[Fi] Let's talk about Fi

[Arclight]

because being an expert doesn't make you right.

this is one of those posts - and no offense, arclight, you know i like you and i appreciate your ideas - but this is a post that makes me Feel like it's a problem to discuss Fi anywhere. the feeling is "why can't we just talk about Fi in this thread without someone coming in and telling us we're wrong and should stop?" right now it seems like what you're implying is pretty much "just stop talking because i don't like your ideas (because they don't agree with an authority [who i have personally decided is correct])."

the way i see things, if you have a problem with what elfboy's saying (i do too, actually), then you should show why his ideas are creating a problem. right now it just seems like you're saying "listen to the experts and don't trust yourself." but that kind of defeats the purpose of psychology, doesn't it?

as for talking about Fi... it's rather confusing; even the best definitions are kind of fuzzy. it's like Ni - you know what it is, and you know when you know something in a Ni way, but how to describe its functioning? it's interesting to talk about because it's somewhat mysterious even to those who use it all the time. i think we want to define and redefine it - really, i think the goal is just to discuss it - because it is so elusive, just like Ni, the other non-linear introverted function.




- perhaps less creative and more associative. there is so much association that it can become very difficult to compartmentalize and wall off one feeling tone from the next.

-perhaps less imaginative and more idealistic. Fi users don't attend to reality because they seek something better than reality. when an FP learns to communicate Fi to others, it can be inspiring, because it draws the other people to see a hope of something better as well.

i'm still not sure if this is totally removed from Ne. but maybe a little closer.

You do not have to qualify that you like me before you disagree with me, Sky..

being an expert certainly qualifies you as an expert. Although I agree that being an expert doesn't always mean you are correct.. to downplay it is even more dangerous than to blindly accept it.
If education is to have any value at all, than we have to assume and trust that the people who have dedicated their lives to studying something are indeed correct up to this point in what they are talking about.

In regard to typology. Well this is a system that has existed for over half a century and countless hours of research and case study have gone into devising the system. In other words it is not a system based on opinion but rather hardcore data that has to be attributed to a system in order for it to be understood on a universal level.

Fi is what it is..
The problem people are having is not that Fi users wishing to discuss their Fi.. The problem Others and myself are having is the redefinition of an established system by people who do not have the authority or credentials to so.
To me it seems that here are people who wish to learn about a subject , but only on their terms.
Which is not really very responsible.

All these .."let's redefine and change Fi" therads are doing is proving the descriptions of Fi as correct.
You are taking a very subjective and personal approach to something that has already been proven and saying it is wrong because it hurts your feelings..
Saying "but wait a minute, I have Fe qualities as well.." does not mean Fi is poorly described. It means you use Fe.

Simple short version:

Fi is so subjective that it can't even get past it's own subjectivity about itself.

 

[Elfboy]

You do not have to qualify that you like me before you disagree with me, Sky..

being an expert certainly qualifies you as an expert. Although I agree that being an expert doesn't always mean you are correct.. to downplay it is even more dangerous than to blindly accept it.
If education is to have any value at all, than we have to assume and trust that the people who have dedicated their lives to studying something are indeed correct up to this point in what they are talking about.

In regard to typology. Well this is a system that has existed for over half a century and countless hours of research and case study have gone into devising the system. In other words it is not a system based on opinion but rather hardcore data that has to be attributed to a system in order for it to be understood on a universal level.

Fi is what it is..
The problem people are having is not that Fi users wishing to discuss their Fi.. The problem Others and myself are having is the redefinition of an established system by people who do not have the authority or credentials to so.
To me it seems that here are people who wish to learn about a subject , but only on their terms.
Which is not really very responsible.

All these .."let's redefine and change Fi" therads are doing is proving the descriptions of Fi as correct.
You are taking a very subjective and personal approach to something that has already been proven and saying it is wrong because it hurts your feelings..
Saying "but wait a minute, I have Fe qualities as well.." does not mean Fi is poorly described. It means you use Fe.

Simple short version:

Fi is so subjective that it can't even get past it's own subjectivity about itself.

1) yes, we are fully aware that we are agreeing with the standard MBTI definition of Fi. but as I said, the priority is to understand and share experiences of Fi, not to define it.
2) yes, there are disagreements, but those same disagreements are being debated even among certified experts of the MBTI. after only 50 years of studying MBTI (when you take into account that most of these studies take years or even decades to conduct, that's not a very long time. the subject of cognitive functions and temperament is still a very young science and we have only reached the tip of the iceberg in MBTI research. we have not reached a point to which data is sufficient of accurate to suffice as unquestionable or clear cut, especially with a function such as Fi that is so subjective and close to the unconscious. the date we have currently can account for general trends and characteristics at best, but we still have a LOONG way to go. thankyou for your reply, but I don't feel as though you understand the purpose of this thread =)

 

[Arclight]

1) yes, we are fully aware that we are agreeing with the standard MBTI definition of Fi. but as I said, the priority is to understand and share experiences of Fi, not to define it.
2) yes, there are disagreements, but those same disagreements are being debated even among certified experts of the MBTI. after only 50 years of studying MBTI (when you take into account that most of these studies take years or even decades to conduct, that's not a very long time. the subject of cognitive functions and temperament is still a very young science and we have only reached the tip of the iceberg in MBTI research. we have not reached a point to which data is sufficient of accurate to suffice as unquestionable or clear cut, especially with a function such as Fi that is so subjective and close to the unconscious. the date we have currently can account for general trends and characteristics at best, but we still have a LOONG way to go. thankyou for your reply, but I don't feel as though you understand the purpose of this thread =)

Oh I see.. You are going to take the system that I am using to explain something and use this same system to counter my point and then use it to substantiate yours by discrediting the science behind the system you are trying to prove your point with? Which is it please?

I can assure that your feelings on the matter of me understanding the "purpose" of this thread are wrong.
I know exactly what is going on.. after all .. I use Fi too.

the priority is to understand and share experiences of Fi, not to define it

By taking the attributes of other functions and applying them to Fi because you prefer to have those attributes associated with Fi??

 

[Elfboy]

Oh I see.. You are going to take the system that I am using to explain something and use this same system to counter my point and then use it to substantiate yours by discrediting the science behind the system you are trying to prove your point with? Which is it please?

I can assure that your feelings on the matter of me understanding the "purpose" of this thread are wrong.
I know exactly what is going on.. after all .. I use Fi too.



By taking the attributes of other functions and applying them to Fi because you prefer to have those attributes associated with Fi??

I'm not discrediting the system, I'm just saying what the system is and where it is at in it's development. I can't say for certain, but I believe that most practitioners of the MBTI would agree with me that study of the MBTI is just beginning and that 50 years makes it only a very young science. that's part of the reason some people (self NOT included) refer to it as a pseudo science. they misconceive it as such because there is a low amount of accurate data that has been measured and collected thus far (as mentioned in my previous post, many experiments, especially those dealing with the development of personality throughout the lifetime of a person, take years or even decades). to be honest tho, I'm really having a hard time understanding what exactly what result you are wanting with this post or what actions you want taken.
PS: if you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I appreciate your willingness to bring up counterpoints and data =)

 

[wolfy]

Quinlan had a good description of Fi the other day. Something I could really relate to. You guys should ask him about it.

 

[KDude]

Fi is cuter than Ti. That's all I know.

 

[Arclight]

I'm not discrediting the system, I'm just saying what the system is and where it is at in it's development. I can't say for certain, but I believe that most practitioners of the MBTI would agree with me that study of the MBTI is just beginning and that 50 years makes it only a very young science. that's part of the reason some people (self NOT included) refer to it as a pseudo science. they misconceive it as such because there is a low amount of accurate data that has been measured and collected thus far (as mentioned in my previous post, many experiments, especially those dealing with the development of personality throughout the lifetime of a person, take years or even decades). to be honest tho, I'm really having a hard time understanding what exactly what result you are wanting with this post or what actions you want taken.
PS: if you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I appreciate your willingness to bring up counterpoints and data =)

I do not believe for one second that you are so stupid that you are not getting my point.
I am done explaining it.. I have expressed it in every post in this thread and you continue to ignore it and touch on everything else accept my point.
You cannot take extroverted feelings and call them introverted because they look nicer.. That defeats the whole purpose of the system.
I do not need to make this point anymore.

I will leave you with this.
It is not considered a pseudo science because of lack of data.. to the contrary, there is ample case studies and data on the subject to form a consensus.
Its been studied for 3 generations. Much longer than global warming for example..
MBTI is not considered science because Psychology as a whole is not considered science.. despite it having all the criteria to make it science.
MBTI is not new.. It is simply becoming more mainstream.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm not discrediting the system, I'm just saying what the system is and where it is at in it's development. I can't say for certain, but I believe that most practitioners of the MBTI would agree with me that study of the MBTI is just beginning and that 50 years makes it only a very young science. that's part of the reason some people (self NOT included) refer to it as a pseudo science. they misconceive it as such because there is a low amount of accurate data that has been measured and collected thus far (as mentioned in my previous post, many experiments, especially those dealing with the development of personality throughout the lifetime of a person, take years or even decades). to be honest tho, I'm really having a hard time understanding what exactly what result you are wanting with this post or what actions you want taken.
PS: if you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I appreciate your willingness to bring up counterpoints and data =)

If you think it's pseudo-science then do the reasonable thing and go by Keirsey/the four dichotomies instead. I've said this before, I'll say it again: maybe this definitions aren't working for people or get confusing because function theory isn't real and can't possibly be proven.

On the other hand, I found the original descriptions of Fi quite fitting to my intellectual conception of it, and it even includes the Jungian definitions Jaguar added later on in the thread about Fi being "colder' and more dismissive to strangers. I think that's true.

I rarely say this, but I think Arclight has been making the most sense aside from Jaguar in these threads, since he's pointing out that we use all 8 functions, and it's highly likely that if you have a very strong Feeler preference you're using Fi and Fe in tandem, only slightly prefering one over the other, and therefore attempting to attribute your Fe to Fi, and that's faulty.

 

[Elfboy]

If you think it's pseudo-science then do the reasonable thing and go by Keirsey/the four dichotomies instead. I've said this before, I'll say it again: maybe this definitions aren't working for people or get confusing because function theory isn't real and can't possibly be proven.

On the other hand, I found the original descriptions of Fi quite fitting to my intellectual conception of it, and it even includes the Jungian definitions Jaguar added later on in the thread about Fi being "colder' and more dismissive to strangers. I think that's true.

I rarely say this, but I think Arclight has been making the most sense aside from Jaguar in these threads, since he's pointing out that we use all 8 functions, and it's highly likely that if you have a very strong Feeler preference you're using Fi and Fe in tandem, only slightly prefering one over the other, and therefore attempting to attribute your Fe to Fi, and that's faulty.

I believe I have stated that I do NOT believe MBTI to be a pseudo science, but anyway, if that's the only point you guys were trying to make then that's fine. anyway, does anyone else have any thoughts on Fi?

 

[Thalassa]

Ok, if you guys disagree so vehemently with descriptions of Fi, how do you even know you're using Fi?

 

[wolfy]

Look, let's just cut to the chase. Let's think about what it means to use Fi. Generally people agree through tests and self examination that they are driven by their values. Then agreeing they are driven by their values they also agree that one of their core values is the inability to be defined. So, I am driven by my values, which define me, me, which can never be defined. It creates an endless circle. Defining what can never be defined, making general what is specific. Just cut to the chase and say "Here is me, this is who I am and how I see it"

I think I am Fi because of Quinlan's brilliant post the other day.

 

[gromit]

Do you remember where Quinlan posted, wolfy?

 

[Elfboy]

Ok, if you guys disagree so vehemently with descriptions of Fi, how do you even know you're using Fi?

because every cognitive function test I've taken, I score perfect or near perfect on Introverted Feeling. I also score extremely low in Extraverted Feeling and overall my feeling preference is not strong at all (to be honest, I usually score as a T because of the wording of the questions). therefore, I do consider myself to have a good enough grasp on Fi to understand how it works (predominently) by itself and, as my Fe is weak, there is little chance of me confusing it with Extraverted Feeling. discussing experience with introverted feeling does not require substantial knowledge of type theory past a basic understanding of the 8 cognitive functions

 

[wolfy]

Do you remember where Quinlan posted, wolfy?

On Sunset Blvd.

 

[gromit]

His blog?

 

[Arclight]

because every cognitive function test I've taken, I score perfect or near perfect on Introverted Feeling. I also score extremely low in Extraverted Feeling and overall my feeling preference is not strong at all (to be honest, I usually score as a T because of the wording of the questions). therefore, I do consider myself to have a good enough grasp on Fi to understand how it works (predominently) by itself and, as my Fe is weak, there is little chance of me confusing it with Extraverted Feeling. discussing experience with introverted feeling does not require substantial knowledge of type theory past a basic understanding of the 8 cognitive functions

And you are clearly so objective that your test result are in no way biased by your own subjectivity right?

Why do you keep dodging the point?? The point is.. Some people have been taking Extroverted functions and calling them introverted functions . This is wrong.. because extroversion and introversion are clearly defined.. therefore extroverted feeling and Introverted feeling are clearly defined or the whole system is faulty, and then why do you care if Fi has negative attributions or not?

 

[Thalassa]

because every cognitive function test I've taken, I score perfect or near perfect on Introverted Feeling. I also score extremely low in Extraverted Feeling and overall my feeling preference is not strong at all (to be honest, I usually score as a T because of the wording of the questions). therefore, I do consider myself to have a good enough grasp on Fi to understand how it works (predominently) by itself and, as my Fe is weak, there is little chance of me confusing it with Extraverted Feeling. discussing experience with introverted feeling does not require substantial knowledge of type theory past a basic understanding of the 8 cognitive functions

And you're scoring really high on Fi on those tests according to these experts definitions of Fi, just to point that little detail out to you...

I honestly think if a few of you would stop internalizing the function Fi to be the entirety of who you are, or like it defines your identity, you might be able to detach enough to realize that those definitions are fair and accurate, and no more negative than other function descriptions.

 

[KDude]

If you think it's pseudo-science then do the reasonable thing and go by Keirsey/the four dichotomies instead. I've said this before, I'll say it again: maybe this definitions aren't working for people or get confusing because function theory isn't real and can't possibly be proven..

My problem with Keirsey's temperments comes down to the fact that I'm Christian (somewhat.. I'm undogmatic and syncretic too.. I admire a lot from different religions.. but that's beside the point). This skews things in my view. I have idealistic views like NFs (and could very well qualify as an NF under his definition). I'm no hedonist.. I know there's more to life than hamburgers, motorcycles, and porn. If I knew one of Keirsey's INFPs I'd be championing similar things right along with them. He's ascribing one too many traits that are sort of shared between many people, for various reasons. I think it just brushes over what I really might be, cognitively speaking.

 

[INTP]

I can't say for certain, but I believe that most practitioners of the MBTI would agree with me that study of the MBTI is just beginning and that 50 years makes it only a very young science. that's part of the reason some people (self NOT included) refer to it as a pseudo science.

its not science, its psychology. because mbti's personality types is pretty much jungs psychological types, but with different names and some things stripped off(maybe because of lack of understanding by mayers and briggs).

for example this Fi being empathetic and Fe sympathetic discussion we have been having on these forums. there is 10 pages written about it in jungs psychological types book(where mbti is copied from). its just that jung talks about empathy and abstract thinking, this abstract thinking is what creates sympathy, but its not sympathy itself. he doesent use the word sympathy at all about it, but he is describing "sympathetic thinking" in other terms and puts it in different context than just feeling sympathy, he talks for example how these two different types view art due to different thinking process.

On the other hand, I found the original descriptions of Fi quite fitting to my intellectual conception of it, and it even includes the Jungian definitions Jaguar added later on in the thread about Fi being "colder' and more dismissive to strangers. I think that's true.

maybe its just that Fi users use Te and Te is colder to strangers than Fe or Ti?

 

[slowriot]

because every cognitive function test I've taken, I score perfect or near perfect on Introverted Feeling. I also score extremely low in Extraverted Feeling and overall my feeling preference is not strong at all (to be honest, I usually score as a T because of the wording of the questions). therefore, I do consider myself to have a good enough grasp on Fi to understand how it works (predominently) by itself and, as my Fe is weak, there is little chance of me confusing it with Extraverted Feeling

No test can give an indication on which type you are without consulting an MBTi expert. You should know that since you in many posts have made it clear you have a substantial amount of knowledge on MBTi.

discussing experience with introverted feeling does not require substantial knowledge of type theory past a basic understanding of the 8 cognitive functions

Ofcourse not if your type has been confirmed by a MBTi professional. Very much so if all you have done is taken tests on the internet not certified by CPP. Then EXTENSIVE selfevaluation and reading different well acclaimed books on the theory behind Jung and MBTi is needed.

And this is exactly the problem with this thread and many of its kind that try to define Fi. Its unsubstantial if you dont have enough knowledge about what the function really is like in real life. You go against welldocumented and extensively researched books because it dont fit you personally. And you want me not to respond negatively?

And to qoute marmalade.sunrise

I honestly think if a few of you would stop internalizing the function Fi to be the entirety of who you are, or like it defines your identity, you might be able to detach enough to realize that those definitions are fair and accurate, and no more negative than other function descriptions.

This is so true. I like Fi users, but a lot of you need to take your head out of your ass when you try to define Fi. You seem to have it very hard figuring out what is emotional responses and what is jungian feeling cognition. Emotions have little to do with Fi and dont define it. Its like when some thinkers say they dont have emotions, its stupid and ignorant. So stop this idea.