Too much focus on introversion/extroversion of functions

[redacted]

Another thing, consider that civilization has been going on for thousands of years.. some societies and/or creeds that might characterize a general "accepted" norm of behavior or whatnot would be recognized as valid on both Fi or Fe levels. So it's not like only Fe is aware of them, and that Fi is constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. Fi isn't saying "Yeah, I am an individualistic jerk to whatever is accepted as a social value." There are departing points, but I don't think it's usually that dramatic.

I'm only 50% sure I know what you're talking about.

But I'll respond anyway

I think another thing to keep in mind is that no one, and I mean zero people, use only Fi or only Fe. Everyone has some percentage of the time that they use either. Some people may be up to 80% or so, but the closer to 100% you get, the more crippled you become. I doubt anyone who can even post on this site is above 80% in any function.

 

[Orangey]

Okay, I was just in the shower and I figured out how to actually articulate my point here.

Something that is Feeling is by definition not Thinking, Sensing, or Intuition.

But something that is based on the internal standard does NOT necessarily oppose something that is based on the external standard or vice versa. So an instance of Fi can literally look the same as an instance of Fe as long as the internal and external standards are compatible. And often, they are compatible.

------------------------

Using your shark fin example, here are Fi and Fe explanations for all three instances:
1. "If I take a stand and berate him for it"
Fe - it's important to make a stand so that opinions may be affected
Fi - it's important to make a stand because I stand up for what I believe

2. "If I think that it's a courtesy to the host to eat whatever is offered"
Fe - it's important to send the message that I am polite
Fi - it's important to me to be polite

3. "If I take a stand and just avoid eating the soup"
Fe - I don't want to affect the environment in a negative way, so I won't eat the soup.
Fi - I don't want to compromise myself, so I won't eat the soup.

My point here is that there is no way to know just by observing those behaviors in someone else whether they are basing their decisions on the internal or external standard. Therefore there is no way to distinguish between Fe and Fi in those situations. Therefore trying to distinguish is just a waste of time and effort. You'd be better served conversation-wise to use other adjectives relevant to the point you want to make. No reason to use the 8 function model here at all. It's just not within the scope of the 8 function model to conclude something like this.

Yeah, when it comes to typing others, this is a problem (obviously, since we don't ever know why a person chooses to engage in any particular behavior.) However, this isn't as much of a problem when it comes to typing one's self. So why would we want to reduce Fe and Fi, for example, to just F if there is a clear distinction to be made when observing one's own motivations and processes? Especially since these typologies are meant for self-typing rather than as a means of typing others (though we do it anyway, since there are other means than functional analysis alone to speculate on others' types)?

 

[redacted]

Yeah, when it comes to typing others, this is a problem (obviously, since we don't ever know why a person chooses to engage in any particular behavior.) However, this isn't as much of a problem when it comes to typing one's self. So why would we want to reduce Fe and Fi, for example, to just F if there is a clear distinction to be made when observing one's own motivations and processes? Especially since these typologies are meant for self-typing rather than as a means of typing others (though we do it anyway, since there are other means than functional analysis alone to speculate on others' types)?

Damn. I must suck at writing or something.

I don't think we should throw away the distinction altogether. It's useful when it's useful. I was merely pointing out that a lot of people get all caught up in it when it's not useful. And I wish they would not do that.

That is all.

 

[KDude]

I'm only 50% sure I know what you're talking about.

I'm getting a little carried away by speaking in terms of millenia. I just mean that there's a pool of shared values between people, and it's probably not common that you'll find Fi or Fe types disagreeing on them. Many laws are worth obeying, for example (some are not, but I mean.. the basics are at least). And you'd probably find a Fi type doing simple things for others that are also understood by Fe types as the "right thing to do".. like.. holding an elevator door open for others or helping someone who just dropped their groceries. Even many T types would be cool in these areas.

 

[redacted]

I'm getting a little carried away by speaking in terms of millenia. I just mean that there's a pool of shared values between people, and it's probably not common that you'll find Fi or Fe types disagreeing on them. Many laws are worth obeying, for example (some are not, but I mean.. the basics are at least). And you'd probably find a Fi type doing simple things for others that are also understood by Fe types as the "right thing to do".. like.. holding an elevator door open for others or helping someone who just dropped their groceries. Even many T types would be cool in these areas.

LOL. EVEN T types might hold a door open! Ha, I'm more (conventionally) polite than most Fs I know actually. Not that you actually meant that, I just more thought it was funny.

But yeah, I get you now. And I completely completely agree. People across all MBTI types really aren't that different. It's easy to get lost in the differences, though, because MBTI only focuses on them

 

[Orangey]

Damn. I must suck at writing or something.

I don't think we should throw away the distinction altogether. It's useful when it's useful. I was merely pointing out that a lot of people get all caught up in it when it's not useful. And I wish they would not do that.

That is all.

Well I don't know if this is an example of where you're coming from, but it does irritate me when people (especially in the popular culture section) enter into long and useless interpretations of functionally ambiguous behavior when we all know that it is impossible to determine whether, for example, something Scarlett Johansson said or did is coming from Ti or Te. Considering the internal or external orientation of the functions is less useful in that type of context.

 

[redacted]

Well I don't know if this is an example of where you're coming from, but it does irritate me when people (especially in the popular culture section) enter into long and useless interpretations of functionally ambiguous behavior when we all know that it is impossible to determine whether, for example, something Scarlett Johansson said or did is coming from Ti or Te. Considering the internal or external orientation of the functions is less useful in that type of context.

Yeah, that's exactly an example of where I'm coming from.

P.S. you type as an S now? sweet, now people that thought you were smart before will have to rethink their idiotic biases. (don't know when you changed it, so this may be a few months late).

True or False is not the same as truth, Evan. Truth and fairness are what a lot of people value. Truth and fairness should not automatically go to the T side on a test, but they usually do. Context matters.

Missed this somehow.

I think you don't understand what my stance is if you're saying that to me.

Fairness is F (since it's about what is the right thing to do).
Valuing truth is F (since it's valuing something).

But saying that something is logically true or is environmentally feasible is just T. There's no room to say that's F. I mean, it's F to say that you value something being logically true. But when you're making a conclusion just about the truth or falsehood of something, you're using Thinking. By definition.

If you disagree, then it's a matter of differing definitions, and you should tell me yours so I know what you mean.

 

[William K]

I'm only 50% sure I know what you're talking about.

But I'll respond anyway

I think another thing to keep in mind is that no one, and I mean zero people, use only Fi or only Fe. Everyone has some percentage of the time that they use either. Some people may be up to 80% or so, but the closer to 100% you get, the more crippled you become. I doubt anyone who can even post on this site is above 80% in any function.

Agreed. Something I wrote on my blog a while back...that felt right

If we divide the values into internal (personal) and external (shared, community), then the difference between internally oriented Feeling (Fi) and externally oriented Feeling (Fe) would be which values that is focused on when making a decision. Think of it like a spotlight shining on two circles. Each circle represents the internal and external values and there may be some overlap in the circles. Fi would shine the light more on the internal circle while Fe would shine on the external.

At its most extreme, Fi will entirely focus on the internal circle, ignoring any value that is not part of the internal framework, as per the diagram above.

The size of the circle overlaps would vary from person to person but I doubt that they will be mutually exclusive

 

[redacted]

^Nice, that venn diagram exemplifies what I'm talking about with the overlap of introversion/extroversion. When you're in the middle of the diagram, you should forget the distinction between Fi and Fe. When you're on the outside, have at it.

I just see people wasting all this time trying to label stuff they can't possibly label.

Edit: if you made a diagram with Thinking/Feeling/Sensing/Intution, they would all be mutually exclusive.

Imagine cognition as a big box. Draw a line through it to split it into perception and judgment. Now draw lines through the middle of perception and judgment and you're left with 4 mutually exclusive areas that still cover all of cognition.

 

[Jaguar]

Fairness is F (since it's about what is the right thing to do).
Valuing truth is F (since it's valuing something).

But saying that something is logically true or is environmentally feasible is just T. There's no room to say that's F. I mean, it's F to say that you value something being logically true. But when you're making a conclusion just about the truth or falsehood of something, you're using Thinking. By definition.

If you disagree, then it's a matter of differing definitions, and you should tell me yours so I know what you mean.

fairness to me is exactly what is in the dictionary:

fair

6.
a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.
8. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.


You will frequently see the words fair, fairness, or just, on the T side, and the opposing choices on the F side might be mercy and compassion. Utter stupidity, but true. As if someone can't hand down a fair/equitable decision to both parties and also be a compassionate person? This is how stereotypes and caricatures are created. But my point is that both a T and an F person could want to choose the word fair or just, but perhaps for different reasons.

On a personal note, I think T and F are not so cut and dry for people to begin with. That is certainly reflected in the fact that the T/F scale is also the one with the weakest reliability out of all of them.

 

[redacted]

fairness to me is exactly what is in the dictionary:

fair

6.
a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.
8. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.


You will frequently see the words fair, fairness, or just, on the T side, and the opposing choices on the F side might be mercy and compassion. Utter stupidity, but true. As if someone can't hand down a fair/equitable decision to both parties and also be a compassionate person? This is how stereotypes and caricatures are created. But my point is that both a T and an F person could want to choose the word fair or just, but perhaps for different reasons.

Completely agree with ya on this. And actually, I'd say fairness and justness actually are instances of an F function.

Not that a T can't use an F function or anything.

See, this is where people might miss my point. Fairness is a value-judgment so it's an instance of Feeling. But T-types use Feeling all the time (and vice versa).

On a personal note, I think T and F are not so cut and dry for people to begin with. That is certainly reflected in the fact that the T/F scale is also the one with the weakest reliability out of all of them.

I agree that it's not so cut and dry FOR PEOPLE. But the functions themselves should be cut and dry.

 

[Eric B]

Something that is Feeling is by definition not Thinking, Sensing, or Intuition.

But something that is based on the internal standard does NOT necessarily oppose something that is based on the external standard or vice versa. So an instance of Fi can literally look the same as an instance of Fe as long as the internal and external standards are compatible. And often, they are compatible.

------------------------

Using your shark fin example, here are Fi and Fe explanations for all three instances:
1. "If I take a stand and berate him for it"
Fe - it's important to make a stand so that opinions may be affected
Fi - it's important to make a stand because I stand up for what I believe

2. "If I think that it's a courtesy to the host to eat whatever is offered"
Fe - it's important to send the message that I am polite
Fi - it's important to me to be polite

3. "If I take a stand and just avoid eating the soup"
Fe - I don't want to affect the environment in a negative way, so I won't eat the soup.
Fi - I don't want to compromise myself, so I won't eat the soup.

My point here is that there is no way to know just by observing those behaviors in someone else whether they are basing their decisions on the internal or external standard. Therefore there is no way to distinguish between Fe and Fi in those situations. Therefore trying to distinguish is just a waste of time and effort. You'd be better served conversation-wise to use other adjectives relevant to the point you want to make. No reason to use the 8 function model here at all. It's just not within the scope of the 8 function model to conclude something like this.

Great point! This is why some oof is have started to view functions (and function-attitudes) as "perspectives", rather than behaviors or skills.

As for truth, fairness, etc. These are the products of Judgment in general. T/F and internal or external orientation are determined by the standards the judgments are based on.

 

[highlander]

^Nice, that venn diagram exemplifies what I'm talking about with the overlap of introversion/extroversion. When you're in the middle of the diagram, you should forget the distinction between Fi and Fe. When you're on the outside, have at it.

I just see people wasting all this time trying to label stuff they can't possibly label.

Edit: if you made a diagram with Thinking/Feeling/Sensing/Intution, they would all be mutually exclusive.

Imagine cognition as a big box. Draw a line through it to split it into perception and judgment. Now draw lines through the middle of perception and judgment and you're left with 4 mutually exclusive areas that still cover all of cognition.

A few points:
- I agree there is value in understanding if someone is using "intuition" or "sensing", for example. Some knowledge is better than none.
- That being said, it does seem that there are fundamental and significant differences between introverted and extraverted attitudes of the functions. Having an understanding that one or the other is used, is far more valuable.
- It easier to recognize the extraverted ones and those that are more common in the population. It's also very easy for us to get these things wrong and the mistakes aren't limited to I vs. E (say mistaking Ni vs Si or the other way around).

I think it's possible for one to develop skills in assessing what functions people seem to be using around them though it would seem far more difficult to assess someone's type. But if you got really good at it, you might be able to make a reasonable guess or at least eliminate some possibilities.

 

[redacted]

A few points:
- I agree there is value in understanding if someone is using "intuition" or "sensing", for example. Some knowledge is better than none.
- That being said, it does seem that there are fundamental and significant differences between introverted and extraverted attitudes of the functions. Having an understanding that one or the other is used, is far more valuable.
- It easier to recognize the extraverted ones and those that are more common in the population. It's also very easy for us to get these things wrong and the mistakes aren't limited to I vs. E (say mistaking Ni vs Si or the other way around).

There are fundamental differences between the attitudes, yes, but sometimes the output of them is literally impossible to decipher. There is no rule saying the internal standard and the external standard have to be at odds (and those are what define i/e of functions). I think if you can decipher the attitude, you should. But don't waste your time on it if it's not readily apparent. Because if it's not readily apparent, it's probably not descriptively useful.

I don't see how you could mistake S for N, though. If it's about a thing, it's S. If it's not, it's N. There shouldn't be overlap there.

Whether or not a person is an S or N is a completely different story. That may be extremely difficult. But if you narrow your scope to specific instances of perceiving functions, you shouldn't have much trouble differentiating. You have to look at those labels over time to determine the type of a person as opposed to which function they are currently using.

I think it's possible for one to develop skills in assessing what functions people seem to be using around them though it would seem far more difficult to assess someone's type. But if you got really good at it, you might be able to make a reasonable guess or at least eliminate some possibilities.

Right.