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

[locke]

To notice fine shades of feelings and subjective evaluations of things. Feelings/evaluations are black & white with an all or nothing quality. The palette of a Thinking type's feelings consists of elementary colours, unlike the highly subtle and diverse shades and tones of that of a feeling type.

The feelings of a Thinking type is "unreasonable".

Yes, but I wanted to hear it from BlueWing.

 

[SillySapienne]

The truths that I subscribe to, I believe to be universal truths.

I don't claim to know things that I don't understand, but I do understand the things that I know.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That's interesting. So you're saying that what I'm experiencing in those instances is not Fi, but rather Fe? I'll have to look into that.

Yes because Fe preceeds Fi in the order of functions.

In essence they are the same, the only difference is the output of Fe is inspired directly by an external object, yet the output of Fi is inspired by an internal emotive mindset. So in the case of Fe, the emotion is evoked directly by the work of art, yet in the case of Fi by a preconceived emotive perception of the work of art. For the Introverted Thinker the emotion is inspired by the analysis of the work of art, generally cannot emote before having thought through the circumstances. However, there is no subjective filter of emotive perceptions in this case, the emotional reaction is aimed directly at the object itself, in this case it is the analysis of the work of art. For this reason, you will almost never hear an INTP say, I feel this way simply because I do, I have no will to explain that. In addition to the very rational nature of the INTP, the Feeling of this type is very simple because it is easily traced to the external stimulus.

The mindset of a TJ (Fi) is different, first there is an analysis, yet Fi does not emote directly in relation to the analysis, but to some mystical emotive perception interposed between the analysis and the process of commiting the emotion to such an analysis.

In short, extroverted functions respond directly to the object, introverted functions respond to the subjective perception interposed between the function and the object.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.

Your word choice is very flimsy and contradicting.beliefs )

One thing is clear about her statement. It is vague. However, I do not see a contradiction. Explain where you see the contradiction.

"What it basically amounts to is feelers have the courage of their convictions. meaning you have a strong belief in what you perceive to be "true," if you would pay attention to your quote and practice what you preach you would see that just having a strong belief in something does not necessarily make it true.)

She did say that Thinkers are more likely to dispute what others hold to be the truth, yet she did not state that Feelers have the courage of conviction.

A more faithful interpretation would be Feelers do not dispute their beliefs with others, whilst Thinkers do. No explicit remark has been made concerning who is more confident in beliefs (has courage of conviction).

 

[cloakofsnow]

Yes, but I wanted to hear it from BlueWing.

I figured -- sorry. But I couldn't resist.

 

[Simplexity]

The truths that I subscribe to, I believe to be universal truths.

I don't claim to know things that I don't understand, but I do understand the things that I know.

I have trouble associating universal truths with subjective opinons, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread title Fi: you only get it if you have it?

Wow some universal truth. Does that not inherently seclude everyone else who is not an Fi user, or is universal only to a certain subset of people? we can go on and on but you will find that all your doing is partitioning this universal truth so it is closer to your beliefs.

In my opinion a universal truth would be more along the lines of men and women have different reproductive organs, something that cannot be disputed( yes I know call on a minuscule subset to refute this) and can be understood by anyone regardless of their personality, age, sex, title, basically any classification system you chose to use.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

To take personal values into consideration -- likes & dislikes, emotional attachments & loyalties to people, animals, places, things.

To notice fine shades of feelings and subjective evaluations of things. Feelings/evaluations tend to be black & white with an all or nothing quality. The palette of a Thinking type's feelings consists of elementary colours, unlike the highly subtle and diverse shades and tones of that of a Feeling type.

This is all true.

[The feelings of a Thinking type is "unreasonable".

More reasonable because they are curbed by logical reasoning. For example, a Thinker's emotional reactions to external circumstances are usually in direct proportion to the circumstances themselves because the Thinker makes an effort to understand things for what they are. Inevitably, we all emote to situations in accordance to what we deem for them to be. For example, if I think the person who crashed into my car made an innocent mistake, I will have little negative emotion towards him. If I think that he was trying to kill me, I will have a lot of negative emotion towards him.

In reiteration of my thesis and in summary, the emotional reaction of the thinker is reasonable because it matches the circumstances.

 

[Orangey]

I have trouble associating universal truths with subjective opinons, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread title Fi: you only get it if you have it?

Wow some universal truth. Does that not inherently seclude everyone else who is not an Fi user, or is universal only to a certain subset of people? we can go on and on but you will find that all your doing is partitioning this universal truth so it is closer to your beliefs.

In my opinion a universal truth would be more along the lines of men and women have different reproductive organs, something that cannot be disputed( yes I know call on a minuscule subset to refute this) and can be understood by anyone regardless of their personality, age, sex, title, basically any classification system you chose to use.

She never said that Fi has exclusive access to "universal truth".

 

[Simplexity]

One thing is clear about her statement. It is vague. However, I do not see a contradiction. Explain where you see the contradiction.

The thing about her statements is that they are constantly vague. That allows her to twist it with each new counter argument and claim a different interpretation on each one which gives her an absurd amount of flexibility. Basically the further we argue, the less likely we are to be arguing the same thing.

She did say that Thinkers are more likely to dispute what others hold to be the truth, yet she did not state that Feelers have the courage of conviction.

What I got from her statement was that she has a strong belief in what she believes to be true. Going by her quote that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

 

[SillySapienne]

Fi is merely a *way* to apprehend universal truth, or "truth".

That is all.

 

[SillySapienne]

And dudes, this thread isn't about *me* it is about *Fi*.

Grrrrr!!!

 

[Simplexity]

Fi is merely a *way* to apprehend universal truth, or "truth"

That is all.

Thinkers dispute what's true, while Feelers sense/see/understand the truth.

see this is the benefit of using very vague statements. You did not state or imply that it was just a way. You sort of discounted the fact that thinkers could ever "see" universal truths.

 

[Orangey]

Thinkers dispute what's true, while Feelers sense/see/understand the truth.

see this is the benefit of using very vague statements. You did not state or imply that it was just a way. You sort of discounted the fact that thinkers could ever "see" universal truths.

I think that was more the result of your faulty interpretation.

 

[SillySapienne]

Thinkers dispute what's true, while Feelers sense/see/understand the truth.

see this is the benefit of using very vague statements. You did not state or imply that it was just a way. You sort of discounted the fact that thinkers could ever "see" universal truths.

Well, I apologize for my vague wording that resulted in your misunderstanding.

I hope this is all cleared up now, however.

 

[Simplexity]

I think that was more the result of your faulty interpretation.

well my interpretation was that thinkers try and argue whether or not something is true. while feelers see/understand/sense the truth.

How should that be interpreted

 

[SolitaryWalker]

well my interpretation was that thinkers try and argue whether or not something is true. while feelers see/understand/sense the truth.

How should that be interpreted

She should have said, thinkers attempt to understand the truth by disputing it with others, yet feelers through mere perception 'see/understand/sense'.

This is the most accurate interpretation I can think of.

 

[Orangey]

well my interpretation was that thinkers try and argue whether or not something is true. while feelers see/understand/sense the truth.

How should that be interpreted

No, I meant that your interpretation of CC's statements as meaning "thinkers don't have access to the 'truth' and feelers do" was not immediately evident to anyone else but yourself.

 

[Simplexity]

No, I meant that your interpretation of CC's statements as meaning "thinkers don't have access to the 'truth' and feelers do" was not immediately evident to anyone else but yourself.

by immediately do you mean it is evident now and faulty, or do you mean it was faulty and is not evident?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

by immediately do you mean it is evident now and faulty, or do you mean it was faulty and is not evident?

She meant that upon first reading it was not clear.

 

[Simplexity]

She should have said, thinkers attempt to understand the truth by disputing it with others, yet feelers through mere perception 'see/understand/sense'.

This is the most accurate interpretation I can think of.

Yes and that is my main argument with her reasoning. It gives her a great amount of flexibility because she is rarely precise with her words like you. It's kind of hard to argue when you have so many possible interpretations of your words and statements. This isn't even touching on the fact that she decides to argue her many statements well after the fact.