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

[Haphazard]

Why is Shakespeare an INFP, again?

 

[SillySapienne]

Why is Shakespeare an INFP, again?

Because he wrote Hamlet.

 

[Jack Flak]

Jack, you're claiming that someone, like Emeinem (or however you spell it!) would fake Fi for a whole freaking career, build their life's work on something not natural to them. I admitted that they might do a special work every now and then but the body of their work would reflect their preference functions. I just don't buy that the body of their work would be based on a unconscious function.

I know you don't buy it, whatever "unconscious function" is supposed to mean, but it's viable.

When artists create art, they are often not their day to day selves. They go to a special place. I know because I do it.

 

[Haphazard]

Because he wrote Hamlet.

What if I had written Hamlet? Would that make me an INFP?

The fact is that most of his work was made to appeal to broad audiences. This is... not what INFPs are famous for.

 

[Jeffster]

`
linearly and logically explain Fi

Yeah, I don't do linear and logical.

Oh, and remember, it is not just the NFs that swim in the Fi pool. I've been floatin in here so long my hands are gettin all wrinkly.

 

[Usehername]

I understand Fi very very well (for a T).

Ni lets me "get" things; Fi helps me to "know" what to do with these things that I "get."

(Then Te powers over and takes action.)

 

[SillySapienne]

What if I had written Hamlet? Would that make me an INFP?

The fact is that most of his work was made to appeal to broad audiences. This is... not what INFPs are famous for.

Ahhhhhhhhh, a Shakespeare hater!!!

Gah, some of his work is far from being awesome, I will give you that, and I do think that this was due to the pace in which he was constantly cranking out work but Hamlet,, Macbeth, Richard III, Othello?!?!?

These were masterpieces, to say the least, and *all* of these plays resonate with an Fi charge.

 

[Blackmail!]

when someone who isn't "Fi" does build a career on "Fi art," you're typing them as Fi anyway.

What's "Fi art"?

 

[Haphazard]

What's "Fi art"?

It's 'Fart' with an extra letter.

 

[Blackmail!]

So, I must say, I feel no sympathy for those who deem Fi to be a grandiosely complex cognitive faculty. Those who judge for this to be the case are obviously suffering from a failure of rationality.

And those who ponder predictable ego-trips (I.e: "anything that is not ME is not right", or deemed as "primitive" or "uninteresting") are obviously suffering from a faillure of basic curiosity or necessary empathy.

 

[disregard]

Just for the record, I don't actually think Fi is mysterious.

 

[Nocapszy]

So, I implore you, somebody, (anybody), try to linearly and logically explain Fi, for I simply cannot

I've tried more than once, and I assure you CC, I understand Fi, even despite having real trouble identifying with it, but every attempt I've mRs to explain it logically has upset you, with the inevitable, predictable result of you writing me off as incorrect.

Here's the fact: Fi is not intellectually flattering.
You like to think of yourself as intellectual, which you may very well be (I'll leave my judgement out of this) but I can assure you, it's not the calculations I Fi that deem you this quality.
Your shortsight: just because you're an Fi user and Fi isn't a great intellectual tool doesn't mean you can't excell intellectually.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And those who ponder predictable ego-trips (I.e: "anything that is not ME is not right", or deemed as "primitive" or "uninteresting") are obviously suffering from a faillure of basic curiosity or necessary empathy.

Oh, most esteemed sir!

I am incandescent with empathy for every melancholy poet who has composed such compelling beauty as an allegory about a pair of dirty socks!

I tell you the truth, you've got to live it to feel it, as CC eloquently put it, Fi, you just do not understand it unless you have it!

And I did not until I myself had nothing in my life to cherish more than a pair of dirty socks!

I rebuke myself for having lacked empathy and curiosity to understand this earlier!



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

`So, I implore you, somebody, (anybody), try to linearly and logically explain Fi, for I simply cannot, asking me to do so is like asking me to justify my, I don't know, my entire existence, I guess..

Lets knock the crap off shall we?

Definitions,

Feeling:Faculty of subjective valuation.

Introversion: Orientation by the internal mindset rather than the external object.

Introverted Feeling: Orientation of Feeling by an internal mindset.

Introverted and Extroverted Feeling distinguished: Fi is distinct from Fe in the regard that it does not embrace the feelings of others on board by default, but first it is filtered through the unconscious subjective valuation of the person in question.

Rationale of Fi: The process of subjective valuation is entirely arbitrary as is Feeling by definition. Whatever made the strongest impression on the person is by definition valued by Fi.

Reason why Fi appears mysterious and Fe does not: The valuation of Fi is grounded in the subject, not the object, therefore it is not clearly what is influencing the values of Fi. However, Fi in itself is a mere subjective valuation just like Fe. It does nothing other than, when I am pinched "Ouch!". It simply appears mysterious because we do not see the stimulus of the emotion.

Important note: Fi is not individualistic. Feeling is a mere direct consequence of an impact by an external object. The only way Fi could be individualistic is if it is impacted by a faculty of the intellect, such as imagination or logical analysis. This Fi's tend to lack because they are primarily influenced by emotions which are an extrinsic influence not intrinsic for the reasons mentioned before.

In other words, if I am using Fi only I am influenced by the mere emotional reactions that have been bestowed upon me as a result of my interaction with the external environment. Now, if I am an analytical and an imaginative person as well as an Fi user, or my faculties of Thinking and Intuition hold primacy over Feeling, my emotional reactions will be to my thoughts and visions, not to mere external stimulus.

Because the former is the case with Fis and not the latter, there is nothing complex or deeply internally grounded (as often regarded for Fi to be) about Fi.

Thus, the following statement is clearly false,

.........[/Therefore, unlike its extraverted counterpart, Extraverted Feeling, it is entirely individualistic, with a leaning toward the mystical. Introverted feeling is generally disconnected with typical external stimuli. Introverted feeling is only concerned with the external to the extent that the object has some relevance to a deep, internal value. Its primary objective is to harmonize ideologies, concepts, relationships etc. with the internal guiding force."......

 

[sakuraba]

Fi: Personal values, beliefs.


I must also point out - There's a HUGE difference between INFP and ISFP.

 

[SillySapienne]

I've tried more than once, and I assure you CC, I understand Fi, even despite having real trouble identifying with it, but every attempt I've mRs to explain it logically has upset you, with the inevitable, predictable result of you writing me off as incorrect.

Um, okay?

Here's the fact: Fi is not intellectually flattering.
You like to think of yourself as intellectual, which you may very well be (I'll leave my judgement out of this) but I can assure you, it's not the calculations I Fi that deem you this quality.
Your shortsight: just because you're an Fi user and Fi isn't a great intellectual tool doesn't mean you can't excell intellectually.

lolwut?!?!?!

I don't even know what you are talking about, here.

A.) I do not think of myself as an intellectual.

B.) I do not correlate and, or connect my intellectual capabilities with my Fi capacity.

 

[Blackmail!]

Just for the record, I don't actually think Fi is mysterious.

I do.

Fi is often dubbed as "personal values", and that could mean there are as many Fi as there are Fi users in the world.

Thus, even if I seem to have a very low Fi myself, I find the subject to be of extreme complexity.
Ti is way easier to define, as logic will always remain logic, after all. It's very reliable, and quite impersonal, that's why I trust it on most subjects.

On the other hand, Fi seems to be a multi-layered cognitive function, whose effectiveness seem to vary according to a lot of interactions, context... and so on...

 

[Nocapszy]

Bluewing is correct.
What the good Captain ought to have said was that it's difficult for her to explain her Fi judgements -- what Fi does for her, rather than Fi itself. The function alone is simplex at it's most confusing points.

 

[SillySapienne]

Hiya BlueWing!!!



Love to see that you're in your usual chippety-chipper mood.

 

[Nocapszy]

Lies chick.

And you have unfairly become upset by my presentation of the truth, which, though coarse it may be, is still not wrong.

Well, Fi will do that to ya -- make you get mad at the facts; like they're ganging up on you.
Dont worry chick, I'll still be on your side

 

[SillySapienne]

Lies chick.

And you have unfairly become upset by my presentation of the truth, though coarse it may be, is still not wrong.

Well, Fi will do that to ya -- make you get mad at the facts; like they're ganging up on you.
Dont worry chick, I'll still be on your side

ZOMG!!!

Fi respects the truth more than anything, that's right, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g!!!!