User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Softserve Ice Cream Agent Washington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,100

    Default Fi and rationality

    I've always felt more rational than a feeler, and while I find it useless to resist typing since it's descriptive, I wonder if other MBTI "feelers", especially Fi users, feel the same way as well.

    Fi to me has always been about making choices based on authenticity to oneself, so it necessarily feels logical to me.

    I'd also like some food for thought regarding values and logic. I find that my emotions tend to follow logic rather than the other way around, which seems to contradict my typing as a "feeler".

    Or is it Te at the base of Fi?
    There's no love in fear.
    - Tool

    Do we want to remind you of something? Yes: the world is good and we belong here.
    - Richard Siken
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  2. #2
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogata View Post
    I've always felt more rational than a feeler, and while I find it useless to resist typing since it's descriptive, I wonder if other MBTI "feelers", especially Fi users, feel the same way as well.

    Fi to me has always been about making choices based on authenticity to oneself, so it necessarily feels logical to me.

    I'd also like some food for thought regarding values and logic. I find that my emotions tend to follow logic rather than the other way around, which seems to contradict my typing as a "feeler".

    Or is it Te at the base of Fi?

    This is the catch, it feels logical but that is something completely different than truly logical. Inconsistency can be quite logical course of action in many situation.s
    The very concept that you are placing do much weight on inner self is by definition high Fi approach.

  3. #3
    Softserve Ice Cream Agent Washington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual ghost View Post
    This is the catch, it feels logical but that is something completely different than truly logical. Inconsistency can be quite logical course of action in many situation.s
    The very concept that you are placing do much weight on inner self is by definition high Fi approach.
    Is Ti not focused on an inner self? I don't believe logic can exist independently of the brain that carries it.
    There's no love in fear.
    - Tool

    Do we want to remind you of something? Yes: the world is good and we belong here.
    - Richard Siken
    Likes Luminous liked this post

  4. #4
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogata View Post
    Is Ti not focused on an inner self? I don't believe logic can exist independently of the brain that carries it.
    In my book Ti is more of a focus on all the fact you know. What isn't your inner self in emotional sense.


    But yes, MBTI functions are very shady area/idea.
    Likes Agent Washington liked this post

  5. #5
    Can't be satisfied. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,700

    Default

    That's basically the nature of Te, and you are probably aware of it because you extravert it, so it's quite visible to you and others. I have a pretty strong grasp on my Te, but I am often emotionally irrational, meaning that I have to step back from the emotional reaction and take another look at things objectively to see what is actually going to work. I consider myself an intellectual feeler who is quite capable of using objective logic, but ultimately, what gets me super worked up is subjective ethics and ensuring that others do not disrespect that in myself or others. You do you, I'll do me. Giggity.
    Perpetual mood


    “Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel.
    And from here on out, I'm not gonna feel anything new.
    Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.”


    - look it up yourself


    Likes Luminous liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2,348

    Default

    I don't relate totally, I usually have the emotional response first then think logically maybe a few hours after my impulsive emotional reaction. I have never found myself very "rational".

  7. #7
    ∂ιѕgяα¢є∂ ¢σѕмσηαυт Luminous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    952 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII Fi
    Posts
    5,210

    Default

    In high school, I may well have mistakenly gre typed myself as an INTJ (based on dichotomies, not functions). So I can relate to what you're saying. The mistake really does lie with the idea that F can't be logical, because it most certainly can. I'm pretty good at using logic (I say that knowing I got a high score on that portion of the GRE), though not always great at applying it in real life. In real life, things are rarely black and white and pure logic isn't the only consideration, so it has to be balanced with other things, and there are things that I value more, like love. ... And I think that line of thought is pretty Fi-ish...
    ✦ᏖᏒᎥᎮ ค ℓιɬɬℓɛ Ꮭıɠɧɬ ʄคŋɬคʂɬıƈ✦ -: ✦ :- ƒ O ᖇ G E ᗪ I ᑎ ƒ I ᖇ E ❋-: ✦ :-★ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ꜰᴇᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇᴇʟꜱ★
    * ・゚ ・゚ * ⊱9w1✶S✶5w4✶X✶2w1⊰ * ・゚ ・゚ *
    ✦Շђєяє คяє ๓σяє тнιηﻭѕ ιη нєανєη αη∂ єαятн Շђαη คяє ∂яєαмт σƒ ιη уσυя ρнιℓσѕσρну.✦
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  8. #8
    darkened dreams Ravenetta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,175

    Default

    I think of my emotions as fairly rational responses to the environment. I just had a conversation with someone who couldn't forgive someone who had done nothing wrong, but had caused a sort of pain without ever interacting. I responded with "if the person did nothing wrong, then there is nothing to forgive". They responded with "emotions are complex and that's just how I feel". Such a thing is completely alien to me. I care about a sort of rationality when dealing in subjective systems of emotions. If someone didn't do something wrong, I could never indulge and blame them because it made me feel better to do that. I care about being emotionally reasonable, even though I feel things very deeply. There are times in relationships where I will describe what I feel, and then explain that the description of the emotion isn't an implied justification. My thoughts processes are "this is what I feel. Does it match reality? Is there something reasonable I'm expecting to change? If not, why am I feeling the emotion? Is it triggered from a past event where such an intense emotion was reasonable? etc" I know my internal world very well, and I know why I feel what I feel. My emotions are overwhelming intense, but they make sense. I feel a kind of responsibility to understand what I'm feeling, why I'm feeling it, and how well it matches the external world. There are two very important parts of being a moral and good person in the world. The first part is to have a strong, clear internal sense of morality, the second is to have a clear and accurate idea about the outside world. If the outside world is distorted, then good moral intentions can be applied like giving a sick person the wrong medicine. You can cause terrible harm if you aren't responsible to the true nature of external reality.
    It's entirely possible and realistic to live your life in such a way that you don't accidentally rape people. ME
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN
    If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY
    You have to let the metaphysical guy chase you. ABIGAIL

  9. #9
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,797

    Default

    I think you've got your definitions mixed up. Feeling IS a rational process, rational meaning based on reason and making choices. I know the NTs are called "the rationals", but that's based on an incorrect using of the term. Feeling is not "logical" though, which is a particular kind of reason, which might use something like an "if... then" statement. Basically, Thinking is based on logic, systems, and is impersonal criteria, whereas Feeling is personal and based on values and empathy. Both use reason.

    When you say "I find it useless to resist typing since it's descriptive" I think you might be using an Fi principle to guide your reasoning, because that statement isn't clear to me regarding why the conclusion follows from the premise.

    To describe what Fe is like, one major aspect is that the things I do are often tailored to fit an audience - they are done with another person in mind, or the general group, which can give me a "teacher" or "helper" persona. This seems to mirror what you said about making choices based on authenticity as a description of Fi. Authenticity isn't the only aspect of Fi, but it's definitely related.

    So I guess the difference between Thinking and Feeling is whether your reason is guided by the rules of a system, or the nature of living beings (seen from the perspective of consciousness, as opposed to also seeing the lifeform as a system in itself). That's why Feeling is tied to empathy - it's more psychological in nature, often referring to a person, with that person being your internal guidance system in the case of Fi. Ti also uses an internal guidance system, but Ti is very detached, whereas Fi is more heartfelt. Functions that play the same role, like Fi and Ti, have very similar natures in terms of what they do, but they use opposing criteria which can kind of "undo" each other. With Ni and Si, Si focuses on the known and tries to become more and more certain, whereas Ni focuses on the unknown and tries to dig deeper and deeper, but both are about the subjective way in which information appears in the psyche, being on the one hand a point of view, and the other hand a way of channeling information from the psyche (concepts for Ni, memories for Si). Ti has a tendency to divide things, noting the distinctions which define one thing as separate from another, whereas Fi has a tendency to unite things, often trying to find a compromise where things can be both ways.

    So yeah, Feeling and Thinking are both rational, they just reason things out differently. Your usage of the terms rationality and logic strike me as incorrect, so when you say that your emotions follow logic, I don't know if you're talking about the interplay of Thinking with Feeling, or merely noting the simultaneously emotional and rational nature of the Feeling function.
    the lone star flies alone

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO