers (FPs and TJs.)

If the Fi dom/aux people (xxFP) were more natural users of Fe than Te, wouldn't they tend to align with the FJs moreso than the TJs? And yet they don't. You would see more even divisions across T/F lines, and yet that doesn't happen, as TPs tend to make decisions in a much more similar fashion to FJs than they do to FPs. Why do you suppose this is?

Now, that is folk typology. This paragraph contains no arguments, no references to purely cognitive behaviors, just expositions of behaviors of people who supposedly have this or that Jungian type.

All typological ideas must be based on observations of the behavior and speech of others. It seems strange that when I do this, it's dismissed as folk typology, but when you make typological inferences through the same method of observing the behavior/speech of others and inferring cognitive tendencies, it's somehow legitimate. Why is that?

Yes, they tend to, however, this claim is significantly different from 'they do'.

Fair enough, but I would point out that the entire system is based on discussing tendencies. There are very few absolutes.

Expositions of typology that focus on people's trivial daily behaviors and make no reference to purely cognitive tendencies tend to be labelled as folk typology, especially if they also lack the rigor of argument. There is nothing wrong with observing behaviors, as long as you separate the typologically relevant ones from the irrelevant.

What kind of behaviors qualify as "purely cognitive tendencies" and why? How do you know the difference?

I have some chores to get done, but I'll come back a bit later and address the remainder of your post.

 

[simulatedworld]

That is a tough question. We would have to conduct a closer reading of the works in which they have had the freedom to be true to their unconscious tendencies and see whether their structure recognizing faculties are more easily stimulated from within than from without.

That might help you make a more accurate guess, but let's not forget that the only cognitive tendencies you can ever really know about for sure are your own.

A cat is an at least somewhat conscious creature, so it has some interpretive abilities. Hence, its capable of making conscious judgments.

I don't really want to debate word definitions anymore. I'm much more interested in your typological ideas.

The trouble is that the word worldview has no place in a definition of a type as it implies interpretation of the world which smuggles the notion of a conscious assessment into the discussion.

How would you feel about the word "attitude" instead?

The microbe doesn't, it just acts on instinct.

This is perhaps a debate for another time, but don't cats behave purely on instinct too? For that matter, doesn't all behavior of all living things ultimately derive from instincts?

I don't think that Ti is necessary for rigorous logical thought.

Good. You seemed to imply that you did when you asked how an INTJ could engage in rigorous logical thinking without Ti.

There are good reasons to believe that the Fe process is more preferred than the Te process because it is quite similar to the Ne-Fi process which externalizes Feeling.

I see your chain of reasoning here, but I disagree with it based on my experience with real people and my observations of their cognitive preferences. I think the conflict between Thinking and Feeling is significantly more pronounced when they are oriented in the same direction, and significantly less so when they are not. I think when, for instance, you see an ENFP engaging in "Fe activity", it's frequently actually stimulated from the inside. Note that you can't really directly observe where the stimulation for his behavior came from without in depth information about his personality.

Can you provide an example of what an ENFP using Fe might look like, and how you'd differentiate it from his regular Fi use? In your experience, do you observe ENFPs engaging in "Fe behavior" more often than "Te behavior"? How can you be certain that such behavior is actually motivated by Fe and not simply Fi+Ne?

It does because Fe is not opposed by Fi on the functional level, yet Te is.

I find it odd that when NFPs extrovert judgment, then, they seem to do so through Thinking far more often than Feeling. As I said, they don't reason, "Well, feeling motivated by internal stimuli isn't working here, so I guess I'll try feeling stimulated by external stimuli instead"; in practice, they tend to simply notice that their natural feeling approach is not working, get frustrated and resort to Te. Many NFPs on the forum here report behaving and reasoning this way.

When I as an ENTP extrovert judgment, I tend to do it in a Feeling way. That just makes more sense to me for making decisions involving other people. When I was younger I would try to depend on Ti for making decisions in the external world, and it didn't really work for me because introverted judgment's subjectivity is not suited to making external world decisions.

How they make decisions is irrelevant to whether or not they are using Fe. What is relevant is whether or not they are stimulated by the external world to engage in Feeling. To say that to use Fe is to make a decision is to employ the folk typological method that you've criticized before. Its akin to this: wohoo, I solved a math problem therefore I used Ti. Wohoo, I made a decision in consensus with the group, therefore I used Fe!

This is what I mean about there actually being some use in folk typology. You may technically be right (I can't be certain as I have no way of directly observing any cognitive tendencies other than my own) in a pure typology sense (to borrow a term from your book) that ENFPs are, indeed, stimulated to use Feeling via external means more often than they are stimulated to use Thinking via external means, but that doesn't really seem to matter to anything real or significant from an applied typology standpoint if they tend to respond in a more Te-oriented fashion when it comes time to actually interact with the external world.

Indeed it would seem our disagreement regarding functional strengths is rooted in the discrepancy between pure typology vs. applied typology. I would argue that, even if an ENFP is stimulated toward feeling via external means more often than he is stimulated toward thinking via external means, if his observable expression of Te is more pronounced, for all intents and purposes (at least, from an applied typology perspective), his Te should be said to be stronger than his Fe.

And if this is the case--since we cannot truly directly observe the cognitive tendencies of others without filtering them through their behavior and speech--what evidence can you produce that ENFPs are more influenced by Fe than by Te? The only way we can really determine which of the two is "stronger" is by observing the behavior and speech of ENFPs and attempting to infer their motivations. It seems to me in my observations that they tend to choose Te more often than Fe.

Anyway, try asking some NFPs about their opinions on where their stimulation toward feeling comes from, and how they feel about external means possibly stimulating that feeling. While Fi may not directly create this idea itself, I've noticed from personal experience that Fi users resent the idea that any sort of external means might be able to influence their personal values.

If this is folk typology, then fine, so be it. There is actually some value in some so-called "folk typological" ideas. Why do you so roundly dismiss all of it? Can't it be used in conjunction with Jung? Why do you dismiss it if it actually works in some cases?

There is no reason why such a significant opposition should arise due to natural cognitive preferences and nothing besides that is relevant to a typological inquiry.

Again I urge you to look around you and observe the tendencies of others. A cognitive tendency to be stimulated to use thinking by internal means does frequently, in practice, lead to an opposition to being stimulated to use thinking by external means. You're demonstrating this yourself right now: I'm asking you to take certain "folk typology" approaches more seriously because they work in terms of predicting the behaviors and attitudes of others, but you won't do it because your idea of what constitutes a valid typological observation is based on a Ti-oriented internal idea of what's "valid typology" and what isn't. It doesn't really seem to matter to you what goal folk typology might be trying to accomplish; you simply dismiss it all as worthless based on your internal, subjective ideals.

I struggle to think of a better example of a Ti tendency blocking out potential influence from Te.

Behave where? Their cognitive behavior isn't much different from one another. Both tend to be astract thought and focus on structure of reasoning rather than emotive valuations. Other behaviors aren't relevant. You've just lapsed into folk typology again, congratulations.

That's because folk typology actually has some valid and useful observations. You're just about the only person on the forum who dismisses all of it on principle.

Other behaviors are very much relevant if you want to understand more about people than just their cognitive behaviors. Why is it that you insist that no other behaviors are worth studying or paying attention to?

What basis is there for this judgment?

ENTPs and ESTPs both lead with extroverted perception followed by introverted judgment. ENTJs take an entirely different approach by leading with extroverted judgment followed by introverted perception. I doubt you particularly care about any of this, but there are a number of resources to help clarify what that means and how it impacts behavior if you're interested.

In short, this leads ExxPs to tend toward an exploratory, "jump in and figure it out as you go, then adjust your internal standards based on what your experimentation discovers" kind of approach, as opposed to the ExxJ's preference for planning ahead, delegating tasks and leading others toward predefined goals.

You're overlooking the humongous Intution-Sensing divide, one the significance of which not even Keirsey missed! Even he stated that this amounts to the biggest discrepancy between people.

I don't agree with that. I think P/J is a bigger discrepancy and I advocate using EP/IP/EJ/IJ instead of Keirsey's NT/NF/SP/SJ temperaments. Yes, some of this is based on folk typology, but I'm still confused as to why you completely dismiss all folk typological ideas simply because they don't jive directly with Jung's focus on cognitive tendencies. Why are you so certain you can't learn anything useful or applicable from them?

Because of the distinct strength of the auxiliary Ne. Ne is very strong because Thinking is mostly focused on the inner life, thus, it simply does not have enough energy to dominate both the inner world and the relations to the outer world. Thus, Ne is given an opportunity to rise. I don't see how my reasoning entails that Te must be second in the hierarchy. It clearly entails that Te must be strong, yet there is no reason to suppose that it must be strong enough to be the second in the order of efficacy.

You've stated that functions which differ from the dominant in terms of both functional identity and attitude must necessarily be weaker than those which differ from the dominant only in terms of orientation. Ne differs from the INTP's dominant Ti by both measures, and yet somehow it's stronger than Te, which differs only in terms of orientation. I do not understand this inconsistency.

Because the weight of the first function is placed on the inner realm, it can't dominate both the external and internal faculties simultaneously. That is why if the dominant function is a judging one, the auxiliary must be a perceiving one.

I agree with this, but it contradicts your earlier statement that functions which differ from the dominant in terms of both functional identity and attitude must necessarily be weaker than those which differ from the dominant only in terms of attitude. This leads me to believe that, while Ti and Ne are surely the INTP's dominant and auxiliary functions, it is not necessary that Te or Ni be stronger than the tertiary/inferior Si and Fe.

See my response to your previous excerpt for the exception to this rule.

This exception seems rather arbitrary. You seem to be placing more emphasis on attitude than on functional identity here when it's convenient, but otherwise condemning such an approach. If thinking is the dominant function of the individual in question, why can't it dominate both the internal and external realms? Why should any form of intuition be prioritized above any form of thinking? I thought differences in orientation were far less significant than differences in functional identity.

They do indeed deal with the same cognitive task and that is of unconsciously striving to perceive structure in the external world. The only difference is how they are stimulated to do so.

I don't believe that introverted judgment and extroverted judgment constitute the same type of cognitive task, but that's based partially on folk typology so I expect you'll dismiss it immediately.

That's fine as long as these behaviors are cognitive rather than grounded in physical action.

I'm not talking about physical action here, either. I'm talking about motivations for actions and belief systems. Cognitive tendencies lead people to build value systems which motivate them to behave in certain ways. I'm talking about the value systems that those cognitive tendencies tend to lead people to follow, and if that makes me a folk typologist then I will accept this label. This interpretation works, so I'm really not concerned with whatever demeaning labels you choose to attach to it.

I've slightly modified Jung's system and define INTP in a way that is different from that of the folk typologists and MBTI enthusiasts.

How is that?

 

[Eric B]

Ne-Fi activity is not very reminiscent of Fe because the Feeling component is not stimulated by external means.

The key to this is to not look at these "Xy" "functions" as solid separate animals. An ego turns to the external world with his iNtuition. Yet this is informing a Feeling judgment, which is internal. The results might be similar to an ego turning directly to the external world with Feeling. Hence NF's will all have similar tendencies (groupe into a "temperament") whether NeFi or NiFe.

That may be true, but I contend that people who make a habit of depending upon internal stimulation for Feeling will often learn to dislike depending upon external stimulation for it to an even greater degree than depending on external stimulation for Thinking.

Yeah, they'll dislike it, but it will still come up under stress.

My evidence for this is really only available through observing the behavior of others. When ExFPs fail to get the results they want through their regular Ne+Fi or Se+Fi, for instance, they rarely seem to behave in a way associated with Fe, but begin to resemble rather childish ExTJ types, commanding and delegating in a coldly impersonal manner (generally this seems to happen because something is stressing them out) in order to get the necessary tasks completed. Kind of like, "Ok, asking nicely isn't working and that's upsetting, so I guess you've forced me to be mean about it!"

When they get into this mode they seem to resemble xxTJs far more than xxFJs; in fact, they rarely seem to do much of anything that resembles xxFJ types at all.

What you're saying is true, but under certain instances of stress, the ego will directly switch the orientation of its dominant or auxiliary, and it will usually be negative. Again, don't look at the functions as monolithic objects. It's the ego that switches functions and orientations!

Unfortunately I can't give you any evidence for this beyond my personal experience with people, and the fact that looking at it this way seems to describe their behaviors more accurately for my purposes.

I don't see any reason to suppose that the antithesis between Thinking and Feeling, when they are oriented in opposite directions, is all that significant in the first place. I don't find the antithesis between Ti and Fe nearly as significant as the antithesis between Ti and Fi or Te and Fe because, as I mentioned in a previous post, Ti deals with introverted judgment and Fe with extroverted judgment. In short, they don't interfere with each other because they don't make the same types of decisions.

Explained above. To recap, I will use ENFP as the continuing example--in my experience, ENFP types, since the most natural way to experience Feeling for them is through internal stimuli, if they discover that this method is not working, they seem to assume that Feeling is not going to work in this situation, so they switch over to Thinking ("I've tried being nice, but it's not working, so no more Mr. Nice Guy!"), which for them is most naturally simulated by external means and expressed through a Te attitude.

Indeed, I do conclude that. Look at some of the argument threads on this board! All the evidence you need is around you in the form of disagreements between others. Look at the numerous "I don't get Fi!" threads all started by Ti/Fe users, for instance. Note how the TPs tend to align with the FJs and the FPs with the TJs--this is because they share the same preferences for judgment functions.

Every time someone makes a thread about "I really don't get people who use x judgment function", you can see two factions line up: The Ti/Fe-ers (TPs and FJs) vs. the Fi/Te-ers (FPs and TJs.)

If the Fi dom/aux people (xxFP) were more natural users of Fe than Te, wouldn't they tend to align with the FJs moreso than the TJs? And yet they don't. You would see more even divisions across T/F lines, and yet that doesn't happen, as TPs tend to make decisions in a much more similar fashion to FJs than they do to FPs. Why do you suppose this is?

All this shows is that the more consciously compatible groups will gravitate towards each other. Remember, the shadows are unconscious.

Can you provide an example of what an ENFP using Fe might look like, and how you'd differentiate it from his regular Fi use? In your experience, do you observe ENFPs engaging in "Fe behavior" more often than "Te behavior"? How can you be certain that such behavior is actually motivated by Fe and not simply Fi+Ne?

OK, this I myself saw firsthand a few times myself.
We'll be in a discussion group, and someone will do something that violates the ENFP's values (Fi). They then scold the group for allowing this (Fe, because now they're making an external "connection" with public values), and if the problem is not corrected, they eventually storm off.
Fi is their "parent" function, which they use to try to help others, by drawing from internal and universal standards. When this is ignored, they turn their Feeling outward, and now "parent" the entire group in a more negative way.

Right here; I have a list of the 32 possible shadow manifestations covering all the types. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/844121-post68.html

Depending on the person, and the situations they find themselves in, it might come up more than either of the Thinking functions, because it is unconscious, and values are values, and consciously, this is a person of values. So again, the function order is not about strength or amount of use. It;s about what naturally becomes conscious, and not everything being discussed here is conscious.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ I've changed my position to allow for occasional use of shadow functions in stressful situations, so you can stop convincing me of that.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm sure you'll change your position again next week, and the week after that.

 

[Eric B]

^ I've changed my position to allow for occasional use of shadow functions in stressful situations, so you can stop convincing me of that.

I know that, and I wasn't actually trying to convince you of that point, but the issue remained of whether or why one might use the same function with the opposite orientation, more than the opposite function with the opposite orientation; plus, you did ask for an example of an ENFP's Fe which I answered.

 

[simulatedworld]

I know that, and I wasn't actually trying to convince you of that point, but the issue remained of whether or why one might use the same function with the opposite orientation, more then the opposite function with the opposite orientation; plus, you did have a question about an ENFP's Fe which I answered.

But the whole reason the ENFP scolded the group in the first place was because his personal values were violated. This seems purely Fi to me and I don't see why you've labeled it Fe.

It would be Fe if he was scolding an individual for getting out of line with what the group's ethical standard is. For example, Fe-ers often find Fi-ers selfish for sticking to their personal feelings when those feelings clearly contradict what is widely accepted as being best for the group.

 

[Eric B]

Well, it's that too (should have added that, but was in a rush this morning and didn't know how to out it at the moment). The violation of the Fi value is what triggered the reaction, and the person then begins appealing to group values in a critical way; or criticizing the group's values.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, it's that too (should have added that, but was in a rush this morning and didn't know how to out it at the moment). The violation of the Fi value is what triggered the reaction, and the person then begins appealing to group values in a critical way; or criticizing the group's values.

Criticizing the group's values on the basis that his personal values are superior/more important is, by definition, Fi.

That's anti-Fe. Directing his concerns at a group doesn't turn them into Fe concerns; the key is the original source of the value system being promoted.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, it is a sort of "anti-Fe". That's why it's called "shadow" in the first place!
Again, these things are not monolithic objects. The whole concept of the "shadow" means that it's really only one function (out of four), and we are dealing with conscious and unconscious areas of it, which are drawn along the inner or outer orientation. So a person prefers Feeling in normally an internal orientation, but when this is violated, he turns the same Feeling to an outer orientation (that's there; but normally suppressed). The "basis" as you put it only determines preferred orientation; not that that's the only orientation he is using.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes, it is a sort of "anti-Fe". That's why it's called "shadow" in the first place!
Again, these things are not monolithic objects. The whole concept of the "shadow" means that it's really only one function (out of four), and we are dealing with conscious and unconscious areas of it, which are drawn along the inner or outer orientation. So a person prefers Feeling in normally an internal orientation, but when this is violated, he turns the same Feeling to an outer orientation (that's there; but normally suppressed). The "basis" as you put it only determines preferred orientation; not that that's the only orientation he is using.

Right, I get that; I just don't see how his criticism of the group for violating his personal values constitutes Fe use.

I'm not saying he can't ever use Fe (not anymore anyway); I'm just suggesting that your example doesn't show Fe use. It seems much more like Fi getting violated and the ENFP resorting to Te in order to control the group into behaving in a way that his Fi considers acceptable.

An Fe response would be to set aside his own feelings in favor of maintaining social harmony with the other members of the group/uphold the standards of behavior that the group considers appropriate.

 

[Eric B]

That would be positive Fe use.
We're talking negative, shadowy, erupting out of repressed areas of the consciousness. It is trying to maintain harmony, but in a very negative way.

 

[simulatedworld]

That would be positive Fe use.
We're talking negative, shadowy, erupting out of repressed areas of the consciousness. It is trying to maintain harmony, but in a very negative way.

Sure, but if it's trying to maintain harmony based on an internal standard instead of external one, it's probably still Fi. If the stimulation for taking this moral view came from an internal source instead of an external one, I'd just interpret it as Fi + immature use of Te. What distinguishing factor actually necessitates that this is Fe?

 

[uumlau]

While that is all very fascinating, I would appreciate it if someone would see if that thought process is Fi or Fe or some other weird thing that is unidentifiable. Thanks

Your train of thought sounds Fe to me. There is a preoccupation with others' opinions of you.

As for what Fi is, it's kind of like this:

You take this, and hold it close to your heart, and it warms you from the inside.


Another simple comparison, Fe users work at trying to make people around them happy in any of a number of different ways. Fi users, rather than "do things" to make others happy, prefer to share their own happiness and enthusiasm with others, and Fi users respond well to other people sharing their happiness back. Fe users might perceive the Fi users as being too self-involved, while the Fi users may perceive strong Fe as kind of "fake."

With Fi, there's this kind of taking something from the inside of yourself and bringing it out into the world to see. At its best, it can take an inner feeling of joy and radiate it out to everyone around, and its light dispels the shadows in others' hearts.

With Fe, the feeling is already out in the world, and an Fe user has the perspective of arranging this garden of feelings into its most appealing form.

 

[Eric B]

Sure, but if it's trying to maintain harmony based on an internal standard instead of external one, it's probably still Fi. If the stimulation for taking this moral view came from an internal source instead of an external one, I'd just interpret it as Fi + immature use of Te. What distinguishing factor actually necessitates that this is Fe?

Because it's still a value criteria. What you seem to be doing is assuming it automatically becomes Thinking because "Te" is the "official" extraverted judgment of the ENFP. Te may be involved as well, but there is still an element of Feeling being extraverted.
(Same thing with INTP's assuming all their "Feeling" is Fe, because that's their official "Feeling" function, yet some of what they describe is a degradation into "demonic Fi").

Again, I believe the differentiation of the functions is more fluid. Hence, what was suggested earlier about Jung saying the theory was ideal and would not completely fit real people really makes a lot of sense.
I should also add that maintaining the fluidity of the functions also explains why J/P would be a distinct factor in its own right. I am reminded of this every time I see my wife cleaning th house. (like just now, and which always involves commenting on my messiness!) She's Fe dom, and you could say cleaning the house stems from Fe, but then the logical arragement aspect of it technically does get into Te (and inasmuch as she's arranging, it does seem to fit a "demonic" archetype in some ways, like her being in a huff and not even being aware of this--unconscious reaction). So which is which?
I say at that time, she's just being J. She's extraverting judgment in general. T and F are two sides of the same "rational" coin.

 

[simulatedworld]

Because it's still a value criteria. What you seem to be doing is assuming it automatically becomes Thinking because "Te" is the "official" extraverted judgment of the ENFP. Te may be involved as well, but there is still an element of Feeling being extraverted.
(Same thing with INTP's assuming all their "Feeling" is Fe, because that's their official "Feeling" function, yet some of what they describe is a degradation into "demonic Fi").

I'm not assuming that. I'm labeling it Te because when it happens, it looks more like TJ judgment than FJ judgment. The fact that it involves values doesn't magically turn it into Fe--the functions never operate alone so yes, every Te judgment will have a component of Fi's values as well. It's all one big fluid process.

Your argument that it's Fe seems to come from the fact that the ENFP is motivated by feeling to interact with others. I don't see why this necessitates Fe use. Just being motivated by his feeling function to do something involving the external world doesn't magically turn it into Fe use. Why does being a "value criteria" necessitate Fe over Fi? Te can and does judge and organize the outer world according to Fi's personal values, especially in types with Fi in higher priority than Te.

People can and are motivated by introverted functions to do something involving the external world--this doesn't turn introverted functions into extroverted ones. The difference between Fi and Fe is the source of the standard upon which the moral decision was made--once the ENFP decides "I am upset by this breach of my personal values [which are in no way influenced by anyone else's idea of what should be valuable]", he has been influenced by Fi rather Fe than because the standard for his moral view was based on an internal judgment system, with no regard to the ethical views of his tribal group.

It would only be Fe if the moral belief motivating his admonishment of others were based on the prevailing cultural values among his social group--this would be an objective decision. Since, in this case, the ENFP has taken a moral stance based on an internal and subjective judgment system, this is Fi.

Choosing to take action based on this internal value system does not constitute Fe use, regardless of whether the ENFP then confronts others in an attempt to enforce his values on the environment. The determining factor between introversion and extroversion here is the criteria for the decision, not whether it's applied to himself or others.

Again, I believe the differentiation of the functions is more fluid. Hence, what was suggested earlier about Jung saying the theory was ideal and would not completely fit real people really makes a lot of sense.

That's fine; I've buckled to pressure and changed my model to include occasional use of shadow functions. When an ENFP overlooks his own personal values in favor of upholding some sort of external social standard, that is when he is legitimately using Fe. (You can see why this doesn't happen all that often.) Just ordering others to follow his values when they get threatened is easily accomplished by Fi+Te.

Te = applying logical, causal order to the external world based on objectively verifiable standards and measurements

Fe = harmonizing/unifying the external world based on the public cultural standards of behavior, not private personal values

I should also add that maintaining the fluidity of the functions also explains why J/P would be a distinct factor in its own right. I am reminded of this every time I see my wife cleaning th house. (like just now, and which always involves commenting on my messiness!) She's Fe dom, and you could say cleaning the house stems from Fe, but then the logical arragement aspect of it technically does get into Te (and inasmuch as she's arranging, it does seem to fit a "demonic" archetype in some ways, like her being in a huff and not even being aware of this--unconscious reaction). So which is which?
I say at that time, she's just being J. She's extraverting judgment in general. T and F are two sides of the same "rational" coin.

Fe is a form of Je, extroverted judgment, which deals with organizing the outer environment in order to, as I said, harmonize with cultural standards for behavior in whatever tribal group the Fe user identifies with.

You seem to be assuming that cleaning the house and arranging it methodically automatically invokes Te, but I would argue that this sort of physical organization of the physical world is just as easily performed from an Fe standpoint. It's probably something to the effect of, "My tribal group values having a clean house, so I clean my house."

If the questionable practice which the FJ is worried about actually is the prevailing cultural norm in this context, Fe would lead us more toward sucking up our personal problem with it and just not saying anything. After all, it's the group's customs and cultures, the group's traditions, and the group's values that are typically more important than the FJ's internal personal qualms.

Anyway, I've never heard anything about extroverting judgment in neither the Te nor Fe form, and I think whichever of these is being "used" is dependent upon the person's motivation for it--does she place more value on the strategic advantage in applying impersonal causal order, or is it more important to her to harmonize with the prevailing values of the people and culture with which she identifies? Of course, I am sure she is aware of both advantages, but whichever is higher in her value system, whichever strikes her as the greater concern, is going to be the indicator of which function is at use. Cleaning the house could be an expression of Te or Fe, or even another function, depending on why your wife is doing it.

Like I said I've conceded the point that shadow functions are sometimes used (or at least, shifted the way I interpret Jung in my posts to jive with more people's ideas), so I will agree that the ENFP does occasionally use Fe; I just think you've got the conditions for what constitutes Fe use wrong.

 

[Jaguar]

That's fine; I've buckled to pressure and changed my model to include occasional use of shadow functions. When an ENFP overlooks his own personal values in favor of upholding some sort of external social standard, that is when he is legitimately using Fe. (You can see why this doesn't happen all that often.)

That must be why all those ENFPs are arming themselves with uzis and shooting up the place when they get pissed off that their food is served cold, at a restaurant.
Yes, that must be it. No ability to uphold an external social standard.

Fe = harmonizing/unifying the external world based on the public cultural standards of behavior, not private personal values

Anyone can do the above.

Fe is a form of Je, extroverted judgment, which deals with organizing the outer environment in order to, as I said, harmonize with cultural standards for behavior in whatever tribal group the Fe user identifies with.

I'm sure Dom Fe's will love you suggesting they are incapable of doing anything unless it has to do with their "tribal group."

It's probably something to the effect of, "My tribal group values having a clean house, so I clean my house."

I can see it now, female EXFJs around the world are cleaning their houses because their TRIBAL GROUP is sending them signals via headset.

Fe would lead us more toward sucking up our personal problem with it and just not saying anything.

How people operate is frequently situational.
How someone is at work, will differ from how they are at home.
Any functional person can "suck up" a personal value in a given situation and opt to abide by socially accepted values.
That means someone who would normally "pipe up" in situation #1 could choose not to say anything in situation #2.

If you cannot successfully cultivate relationships and serve your client's needs in business, rather than your own, then people are pretty much SOL.
If you are some fella who works alone all day in a cubicle, that's a different story.
But by and large when it comes to conducting business, you are out in the world interacting with others and not sitting alone in a dark corner.

Fe is not only the glue that holds a team together, it is also the air upon which a team can take flight.
And if a team member has her boyfriend beating her at home, I assure you it wasn't my Fi meeting with her in my office to get her through it.
Fe isn't just about socially accepted values, or appropriateness, it's the ability to extend a helping hand to another person because you care about them.

Sorry bubba, you're going to have to get your feet wet one day.
There is no short cut to dealing with real people.
I think it's only a matter of time before people begin looking at you like you're nutty,
when you keep insisting something is "true" of a person just because of a theory.

 

[Totenkindly]

I can see it now, female EXFJs around the world are cleaning their houses because their TRIBAL GROUP is sending them signals via headset.

Wow... I'd wear my tribal headset and carry my mop proudly, if I could be that skinny.... *dreamy sigh*