Discuss this analogy of Fi and Se in isfp

[wolfy]

I'm interested in thoughts on this. It makes sense to me, so... in this analogy Fi is the sea house and Se is the sea, in other words reality. That is how I take it.

There is an interesting part in this book Personality Types.

Such types can end up feeling like Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, faced with two bad choices: they can go to sleep, let the pods take over, and wake up happy to be programmed, or they can fight to stay awake and spend the rest of their lives resisting cooptation.
When isfp develop extraverted sensation it takes them out of this either or dilemma. They begin to see that their potential dictates outward responsibilities. An image given to me addresses this situation.
If you live in close contact with your inner world, it's a lot like living by the sea. You can get flooded unless you can build a structure to meet your needs. Your first instinct, however, is to build the kind of house townspeople live in, because that's the kind of shelter others will help you construct. This is precisely the kind of house that will be ruined when the tide rises. For a while you think, "I should have built a better townhouse" but gradually you reject others advice and you live without structure,
Why not build the kind of house that will serve your actual needs? Build the kind of house that fishermen build, one the water can go through without knocking it down...
Well developed isfp live, as it were, between the sea and the town, doing what they need to do. In consequence, their creations, their choices, their way of being...

 

[Savage Idealist]

That certainly is an interesting analogy of Se and Fi in combination. So it seems as though, in terms of an ISFP, that they sorta develop their Fi by means of experince from the outer world (Se): the asses the immediate outer context of the world and thus construct Fi as sort of a barrier in a way, but the key to growth is to unite the two, to be inbetween the sea and the house is to simultaneously use Fi ans Se in unison.

So where did you find this analogy?

 

[wolfy]

So where did you find this analogy?

It's in Lenore Thompson's book Personality Types.

 

[Savage Idealist]

Originally posted by Wolfy
It's in Lenore Thompson's book Personality Types.

I imagine that the other functions are listed in such metoaphorical ways as well, I should definitely go give the book a read.

 

[wolfy]

I imagine that the other functions are listed in such metoaphorical ways as well, I should definitely go give the book a read.

A lot of pop culture analogies, metaphors too.

 

[KDude]

A lot of pop culture analogies, metaphors too.

I appreciate how the chapters are organized too. By dominant function (EFJ, ETJ, IFP, ESP, etc..). As Jung/Myers would do it. Her focus on dominant/auxiliary is to the point, doesn't get too bogged down in the other details.. yet isn't overly simplistic (although I think she also follows Beebe's ideas.. so can discuss things on that level too. Just not in the book).

 

[/DG/]

Maybe I'm just bad with analogies, but it doesn't really sound ISFP-specific to me. It sounds more an introverted struggle with independence and doing what you want, for your own personal needs. Wait... I guess that's Fi... but where does Se come in? The rest seems very nonspecific.

I dunno... it just sounds like any healthy introvert would be this way.

 

[wolfy]

Maybe I'm just bad with analogies, but it doesn't really sound ISFP-specific to me. It sounds more an introverted struggle with independence and doing what you want, for your own personal needs. Wait... I guess that's Fi... but where does Se come in? The rest seems very nonspecific.

I dunno... it just sounds like any healthy introvert would be this way.

Analogies are a bit like that.

Se is the impact of the sea on the house.

 

[/DG/]

Analogies are a bit like that.

Se is the impact of the sea on the house.

How clever.

 

[wolfy]

It's interesting because it is saying to build flex in your concepts. Something I noticed I needed to do before getting into mbti.

 

[RDF]

I like the analogy. As I read it:

You build your Fi house near the Se sea, hoping for a nice ocean view. But then the Se sea comes in and knocks over the Fi house. That shows you: Fi is an artificial construction, and you build it according to your personal prejudices or according to what others have told you about how a house should be built. Meantime, Se reflects reality, and reality tends to come in and overwhelm you, especially if your Fi isn't equipped to take it into account.

So after your Fi house has been battered and knocked down by the Se sea (reality) a couple times, you finally wise up. You study the tides and movements of the Se sea (reality), and you build your Fi house to take into account those tides and movements.

I think the analogy works for Fi and Ne for INFPs as well. And I like the analogy because it does say something important about the nature of Fi: Often Fi is an artificial construction, a conglomeration of personal prejudices about how the world should be or a collection of simplistic beliefs and ideals fed to us by parents and friends. It's only with time and hard knocks that we begin to realize: Reality takes priority, and Fi has to be brought into correspondence with it.

 

[wolfy]

That's a great explanation of it. I like that. I agree, it could be applied to other types.

 

[KDude]

Fi may be (ahem.. partly) construct, but I don't think it gets knocked down necessarily because it's weak or built on personal prejudices. Thomson's concept of Fi is in line with Jung's.. in that IFPs are seeking the ideal on a global/humane level. It's more than merely personal. It's similar to Plato's "eidos" or other concepts of archetypal and primordial imagery. The reason why it gets knocked down is that it gets so ideal that it's impractical.. not necessarily weak. You just have those moments where you realize something isn't applicable, and maybe the world isn't even ready for it. And you're alone in this conviction.. so it's hard to hold up.. you give in to reality. The new house that can withstand the sea's torrents is the weaker version of Fi - not the stronger one. It's less radical, compromising and more practical, but independent enough to not totally give in. Something with some dignity that says "Well, at least I didn't rebuild in the town.."

 

[wolfy]

Depends on how you define strength. Unadulterated I'd agree with.

Such types can end up feeling like Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, faced with two bad choices: they can go to sleep, let the pods take over, and wake up happy to be programmed, or they can fight to stay awake and spend the rest of their lives resisting cooptation.
When isfp develop extraverted sensation it takes them out of this either or dilemma. They begin to see that their potential dictates outward responsibilities.

Developing Se leads to balance. That seems like strength to me.

 

[RDF]

Fi may be (ahem.. partly) construct, but I don't think it gets knocked down necessarily because it's weak or built on personal prejudices. Thomson's concept of Fi is in line with Jung's.. in that IFPs are seeking the ideal on a global/humane level. It's more than merely personal. It's similar to Plato's "eidos" or other concepts of archetypal and primordial imagery. The reason why it gets knocked down is that it gets so ideal that it's impractical.. not necessarily weak. You just have those moments where you realize something isn't applicable, and maybe the world isn't even ready for it. And you're alone in this conviction.. so it's hard to hold up.. you give in to reality. The new house that can withstand the sea's torrents is the weaker version of Fi - not the stronger one. It's less radical, compromising and more practical, but independent enough to not totally give in. Something with some dignity that says "Well, at least I didn't rebuild in the town.."

I'm re-stating the analogy in my own terms, of course.

And you can say what you want about your own Fi (such as characterizing it as "archetypal and primordial imagery"), but across the years I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that a lot of my own youthful Fi was BS resulting from too much sci-fi reading and daydreaming. Reality provided an unwelcome but ultimately healthy wake-up call.

 

[KDude]

I'm not trying to talk about it in a personal sense (at least, I'm trying to avoid that). I'm just touching on it's definition in the abstract, going to Jung himself (read psychological types). It's both personal and generally humane. Not that we have a clear idea on tap, but we grow into refining it. The intent, even the faulty ones of our youth, was something better than mere whim.

Anyhow, even concepts presented in scifi should not be played down, man. I'm going to sing the Beatles "Get Back" to you now and say that you should geek out more. Stop trying to be all cool and shit. Seriously though, the writers behind them are often tapping into timeless ideals concerning humanity.. not to mention, they are a part of a wider literary tradition that's been doing it for centuries. None of it is child's play. Literature, myths, all of these things are rife with archetypes that appeal to many, but Fi doms take a lot of it to heart. It's not "reality" to disregard it. That's just Te telling you that.. Another construct in itself.

 

[Stansmith]

Se for me is the life of an animal; devoid of purpose and meaning, blindly riding the waves of your own neuroses and primal urges (although who am I talk when it comes to the former) until you eventually reach your demise. The social and professional world is nothing more than a sophisticated translation of the animal kingdom, and I'd much rather observe it from afar through fiction (where humanity is easier to sympathize with) than to give myself up to the ignorance, petty drama and prescribed routine inherent to it.

Se in a nutshell.

 

[Thalassa]

Se for me is the life of an animal; devoid of purpose and meaning, blindly riding the waves of your own neuroses and primal urges (although who am I talk when it comes to the former) until you eventually reach your demise. The social and professional world is nothing more than a sophisticated translation of the animal kingdom, and I'd much rather observe it from afar through fiction (where humanity is easier to sympathize with) than to give myself up to the ignorance, petty drama and prescribed routine inherent to it.

Se in a nutshell.

America is actually largely, largely Te. It's a web of supposed logical functional call centers who can't actually serve you, but yet they are achieving their objectives of making money or dominating the oligopoly.

Se isn't animal. It's actually the perception of being able to handle the immediate concerns in a practical way, like Wolfy said, instead of building this house that every one else has, you build this house that actually serves your needs. This is the story of my life. In Socionics Se has an intense physical presence as well. I guess this means tert Se is what really makes ENTJs intimidating.

I have always known instinctively how to handle everything since I was twenty. When a guy tried to steal my money, when I was nearly raped, when I am making an omelet or carrying more bags, I just know how to adjust and what to do.

I think I have been able to prepare myself to deal with various settings, including finding a murder scene or walking down a dark street. That is Se, especially combined with Te.

Your assumptions about Se are insulting and disgusting. I would advise you to read Jung and his difference between high and low Se.

Why do people so easily identify low Se but ignore high Se, and suffer the bizarre delusion that all Ne or Ni is highly developed.

 

[Thalassa]

I like the analogy. As I read it:

You build your Fi house near the Se sea, hoping for a nice ocean view. But then the Se sea comes in and knocks over the Fi house. That shows you: Fi is an artificial construction, and you build it according to your personal prejudices or according to what others have told you about how a house should be built. Meantime, Se reflects reality, and reality tends to come in and overwhelm you, especially if your Fi isn't equipped to take it into account.

So after your Fi house has been battered and knocked down by the Se sea (reality) a couple times, you finally wise up. You study the tides and movements of the Se sea (reality), and you build your Fi house to take into account those tides and movements.

I think the analogy works for Fi and Ne for INFPs as well. And I like the analogy because it does say something important about the nature of Fi: Often Fi is an artificial construction, a conglomeration of personal prejudices about how the world should be or a collection of simplistic beliefs and ideals fed to us by parents and friends. It's only with time and hard knocks that we begin to realize: Reality takes priority, and Fi has to be brought into correspondence with it.

You are describing Si, not Fi.

 

[011235813]

Why do people so easily identify low Se but ignore high Se, and suffer the bizarre delusion that all Ne or Ni is highly developed.

This is pretty interesting. It's probably fair to say that the prevailing ideas about Se on this forum are in fact set by Ni doms (and most vocally by INTJs) so yeah, they're skewed by bizarre inferior strangeness and tend to fixate largely on sexuality and animal magnetism with a wee dose of MacGyver.

What do you think are the differences between low Ne and Ni and high Ne and Ni which this forum is failing to acknowledge?