[Fi] Fi: You only get it if you got it

[Didums]

I think we can all agree on this:

Happiness doesn't exist.

You cannot go to a part of the brain and say: "There! Thats some Happiness! He/She's got a whole lot of it! Must be a happy person."

Neither does Happiness nor Sadness exist.



Sometimes it's useful to talk about happiness, just like sometimes it's useful to talk about Fi. Your point is completely irrelevent to the discussion, which is ABOUT Fi.

Your analogy is inapplicable because Happiness can be described as both an abstract and a 'physical thing', there are many pleasure chemicals in the brain which are associated with happiness as one of their functions. We know not of a 'physical thing' which defines cognitive functions.

Yes we can talk about the abstract concept of Fi, but why waste the energy on all this negative shit people are posting about an imaginary thing when it can be a positive discussion about an imaginary thing?

 

[Orangey]

Your analogy is inapplicable because Happiness can be described as both an abstract and a 'physical thing', there are many pleasure chemicals in the brain which are associated with happiness as one of their functions. We know not of a 'physical thing' which defines cognitive functions.

Certain types of pain cannot be identified as physical/physical processes. That is why insurance companies won't pay for treatement for people with fibromyalgia. The pain is real, though.

 

[redacted]

Your analogy is inapplicable because Happiness can be described as both an abstract and a 'physical thing', there are many pleasure chemicals in the brain which are associated with happiness as one of their functions. We know not of a 'physical thing' which defines cognitive functions.

Fine, as Orangey is pointing out, use Pain instead in that argument. Just because we don't happen to know the specifics of the brain implementation level of the system doesn't mean the concept isn't valid.

Why wouldn't there be a physical implementation of cognitive functions? Cognition is certainly physically instantiated.

Yes we can talk about the abstract concept of Fi, but why waste the energy on all this negative shit people are posting about an imaginary thing when it can be a positive discussion about an imaginary thing?

"Imaginary thing" can be applied to so much of what we talk about that it's worthless to even say.

 

[SillySapienne]

Certain types of pain cannot be identified as physical/physical processes. That is why insurance companies won't pay for treatement for people with fibromyalgia. The pain is real, though.

Pain is interesting because there are just oh so many kinds, and manifestations of it.

When defining/diagnosing pain, one must identify both its severity as well as its type.

There is love sickness, there is despair, there is frustration, there is throbbing pain, searing pain, numbing pain, agony, just to name a limited few.

But pain still exists in all its myriad manifestations.

When dealing with umbrella terms such as Pain, Love, and to a lesser extent Fi it is unfair to discredit their validly existing just because they happen to represent highly complex, and variable behaviors.

<---- I thought this dude was Amish, but I was wrong, he is a Hasidic Jew!!!

 

[Didums]

Fine, as Orangey is pointing out, use Pain instead in that argument. Just because we don't happen to know the specifics of the brain implementation level of the system doesn't mean the concept isn't valid.

If it was valid it would be able to offer precise predictability even if the causes were not defined.

Why wouldn't there be a physical implementation of cognitive functions? Cognition is certainly physically instantiated.

There probably is, but it would be a complex, changing network, where dominance between certain networkings could and would change day by day. There would be very little predictability in reality. What typology does it tries to strictly define these networkings in order for you, in essence making it more predictable. Also, whos to say that there aren't other definable functions that mbti does not cover? There could be many: Ri Re, Wi We, things like that.

"Imaginary thing" can be applied to so much of what we talk about that it's worthless to even say.

Meh, that was more directed at the idea that it is a pseudoscience.

 

[Orangey]

If it was valid it would be able to offer precise predictability even if the causes were not defined.

What do you mean?

 

[Didums]

What do you mean?

If the description of Fi's function in the brain was correct, yet we did not know what chemically caused it in the brain, we would still be able to predict someone's behavior in a given scenario where Fi would be used. Yet the true description of Fi is too vague and is applicable to almost anyone at a given time, so we cannot accurately predict future behavior using the Fi decription, it can become almost anything the subjective mind (everyone has a subjective mind) wishes to think of it.

That make any sense?

 

[Simplexity]

No how about you read up on what psychology is. Matter of fact do yourself a favor and look at Blackmail!'s excellent arguments against bluewing, because clearly you don't know what the flying fuck you're talking about.

 

[disregard]

Your new toughguy act is really impressive, Aimahn.

 

[Didums]

No how about you read up on what psychology is. Matter of fact do yourself a favor and look at Blackmail!'s excellent arguments against bluewing, because clearly you don't know what the flying fuck you're talking about.

What?

 

[SillySapienne]

If the description of Fi's function in the brain was correct, yet we did not know what chemically caused it in the brain, we would still be able to predict someone's behavior in a given scenario where Fi would be used. Yet the true description of Fi is too vague and is applicable to almost anyone at a given time, so we cannot accurately predict future behavior using the Fi decription, it can become almost anything the subjective mind (everyone has a subjective mind) wishes to think of it.

That make any sense?

Do you think that all the cognitive functions are too vague and can be applicable to almost anyone at a given time?

 

[Simplexity]

Your new toughguy act is really impressive, Aimahn.

Lol im not a tough guy and am not trying to act like one. I'm just on edge tonight, I'm sure I'll return to my normal fluffy self tomorrow.

But honestly I don't understand your argument didums are you saying for me to appreciate or understand my actions or emotions I would have to go to a certified doctor to validate if my interpretation is precise or not?

As a matter of fact I predicted that by responding in such a rude manner I would get someone who called me out and was correct. Do I know specifically what emotion I triggered. No I figured just a vague thing like "anger" or "upset" I don't know I couldn't really explicitly state it for you but I knew it would be negative.

 

[Didums]

Lol im not a tough guy and am not trying to act like one. I'm just on edge tonight, I'm sure I'll return to my normal fluffy self tomorrow.

But honestly I don't understand your argument didums are you saying for me to appreciate or understand my actions or emotions I would have to go to a certified doctor to validate if my interpretation is precise or not?

As a matter of fact I predicted that by responding in such a rude manner I would get someone who called me out and was correct. Do I know specifically what emotion I triggered. No I figured just a vague thing like "anger" or "upset" I don't know I couldn't really explicitly state it for you but I knew it would be negative.

Psychology =/= Typology

Edit: brb in a bit

 

[SillySapienne]

No how about you read up on what psychology is. Matter of fact do yourself a favor and look at Blackmail!'s excellent arguments against bluewing, because clearly you don't know what the flying fuck you're talking about.

Interesting, I may not agree entirely with what he is saying, but, at least to me, he is making coherent sense, you , however...

 

[Simplexity]

Psychology =/= Typology

Edit: brb in a bit

Why don't you use your abstract skills to do a little logical maneuvering.

 

[redacted]

If the description of Fi's function in the brain was correct, yet we did not know what chemically caused it in the brain, we would still be able to predict someone's behavior in a given scenario where Fi would be used. Yet the true description of Fi is too vague and is applicable to almost anyone at a given time, so we cannot accurately predict future behavior using the Fi decription, it can become almost anything the subjective mind (everyone has a subjective mind) wishes to think of it.

That make any sense?

I agree; that is a problem that most people encounter in typology. The solution is to rigorously define all of the functions and make them span all of cognition.

The way I make sense of the functions is that they basically divide up the whole of cognition into four parts. They are not arbitrarily defining parts and asserting that they add up to the whole, they are starting from the whole and splitting it into sections.

Introversion and Extroversion of functions is the only problem I have with the system (because there's overlap between those functions, ie. Fi and Fe have overlap), and in my own understanding, I've scrapped the concept of separate functions for introversion and extroversion in favor of thinking of it as one function with a spectrum of introversion/extroversion. Meh.

 

[Moiety]

It's a pity this topic has derailed; I was hoping for someone to counter my last post.

I assure you, as someone who has, and continues to trounce every intellectual, mechanical, or mathematical problem that ever has and ever does come my way, I can say with a great deal of security that I, by no means, apparent or otherwise, avert objectivity.

Such confidence! Almost as confident as me.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So what about when Fi tells me to say "fuck it" to the norm, and disobey authority (the teacher in the class room, smoking marijuana even though it's illegal) and whatnot? What is there to be said about evolution and what is socially accepted, in that context?

What is there to be said about anti-death penalty activist in pro-death penalty countries where it has been used for hundreds of years? Are their values dictated by society as well?


And I'm assuming you're simply saying Fi lacks critical thinking faculties. Surely you are not trying to say Fi dominants lack critical thinking faculties?

Fi in itself does lack critical thinking skills, however Fi people may cultivate their critical thinking skills by developing their Thinking function. The rebellious behavior you mention in most case is a result of precisely such a development. Before having developed Thinking to a certain degree, Fi people tend to go with the flow in order to please others.

If this were the case, then wouldn't there be a lot more FPs, considering how it's good for the continuation of society, and therefore survival?

Fi is a very idiosyncratuc breed.As a matter of biology it occurs rarely because it is first and foremost focused on the passions (feelings, torrential and impulsive by nature) but aslo Introverted, which makes it in tune with the element of the intelelct and calm contemplation.

Also Fis emote in a very unconventional fashion, despite their earnest attempts to please others, people do not appreciate their kind wishes simply because they express their feelings differently from the way most people are used to.

So, in summary, Fi type occurs infrequently, and is not favored by evolution because this type fails to relate to people in a benevolent fashion often despite the sincerest efforts to do so. This explains why Fis are as rare as they are today.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Hmm, yet again, I think you failed to *really* read FineLine's, ani's, and sarah's posts, (just to name a few).

Nowhere have any of these people, including myself, alluded to Fi being a mechanism to relate to cultural norms, nowhere!!!

Cultural norms are fleeting and Fi is not really a wispy, here today, gone tomorrow, type of function.

You are absolutely correct! My view of Fi is different from theirs!

I think that my beliefs are true because I have an argument to support them, and I do not see how it can be refuted at this point, nor has anyone showed how this can be done with competence.

They on the other hand hae not presented an argument, only foundationless opinions.

One may say, they are Fi doms, they must know how that function works! No, not really! In order to properly understand how one's mind works, intellectual honesty and skill at logical analysis are required, so far they have shown no evidence of neither.

My next question is,

Cultural norms are fleeting and Fi is not really a wispy, here today, gone tomorrow, type of function.

Fi is founded on Feelings and only that, the functiom is callled 'Introverted Feeling'!.

Feeling is by its nature fickle.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So... it logically follows that people without their primary function being Fi are sociopaths (lack empathy) unless they "work on it" to become "balanced"?

God, the logical holes that I could drive a truck through.

How exactly does that follow???