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

[SolitaryWalker]

It's interesting and amusing seeing how passionate some people with Fi can be. It seems like it would be to draining to maintain that, does it fluctuate a lot or is it pretty steady. Do you constantly sort of adjust your internal emotional state according to whats going on externally or is it more calm and controlled internally until something notable occurs externally.

What do you think?

Is it possible to maintain a controlled state of mind without organizing it? It will remain static by itself?

That is implausible. Emotion responds to whatever it is stimulated by. This can only change if the person has a conscious agenda that goes against the current influx of emotion. Such an agenda could only be established with Thinking.

In other words, if you think logically, you can have a mindset that runs contrary to your natural emotional reactions, if you do not, then you inevitably follow the course elected by your emotional reactions.

Fi can only remain static if and only if the external stimuli remains static as well. Environments that produce such consistent stimuli are very rare, almost non-existing.

Thus, almost in all cases Fi fails to remain static.

One may ask, what about the internal filter of valuation that inheres within Fi and not Fe. As the only difference between the two functions is that Fe emotes directly in relation to the object, yet Fi interposes an unconscious filter of emotive valuation between the subject and the object.

Should not such a filter give Fi a solid core within itself and therefore prevent it from being easily influenced by the external emotive stimuli?

Not so, because Fi in itself does not apply logical analysis to the emotive valuation, it does not have a clear idea of what this filter of valuation is. All things that lack a clear structure are malleable.

Sorry for returning so late and for skipping so much other good material. But I'll just address this one idea because it was at the core of my objection to your (BlueWing's) viewpoint.

I'm not talking about an inability to observe reality so much as a type of "circumscribed thinking/reacting." Example: The absent-minded INTP professor who runs his life, classes, and family by purely logical principles. He is aware of the emotional side of life, but frankly that side of life seems chaotic to him and so he's too lazy and too afraid of failure to address it. So he simply ignores it and lays waste to the emotions and lives of the people around him. (See the movie "Smart People" for an example.)

Not that Fi is any better. Many INFPs are perfectly aware of things like schedules and boundaries and planning and analysis, but they're too lazy and afraid of failure to apply those things to their own lives. So they ignore those things and lay waste to the plans and lives of the people around them.

In this same context, you frequently arrogate the terms "logic," "rationality," and "reason" to T alone; whereas F only get "emotion" and "fickleness." I'll give "logic" to T and "emotion" to F. But "rational" and "reasonable" aren't merely synonyms for "logical." "Rational" and "reasonable" have broader applications to life.

I see a lot of smart INTPs who engage in wildly irrational behavior by most measures, and who make unreasonable demands of life and the people around them. It's not because they're blind to the realities of life; they just don't want to be bothered dealing with the full complexities of life. Out of laziness and fear they ignore any data that doesn't fit neatly into a simple analytical model they've constructed for dealing with life.

Actually, in practice, it would probably be more accurate to say that the data is usually included but the INTP refuses to act on the data, or acts in a manner contrary to what's expected or in his own interest. Example: a single INTP knows an attractive woman is interested in him, but he's afraid of rejection or failure so he snubs her and drives her away.

Fe tends to spook INTPs. And once the INTP gets comfortable with the concept of simply tuning out uncomfortable facts of life, it gets easier and easier to ignore bigger and bigger chunks of life: Te, Se, Si, etc. INTPs are people, and people are basically lazy at heart.

The INTP's choices and actions are entirely logical within the framework of their own simple analytical model. And I wouldn't characterize that INTP as "wicked" as you've chosen to do; I would prefer to call him lazy and afraid. But in any case, such INTPs are hardly rational and reasonable in the ways they deal with the real world and the people around them. And INFPs do the same thing, albeit using some simplified emotional model (for example, being afraid to take on management roles because they're afraid of Te).

Anyway, that's why I see pure Ti as no more grounded in reality than pure Fi. Both operate as much by exclusion of factors (an attitude of fear or laziness toward toward any environment or actions that don't fit neatly into their model) as inclusion of factors. In a complex world, they're both just running on half of their cylinders. Rational and reasonable analysis and actions in a real-world setting requires being able to incorporate and react to both logic and emotion.

(Oh well, that was kind of rambling. Sorry I don't have time to revise. I'll drop the subject at this point.)

Ti people do things that appear stupid to others, but not due to a failure of rationality.

For instance you mention a single INTP may reject a woman because he is afraid of failure.

You also explain in detail how INTPs want to live a life that is consistent with the model of how they should live that they have in their head.

That is true. In other words, they have a model regarding how they should live their life which is very rigorously outlined often, and they do not wish to stray from that model.

I would imagine INTPs in the situation you describe are more recline to be taciturn not because of a fear of failure, but simply because they are afraid of stepping outside of the boundaries of their model. In many cases, all that this model includes is a requirement that all actions must be thought through as carefully and rigorously as possible.

Relationships are often fuzzy, and because they are difficult to think through carefully and rigorously, the INTP will be tempted to avoid such activities. As you mention, they avoid activities that are not consistent with their internal model concerning how they should live their lives.

It is true that such INTPs may benefit by stepping out of their model and allowing themselves to take actions that are not carefully and rigorously thought through, as for example, jumping into a relationship that does not make much sense on the outset.

However, I would argue (and would like to in tedious detail) why the long term benefits of a carefully though through choice outweigh the occassional drawbacks of such choices.

Hence, I agree with your descriptions of INTP behavior, however, I disagree that it is a mistake on their part to refuse to step outside of their model or in other words, make decisions that are not carefully thought through.

A more plausible alternative that I see is engaging in relationships where the situation is more clear.

This is easily attained in an INTP-INTP relationship, and could be attained if the INTP manages to pursuade his/her non-INTP partner to provide clarity for the current situation.

Thus, my thesis is, it is never desirable to act without having thought things through.

By no means, do not feel obligated to drop the subject, I am quite interested in your thoughts on this matter.

 

[Simplexity]

No I understand what you mean, thats why I asked it. It seems like from an outside perspective you can see sort of the gears shifting like theres something deeper and more abstract going on inside Fi users thought processes. I remember with one of my Ex's the littlest actions and things made her have these elaborate emotional responses, it was interesting to say the least. I guess that is what some people appreciate in things like poetry and art those bigger intricate emotions behind it. Personally mine are never really elaborate and extensive thats why its so interesting to observe others experiencing it or talking about it.

 

[Simplexity]

What do you think?

Is it possible to maintain a controlled state of mind without organizing it? It will remain static by itself?

That is implausible. Emotion responds to whatever it is stimulated by. This can only change if the person has a conscious agenda that goes against the current influx of emotion. Such an agenda could only be established with Thinking.

In other words, if you think logically, you can have a mindset that runs contrary to your natural emotional reactions, if you do not, then you inevitably follow the course elected by your emotional reactions.

Fi can only remain static if and only if the external stimuli remains static as well. Environments that produce such consistent stimuli are very rare, almost non-existing.

Thus, almost in all cases Fi fails to remain static.

Obviously that is why the need to develop sufficient( not profound or even exceptional) thinking skills is necessary. Do you not think though it would make for interesting perspective. How do you think Fi interacts with intuition or sensing, I think that would give interesting perspective in terms of just what types of things are elicited from the external environment. I would obviously assume after seeing consequences of trusting these "fleeting" emotions that thinking would develop sufficiently enough to have some sort of standards on when to let the emotions run rampant and when to reign them in. I'm sort of tentatively thinking that with a moderate level of skill it would almost be a form of premonition.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think my F and N-ness are inextricably connected, and I could not imagine having one without the other.

 

[ajblaise]

I think my F and N-ness are inextricably connected, and I could not imagine having one without the other.

Yeah I feel the same way with T and N-ness. I wonder if there is any literature on F/N and T/N connection.

 

[Simplexity]

See this is what I was curious about earlier and trying to get elaboration on. Was Shakespeare not known for his ability to describe complex emotional states and situations. I'm interested in some of the transformations that occur with Fi. I know personally how my T and N interact and how that can lead to interesting insights but I would be curious to know sort of how an external thing causes these emotional responses, basically a more vivid description of the process. Is it like a constant stream of conscious or is there more conscious control over it.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

How do you think Fi interacts with intuition or sensing, I think that would give interesting perspective in terms of just what types of things are elicited from the external environment..

We know that every sensation is intimately intertwined with a sentiment. For instance, every physical sensation you may experience obviously evokes a Feeling.

To the same degree, Feelings are intertwined with our imagination or Intuition. Though to a much lesser degree.

Consider the following, when you pinch yourself, your brain unconsciously recollects the signal which represents pain. This is basically Thinking working for you at a lightning speed on an unconscious level. It is Thinking because in this case you get an idea of what an occurence was.

Sensations are the easiest of all occurences to interpret.

Intuitions, on the other hand, abstract visions are more difficult to interpret, as they are by definition more complex. They require a higher level of the functioning of the Thinking faculty in order for them to be understood, therefore the emotional reaction to N oriented entities is lower than to S oriented entities.

Feeling and Intuition contrapose each other because Feeling insists on a purely impulse oriented activity such as mere experience of the passions. Intuition on the other hand is a cognitive experience, it insists on detaching from the immediate experience in order to rely on the intellect.

In condensed form, one insists on a mere experience, yet the other insists on stepping back to think about the experience. Thus, Feeling stultifies Intuition.

In applied typology this manifests in Feelers being less open to ideas than Thinkers. Consider the following, a mature Thinking type, under almost all circumstances will be willing to dispassionate analyze any idea you throw at him. This is why many observers of INTPs often claim that you can talk with these people about almost anything.

Yet, Feelers often have 'sacred values', or values that are never to be questioned. For instance, you are much more likely to hear a Feeler say 'EWWW this is gross..dont tell me any more about this!' than a Thinker. A Thinker's natural reaction is to analyze whatever he is subjected to which supports Intuition, as both are cognitive processes, not experiential.

How do you think Fi interacts with intuition or sensing, would obviously assume after seeing consequences of trusting these "fleeting" emotions that thinking would develop sufficiently enough to have some sort of standards on when to let the emotions run rampant and when to reign them in. ..

Because Feeling is an experiential process and Thinking is cognitive, they are antithetical to each other.

On the level of common-sense, I do not see any reason whatever to believe that merely indulging in sentiments somehow conduces to cultivation of critical thinking skills.

A more plausible explanation that I see for the behavior of your ex who has conjured many intricate emotional reactions to external stimuli is simply that they are a product of Intuition and Thinking.

I guarantee that the emotional reactions of ENFPs and INFJs will be much more complex than that of the ENFJs and INFPs because of a higher involvement of Intuition and Thinking.

I simply see no room for complexity in Feeling as a thing in itself.

I think my F and N-ness are inextricably connected, and I could not imagine having one without the other.

It is the T and N that are connected. Because Feeling is also a big part of your cognitive constitution, it is inevitably thrown into that loop. Or in other words, faculties of Intuition and Thinking contemplate the material Feeling brings into the situation.

The natural affinity between Feeling and Intuition is low.

 

[SillySapienne]

Because Feeling is an experiential process and Thinking is cognitive, they are antithetical to each other.

Define what you mean by experiential and cognitive, please.

And how exactly are thinking and feeling necessarily antithetical to each other?!!?

And, I would would wager that an emotional response from an INFP would most likely be deeper than that of an ENFPs, though perhaps not as loudly expressed.

 

[SillySapienne]

The natural affinity between Feeling and Intuition is low.

What is intuition if not a feeling about the way something is without, or prior to, actually logically/linearly knowing why it is that way?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Experiential: Pertaining strictly to the ongoing experience. For example, the activity of running is purely experiential.

Cogntive: Thinking about running is cognitive.

Hence, here we have a contrast between simply having the experience, and having an idea of the experience, or any idea at all.

Thinking and Feeling are antithetical to each other for two reasons.

1)The former insists on a dispassionate state of mind and the latter on an impassioned.

2)Thinking insists on a cognitive process, as it is concerned with analysis of a problem, yet Feeling is concerned with the direct emotional experience.

And, I would would wager that an emotional response from an INFP would most likely be deeper than that of an ENFPs, though perhaps not as loudly expressed.

On what grounds?

 

[SillySapienne]

I can and do have feelings about experiences, what say you then?

I can feel immensely about things that have occurred literally years ago.

 

[Simplexity]

We know that every sensation is intimately intertwined with a sentiment. For instance, every physical sensation you may experience obviously evokes a Feeling.

To the same degree, Feelings are intertwined with our imagination or Intuition. Though to a much lesser degree.

Consider the following, when you pinch yourself, your brain unconsciously recollects the signal which represents pain. This is basically Thinking working for you at a lightning speed on an unconscious level. It is Thinking because in this case you get an idea of what an occurence was.

Sensations are the easiest of all occurences to interpret.

Intuitions, on the other hand, abstract visions are more difficult to interpret, as they are by definition more complex. They require a higher level of the functioning of the Thinking faculty in order for them to be understood, therefore the emotional reaction to N oriented entities is lower than to S oriented entities.

Feeling and Intuition contrapose each other because Feeling insists on a purely impulse oriented activity such as mere experience of the passions. Intuition on the other hand is a cognitive experience, it insists on detaching from the immediate experience in order to rely on the intellect.

In condensed form, one insists on a mere experience, yet the other insists on stepping back to think about the experience. Thus, Feeling stultifies Intuition.

In applied typology this manifests in Feelers being less open to ideas than Thinkers. Consider the following, a mature Thinking type, under almost all circumstances will be willing to dispassionate analyze any idea you throw at him. This is why many observers of INTPs often claim that you can talk with these people about almost anything.

Yet, Feelers often have 'sacred values', or values that are never to be questioned. For instance, you are much more likely to hear a Feeler say 'EWWW this is gross..dont tell me any more about this!' than a Thinker. A Thinker's natural reaction is to analyze whatever he is subjected to which supports Intuition, as both are cognitive processes, not experiential.



Because Feeling is an experiential process and Thinking is cognitive, they are antithetical to each other.

On the level of common-sense, I do not see any reason whatever to believe that merely indulging in sentiments somehow conduces to cultivation of critical thinking skills.

A more plausible explanation that I see for the behavior of your ex who has conjured many intricate emotional reactions to external stimuli is simply that they are a product of Intuition and Thinking.

I guarantee that the emotional reactions of ENFPs and INFJs will be much more complex than that of the ENFJs and INFPs because of a higher involvement of Intuition and Thinking.

I simply see no room for complexity in Feeling as a thing in itself.

I think that this is getting in to the grounds of bringing order and predictability. That is to say is it necessary to have a degree of thinking skills to have a number of fleeting emotions. I sometimes have a number of wild and off the wall ideas when I'm brain storming because I'm focused on intuiting more, obviously there is some order involved in all those thoughts due to Ti but it does not stop me from experiencing them.

The reason I'm very curious about this certain issue is because it seems like most of my emotions are pretty organized and basic. When I see someone being tortured the emotions that are conjured up are based on the pain of the certain body part or area being tortured, the sounds, maybe the idea of being held captive, the environmental conditions of the area and so on. Would it not be plausible to assume in a dominant Fi type with intuition there are a wider variety of emotions being elicited some of which are not immediately apparent, whether or not a structure is there enough for plausible actions to be taken seems somewhat irrelevant. At least to the extent that they feel those fleeting emotions. I agree that it is necessary to abstract and detach to bring order and predictability to these feelings and that engages thinking, but would Fi users not have a greater palette to select from?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What is intuition if not a feeling about the way something is without, or prior to, actually logically/linearly knowing why it is that way?

Pure Intuition is irrelevant to an emotive valuation. It is a mere abstract perception. For example a vision of a castle. It has no Judgment. In itself it is empty and directionless. Inevitably Thinking decides what the vision is going to be about.

There can be no doubt that a vision inevitably evokes an emotional reaction or a Feeling, as you suggest, however, in order for the vision to be incepted in the first place (or be made accessible to our minds) Thinking is necessary.

For this reason, the distance between Feeling and Intuition is greater than the distance between Thinking and Intuition.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I think that this is getting in to the grounds of bringing order and predictability. That is to say is it necessary to have a degree of thinking skills to have a number of fleeting emotions. I sometimes have a number of wild and off the wall ideas when I'm brain storming because I'm focused on intuiting more, obviously there is some order involved in all those thoughts due to Ti but it does not stop me from experiencing them.

The reason I'm very curious about this certain issue is because it seems like most of my emotions are pretty organized and basic. When I see someone being tortured the emotions that are conjured up are based on the pain of the certain body part or area being tortured, the sounds, maybe the idea of being held captive, the environmental conditions of the area and so on. Would it not be plausible to assume in a dominant Fi type with intuition there are a wider variety of emotions being elicited some of which are not immediately apparent, whether or not a structure is there enough for plausible actions to be taken seems somewhat irrelevant. At least to the extent that they feel those fleeting emotions. I agree that it is necessary to abstract and detach to bring order and predictability to these feelings and that engages thinking, but would Fi users not have a greater palette to select from?

In one sentence, tell me what your question is.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I can and do have feelings about experiences, what say you then?

I can feel immensely about things that have occurred literally years ago.

I say so what? I do not see a contradiction between what you said and what I said.

My point is you cannot think about the experience without detaching from it.

But when it has been years after the experience took place, you definitely have had time to detach from the immediate experience and think about it.

 

[Simplexity]

Do Fi users have access to a greater variety of emotions before structure is imposed on them and are they sometimes more abstracted than those of NT's.

 

[SillySapienne]

 

[SillySapienne]

Senator Wing, do you think you just might be a teensy-weensy bit biased in your opinions?

Just a bit?

 

[Simplexity]

His point is Feelings are more experiential so in order for you to gain insight based on them you have to detach to a certain extent and impose structure and order to get something useful out of them. Like a journal. When you initially right in it it is just stream of conscious and does not immediately make sense until you step back, see what you wrote, analyze it, and impose a certain amount of structure on it so that you can use that information in a valuable sense in the future.

 

[SillySapienne]

Experiential: Pertaining strictly to the ongoing experience. For example, the activity of running is purely experiential.

Cogntive: Thinking about running is cognitive.

I am thoroughly unsatisfied with your definitions of these terms.

You cannot use the root word of the word you are defining in the definition.

Cognition is a product of and affected by experience, no?

Hence, here we have a contrast between simply having the experience, and having an idea of the experience, or any idea at all.

Thinking and Feeling are antithetical to each other for two reasons.

1)The former insists on a dispassionate state of mind and the latter on an impassioned.

2)Thinking insists on a cognitive process, as it is concerned with analysis of a problem, yet Feeling is concerned with the direct emotional experience.

Do you know that people actually think better when they are emotionally aroused/alert?

For me, at least, I do my best thinking when I am impassioned by some sort of stimulus or stimuli, as in, emotional excitation renders clearer and better thought.

When I am in flow, I am fully engaged in whatever it is I am doing, whether that be writing, drawing or conversing.

Thinking and feeling are *not* antithetical to each other, no way, no how.

Pure Intuition is irrelevant to an emotive valuation. It is a mere abstract perception. For example a vision of a castle. It has no Judgment. In itself it is empty and directionless. Inevitably Thinking decides what the vision is going to be about.

There can be no doubt that a vision inevitably evokes an emotional reaction or a Feeling, as you suggest, however, in order for the vision to be incepted in the first place (or be made accessible to our minds) Thinking is necessary.

For this reason, the distance between Feeling and Intuition is greater than the distance between Thinking and Intuition.

Thinking, I admit comes directly *after* the intuiting where your mind seeks to fill out all the steps you had previously skipped.

But intuition itself is highly emotionally or even viscerally charged where something suddenly becomes apparent to you though you do not understand *explicitly* why or how.

My point is you cannot think about the experience without detaching from it.

But when it has been years after the experience took place, you definitely have had time to detach from the immediate experience and think about it.

Um, what does that have ANYTHING at all to do with what I had asked you?