Te/Fi-types like authoritarianism

[Researcher]

Hypothesis: Te/Fi-doms generally like to build authoritarian societies, as in "might is right". And the Ti/Fe-doms generally do NOT like to build this.

Who agrees? Who disagrees? (And why).

 

[Southern Kross]

Wait, do you mean ExTJs vs IxTPs?

 

[reckful]

Yeah, baby. Those INFPs just loves them some authoritarianism.

And if I had to pick a good motto for INFPs and ISFPs, I'd say "might is right" would have to be right up near the top of the list.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yeah, baby. Those INFPs just loves them some authoritarianism.

And if I had to pick a good motto for INFPs and ISFPs, I'd say "might is right" would have to be right up near the top of the list.

Hypothesis: Te/Fi-doms generally like to build authoritarian societies, as in "might is right". And the Ti/Fe-doms generally do NOT like to build this.

What I do know is that a lot of Ti/Fe users tend to think this way about Te/Fi users and phrase things in this manner when referencing functional Te.

But really, Fe and Te both are authoritarian hierarchical empire builders ... Je dom and aux rule!

 

[Researcher]

Wait, do you mean ExTJs vs IxTPs?

Yes...
Te-dom=ExTJ
Fi-dom=IxFP

Maybe less pronounced, but we could even include Te/Fi-second-function:
Te-2nd=IxTJ
Fi-2nd=ExFP

So with the included second function:
xxTJ(Te) & xxFP (Fi) =authoritarian vs. xxTP (Ti) & xxFJ (Fe) = non-authoritarian

 

[Researcher]

What I do know is that a lot of Ti/Fe users tend to think this way about Te/Fi users and phrase things in this manner when referencing functional Te.

But really, Fe and Te both are authoritarian hierarchical empire builders ... Je dom and aux rule!

Fe-s build together. Fe-s like to decide together like "democracy". Fe-s work based on common principles/morals.

To say it in a funny way, a hypothetical group of pure-Fe-s-only can build an empire, but they will work together like a "headless mob monster", as no one would be their leader, just their moral code in the middle (not a person), and they would probably do some democracy-like voting on issues.

Until it goes wrong of course and they start crying/panicking, and then a Te comes along to take over...
The Te just wants to get the job done, regardless of principles/morals. He will just take his most efficient position to get the job done.
So then the Fe-s are in a authoritarian society all of a sudden. (So they can fall into an authoritarian society, but that doesn't mean they build such society by themselves.)

----

However, I know how Fe-s can "teach you a lesson", if you don't join the "headless monster of their moral code". Fe-s can obviously be very enforcing in making you join their "headless monster of their principles/morals". That may seem authoritarian if that is your mom for example. BUT.. just for fun, if you would do exactly what she proposes and follow her moral code even more ideally than she does, then she will shut up. You would find out that after that there is no upper leader / next level. You will find a headless monster containing her principles/morals only.
However if your mom is Te or Fi, she could be authoritarian just for the sake of it, without any morals/principle(Fe), without any philosophical correctness(Ti) or just without any explanation why. And she would also be prone to bow to another Te/Fi above her, to someone (a person) more powerful than her (might is right), NOT to a common moral code (a non-person). Thus a command hierarchy of Te/Fi persons is created.

So maybe hierarchy is a clearer word than authoritarian. Because yes, Fe mom can seem authoritarian, but she is usually not in a command hierarchy of actual people (she is only commanded by common moral code, which is not a person).
Thats why I also said "authoritarian society", not just the authority of your Fe mom.

Next time, I would use "hierarchical" as the definition, instead of "authoritarian". After I wrote all of this, I conclude that it is a better choice of words.

So version 2 of the formulation of my hypothesis is:

Te/Fi-users (xxTJ/xxFP) & especially Te/Fi-doms (ExTJ/IxFP) tend to build a "hierarchical society (of commanding people)"
<vs>
Ti/Fe-users (xxTP/xxFJ) & especially Ti/Fe-doms (IxTP/ExFJ) tend to build a "flat society (of commanding morals/principles)".
---

Disclaimer: I am very abstract, so small (irrelevant) details might be wrong, as this is just a "zoomed-out" explanation. And I talk a about the general here, not about the exceptions.

 

[reckful]

Yeah, baby. Those INFPs just love to build a "hierarchical society (of commanding people)."

And it's no wonder your "hierarchical/flat" subtypology doesn't work, because TJs and FPs are only kindred spirits (because they're supposedly both "Te/Fi users") in ways that differentiate both from FJs and TPs if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a model that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers' function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And if you're interested, you can find more discussion of those issues in this post and this post.

There are now decades of MBTI data pools full of statistically significant (and often very dramatic) correlations between MBTI preferences (and preference combinations) and a wide variety of things, from personality attributes to behavioral manifestations. And if the personality or behavioral characteristic you're correlating type with has the TJs (for example) at one end of the relevant spectrum, you know where you can reliably expect to find the FPs? Yeah, sorry, Researcher, but you can expect to find the FPs at the opposite end of that spectrum.

Sadly for Harold Grant (and for shining lights like Linda Berens who've been peddling his fact-challenged model for years), it turns out there don't seem to be any real world things — like, say, "hierarchical" vs. "flat" social proclivities — where "Fi/Te vs. Fe/Ti" turns out to be the main influence, with the result that the TJs and FPs are on one side of the divide and the FJs and TPs are on the other.

That's just not the way the MBTI preferences (and combinations) play out.

The idea that INTJs and ESFPs have a lot of MBTI-related things in common because they're both "Fi/Te users" and "Ni/Se users" has no more "validity" — which is psychometric for corresponding with reality — than the idea that Mike and Judy have a lot of personality characteristics in common because they're both Capricorns. And again, it's based on a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

 

[Researcher]

....

The idea that INTJs and ESFPs have a lot of MBTI-related things in common because they're both "Fi/Te users" and "Ni/Se users" has no more "validity" — which is psychometric for corresponding with reality — than the idea that Mike and Judy have a lot of personality characteristics in common because they're both Capricorns. And again, it's based on a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

I didn't understand why your remarks were bit negative to me before, but now I see the pattern that you are simply trying to push some point about your own view of MBTI/typology. I just don't understand your point yet, on what you base everything, or what the foundation is for the things you say. What you say is not making sense to me now, but I am open to delve into your view, so maybe then I can understand you. Will get back to this later.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Fe-s build together. Fe-s like to decide together like "democracy". Fe-s work based on common principles/morals.

No they don't, but they like to think that they do. It's about power, who has it, who's losing it, who's in a position to capitalize on the loss. If you don't think Fe yields authority, then I think your understanding of what we discuss as functional Fe is very limited.

However if your mom is Te or Fi, she could be authoritarian just for the sake of it, without any morals/principle(Fe), without any philosophical correctness(Ti) or just without any explanation why. And she would also be prone to bow to another Te/Fi above her, to someone (a person) more powerful than her (might is right), NOT to a common moral code (a non-person). Thus a command hierarchy of Te/Fi persons is created.

There's just so much "wrong" about this I have suddenly felt the energy suck out of me to counter it with reason.

No offense to you, but your position of coming to this site to "school" all of the rest of us on the functions seems highly misguided.

 

[Researcher]

No they don't, but they like to think that they do. It's about power, who has it, who's losing it, who's in a position to capitalize on the loss. If you don't think Fe yields authority, then I think your understanding of what we discuss as functional Fe is very limited.



There's just so much "wrong" about this I have suddenly felt the energy suck out of me to counter it with reason.

No offense to you, but your position of coming to this site to "school" all of the rest of us on the functions seems highly misguided.

Disclaimer2: I'm presenting a hypothesis here, and for the sake of it: I am defending it full throttle. Because if I wouldn't dare to go full throttle we would never find any answers anyway. Even though I haven't even decided myself if its true, I am just giving it a chance to see what comes out. "It's a hypothesis", that means I might be wrong. It's just an experimental idea. If in the end I am logically convinced I'm wrong, I will easily admit to it.

And I am not schooling anyone here in this thread about MBTI or functions.

 

[Researcher]

If you don't think Fe yields authority, then I think your understanding of what we discuss as functional Fe is very limited.

P.S > I actually said that Fe-s can surely act like a harsh authority making you conform (e.g. the Fe mom example who bosses you around), and..... I said that "their inner master" is some moral code / values / principles. In that part I don't see any conflict in the common consensus, as the consensus for Fe is surely that they are morals/value-driven. So there is no "insult" to the common consensus in this part of the story at least.

My theory was not about what is below them (e.g. you, in case of your mom), but what is above them (logic? moral code? a person? a collective?).
The question is: What is controlling them? (instead of: in what way or how are they controlling).

 

[PeaceBaby]

P.S > I actually said that Fe-s can surely act like a harsh authority making you conform (e.g. the Fe mom example who bosses you around), and..... I said that "their inner master" is some moral code / values / principles. In that part I don't see any conflict in the common consensus, as the consensus for Fe is surely that they are morals/value-driven. So there is no "insult" to the common consensus in this part of the story at least.

My theory was not about what is below them (e.g. you, in case of your mom), but what is above them (logic? moral code? a person? a collective?).
The question is: What is controlling them? (instead of: in what way or how are they controlling).

Thanks for your replies and let's dig deeper then, as you say.

A hypothesis, being "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation" first requires the provision of limited evidence as a base. Where is your evidence in this thread? No one here is interested in making your argument for you. Provide the basis for your hypothesis. (Aside from your subjective opinion and as evidenced here your understanding of cognitive functions. An interpretation of Jung's literature is not an argument, and if that IS the basis of this discussion I would require you to lay down your interpretive definitions first in order that we are discussing things from an even and agreed upon starting point.)

And, to look closer at your understanding of cognitive functions, a question: If Fe's "...'inner master' is some moral code / values / principles" what would you say is Fi's inner master?

 

[Researcher]

Thanks for your replies and let's dig deeper then, as you say.

A hypothesis, being "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation" first requires the provision of limited evidence as a base. Where is your evidence in this thread? No one here is interested in making your argument for you. Provide the basis for your hypothesis. (Aside from your subjective opinion and as evidenced here your understanding of cognitive functions. An interpretation of Jung's literature is not an argument, and if that IS the basis of this discussion I would require you to lay down your interpretive definitions first in order that we are discussing things from an even and agreed upon starting point.)

And, to look closer at your understanding of cognitive functions, a question: If Fe's "...'inner master' is some moral code / values / principles" what would you say is Fi's inner master?

For Fi-s its their own inner feelings, not some outside moral code. Fe-s are good people if the moral code is good. But what if its not good moral code? This is the great thing about Fi-s, they will break wrong moral code, if it feels wrong. So they are not controlled by the moral code, like Fe-s are. Fi-s have their own stuff inside.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Fi-s have their own stuff inside.

Which is what, exactly?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I can only add the following. The idea of a sociAl hierarchy I thought was Fe but I consulted a jungian therapist one day before Christmas and he mentioned to me that social hierarchy is Te based...the social hierarchy is a scientific fact and programmed into our deepest instincts and among the oldest natural constructs in our collective psyche. That being said, nature is not a democracy...point blank..it is for us to produce social justice and this is why we are considered divine among theosophists and different from animals.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

The objective values of a group is Fe though...you really can't isolate any construct though to a particular cognitive function. All functions lead to every singular thing but some are more concious in the process. I'm being redundant, everyone here probably knows that.

 

[Researcher]

For Fi-s its their own inner feelings, not some outside moral code. Fe-s are good people if the moral code is good. But what if its not good moral code? This is the great thing about Fi-s, they will break wrong moral code, if it feels wrong. So they are not controlled by the moral code, like Fe-s are. Fi-s have their own stuff inside.

So we all know Fi-s do not like to be controlled at all. So on the surface Fi-s are anti-authority. Thats why some people think I'm crazy if I include Fi in the Te authoritarian hierarchy. (As we all can see in the remarks above, in this thread)

Because Fi-s are all about things that feel bad inside, like that annoying authority that should be opposed. So, if they are anti-authority, how can they be the functional part in an authoritarian/hierarchical society?

To explain that, I have to explain how the shadow works (Te in case of Fi).
About Fi.... it is impossible to oppose everything, as even the best Fi that opposes every bad feeling will get overloaded... and so what happens to what they don't oppose? >> that just happens! it does not get stopped by their feelings. So these certain things (on which they don't focus) just happen. They absolutely do not know, because they honestly do not have that intent, to make these things happen. Because at the mean time, they were focusing on their feelings blocking some other bad things. But that thing that they let happen, it just slips through / passes through, it happens by mistake/coincidence. This is the shadow working here! So while they were focusing on the enemy authority that should be opposed, they were actually helping the other side, which is another authority (the enemy of your enemy, is your friend). What actually happens was not the inside intent of the Fi folks themselves, but to the outside observer, and to actual effects in real life.

So lets say we are Fi here (or playing/imagining Fi, like in my case): the idea is that you are opposing something that feels bad, you are thinking about the thing that feels bad and must be stopped. BUT by doing that you are doing the job of somebody else, or helping somebody else, somebody you did not notice and/or had not the specific intent to for helping. But you still did, by coincidence! (And then it was my next conclusion that this "somebody which you helped" will be a collective or a person which is indirectly controlling you in this case, but never an impersonal piece of moral code).

Conclusion, as to why I included Fi in authoritarian, not just Te, is because Fi leaves trails of Te (their shadow). Although I know Fi-s really did not intent for that to happen, it still does, in real life.


P.S. All functions have the shadow working against them, not just Fi. This was just an Fi example, since you guys probably think Fi is anti-authoritarian and I needed to clear that one up.