[Fi] Fi Users - Describe Your Fi Analysis

[wolfy]

He does not mean felt here as in emotions, but that everything is processed according to value, whereas with thinking its processed according to a definition separate from value.

I'm not clear on the word value. If something is processed according to value it is processed against a value system already in place? And that system is either developed through experience or thought?

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'm not clear on the word value. If something is processed according to value it is processed against a value system already in place? And that system is either developed through experience or thought?

I mean the process itself determines value; the process IS valuation. The value itself is a conclusion/judgment, the product of such reasoning. Feeling (both Fe & Fi) defines whether something is important/necessary/good and Thinking (Te & Ti) determines what it IS, what it can be logically classified as. The I/E difference is what "scale" the person finds most relevant - their inner scale or an external one.

In reality, an IxFP will use their feeling-thought (reasoning) and external data (via Pe). Pe is the natural complement to Fi because it makes the person pursue experience/possibilities which brings in info to refine the valuation process. So yes, experience is a part of the whole reasoning of a Fi type, but does not define Fi as an isolated function.

Now, as [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] touched on, there is a theoretical aspect to all this which suggests that there is a base inner model (or "scale") which things are measured against in the Fi valuation process; whereas Fe types measure against external models to valuate. Jung uses the "collective unconscious" & "primordial images" which arise from it to explain this aspect of Fi (and all the introverted functions); in brief, the collective unconscious amounts to inherited, innate psychological human instincts (much as we have physical instincts). Primordial images amount to pre-verbal mental concepts (thoughts before they even become words in the mind). Basically, these emerge through the imagination (because where does our imagination come from? is it an invalid source of ideas?) or become articulated by the individual in words, and at that point its entirely subjective because the individual interprets it, much as the individual interprets the external world. You can see how this gets philosophical very quickly....

If you want to simplify it, you could say that the Fi types measures things against the self, using their personal emotions to inform their reasoning and their reasoning to assign value based on this information (the self, including emotions). Pe makes them aware of outside information, which is also used, but is a separate process (in reality the lines are blurred).

 

[Amargith]

It takes the situation/information presented by Ne and judges how it's important to me, and if it is important to me at all. Then I discard what 'feels' unimportant, or put it in the 'maybe later' pile.

I've only now started to implement Te to sort out which pieces of info I will be executing what with, and using Fi to determine if the ideal that it holds is doable in reality using Te and if the standard that Te is working at is good enough for my Fi (and whether or not there's any way of raising that standard without it costing me an arm and a leg). I usually use my INTJ to verify this process though as it a) drains the life out of me, b) is new to me and therefore subject to mistakes, moreso than my process with people and c) his Te tends to be able to take more shit onboard than mine, which in turn teaches mine how to deal with shit.

With people, I take the information that Ne gathers while getting to know them, and later on Fi processes that information. I reserve judgement at that point as I want to see the complete picture first. I put together their personality in a 'logical' way. If they do that, and say that, combined with what I know from their past and the bodylanguage they were vibing, not to mention the situation they're currently in (stress at work, at home, problem with friends that are present, whatever it is), then it logically follows they value this, believe in that, see the world in that way and therefore will respond [insert reaction] in the event of [insert situation]. If I'm lacking info, I store the puzzle away along with judgement, and send out Ne to retrieve the rest of the info. Once the picture (and this picture can be the picture of just the part of them that I interact with regularly, though I try to get the whole overview of their personality if possible) is close to fully complete, I decide what I like, what I don't, what my relationship with them will be like, and how I will meander around their quirks and how they're likely to respond to mine. If, along the process, I already discover a part that is likely to be incompatible with me, I'll intensify the research on that, to make sure I didn't miss anything and resolve the issue, before I decide to stop progressing the relationship beyond what we are at that point (acquaintances, casual friends, mere strangers, even closer friends can get bounced a step back at that point).

If at any time, I'm unable to gain access to the person in order to get more information via Ne, I'll use Ne to dance over the gaps and give a number of options which could fill the gap, and Si giving me a record of the previous behavior patterns in others who are alike this person as well as the person themselves, so Fi can determine which piece of info is more likely to fit. If this is done a lot however, you get crude estimates, instead of actual personality maps, which is what my goals is, so I do not like doing that. I will however, if I'm forced to make a decision before I'm done, and I'll feel annoyed and irritated at it, knowing that my work isn't as thorough and complete and that my conclusion is likely to be somewhat flawed.

 

[CzeCze]

Fi ANALYSIS?

Hmmm, you mean after an Fi value is tripped and we react to something and then later objectively look at what happened and explain our actions to others? That kind of analysis? As in to answer the question "why the heck did you do that?"

Or do you mean when we look at problems through an Fi lens?

 

[Silveresque]

Well, here's a theory I have - let me know if you think it doesn't work.

I think the most central difference is that Fi gut reaction occurs in a more primordial, fundamental manner, than Ti. Of course this is impossible in a literal sense - it has from somewhere and be influenced by something but at the same time Fi seems to have this quality of something arising from nowhere. Ti seems more to be an instinct about an approach to help explain the essence of things, it gives direction on how to problem solve, whereas Fi instincts are more in direct contact with the essence itself. It like what [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] said about pre-built concepts; its an ideal image of something that exists in a preformed state in our minds. In our most basic approach to life we are simply evaluating whether each thing/behaviour/moral view etc around us matches that image; people are continually holding up possible, real-life examples and we compare it to the internal ideal, and we ask, "hmm, is this it?"

Of course, like Ni users, we have to be careful not to put complete trust in this. Bias can influence the perception of that ideal and we can end up going in the wrong direction. You see this often with young Fi users: jumping to conclusions, thinking in black and white terms, blindly prejudiced against certain people or concepts etc. This is why more mature Fi users will be more cautious and will seek further assistance in the decision-making process through other functions. It will be more analytical about it and more aware of the complexities involved. This is where it could start to resemble Ti more because it is seeking to test, explore, explain and define that essence/ideal in a logical manner. However, this is a secondary process, an attempt at a fail safe, not a primary process as it is with Ti.

I like your theory.

I think the bolded is a primary difference in simple terms. Fi doesn't need to detach to analyze though; in fact, it does the opposite, putting things in personal terms in order to determine value in relation to being human (essentially, the self is the human "testing ground"), but that doesn't make it irrational. The idea that one needs to detach to reason is from a thinking perspective. Of course, that could depend on what you mean by detach. I can view things in terms of how it stirs emotion without actually being emotional. In fact, this is my state when I empathize with others; I often do not become emotionally affected myself.

Jung says as much:
Everything, therefore, that we have said about introverted thinking is equally true of introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought.

He does not mean felt here as in emotions, but that everything is processed according to value, whereas with thinking its processed according to a definition separate from value.

Both Ti & Fi types are categorized together by Jung as "Introverted Rationals". They both judge based on an inner standard & use reason to do so, but Fi is focused on valuating in terms of the self & being human & Ti is focused on classifying in terms of other things (not people or self). Fi forms concepts of value & Ti concepts of definition. The reason emotion is more closely associated with Fi is because emotion informs cognition in determining value (which neuroscience studies confirm). The key word there is informs; it does not determine value on its own. Emotion is simply another piece of info considered as relevant or a signal that something needs attention (ie. much like hunger signifies the need to eat, but you rationally decide how to act on that physical feeling).

I used to have this in my sig, from Psychological Types & it notes the difference between Feeling & Thinking in a very simple way (and this would apply to Fe/Te also):

Feeling is primarily a process....that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. Feeling, like thinking, is a rational function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason...

Hmmm...According to your definition, that would make me both INFP and INTP, since I value things in a Fi way and classify things in a Ti way. But perhaps I'm an odd exception, being an INTP 4w5.

 

[Adasta]

A concept really gets refined through fantasy. Sometimes, I am not as emotionally moved by experience as much as I am through what I imagine. I've realized that daydreaming is a forum where I explore how I feel about stuff I've never experienced; I have real reactions to what I imagine & it's informative as to how I would feel in a given situation. This is how I build & refine my ideals. This is how I explore the "essence" of being human and see what is necessary, important, and meaningful in life.

A smashing definition.

Sometimes my imaginings create massive problems for me. e.g. I could imagine breaking up with someone and then how my life would be like, how I would feel about everything, etc. Then I imagine to such an extent that it feels as though I am condoning this fantasy. That makes me feel guilty, like I am being dishonest to my current partner by even daring to think of that. Then I get upset and worry that this line of thinking is not good for me (i.e. it doesn't make me feel good). Then I try to stop.

It can be a very frustrating and emotional process.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Hmmm...According to your definition, that would make me both INFP and INTP, since I value things in a Fi way and classify things in a Ti way. But perhaps I'm an odd exception, being an INTP 4w5.

Cognitive functions test ususally show Ti dominants usually having a good sense of Fi.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Cognitive functions test ususally show Ti dominants usually having a good sense of Fi.

True, and I think Lenore Thompson's model explains this "phenomenon" very well. The inferiors (Fe for Ti-dom & Te for Fi-dom) are more influential to the mind as antagonistic catalysts to spur the auxiliary function (which provides true balance), whereas Fi for the Ti-dom is more of a supportive role (which in a sense, doesn't provide balance; it's like a "yes man" in a way). That's sort of my take on her model anyway; and it's in line with what Gifts Differing says about Thinking/Feeling, that the preference is manifest most in situations where one can use either form of reasoning legitimately.

Anyway, when it comes to descriptions, I too will relate more to Ti than Te, but I think it's just because it's Ji, and Te is the true opposite I have a hard time seeing in myself.

 

[Silveresque]

True, and I think Lenore Thompson's model explain this "phenomenon" very well. The inferiors (Fe for Ti-dom & Te for Fi-dom) are more influential to the mind as antagonistic catalysts to spur the auxiliary function (which provides true balance), whereas Fi for the Ti-dom is more of a supportive role (which in a sense, doesn't provide balance; it's like a "yes man" in a way). That's sort of my take on her model anyway; and it's in line with what Gifts Differing says about Thinking/Feeling, that the preference is manifest most in situations where one can use either form of reasoning legitimately.

Anyway, when it comes to descriptions, I too will relate more to Ti than Te, but I think it's just because it's Ji, and Te is the true opposite I have a hard time seeing in myself.

+1

Agreed.

The other Ji, whether you're a Fi user or a Ti user, always seems easier to use then the inferior Je. All Fi users can use Ti, and all Ti users can use Fi. The difference is preference. One of the two will be easier to use than the other, and that is your dominant function.

I also agree that the two Ji functions don't provide each other balance, being both introverted. An extroverted focus needs to be brought by Je to balance out the introversion.

 

[Thalassa]

I agree with Gromit and Wolfy about the "gut level" sense of right and wrong, and also with Lady X about the porridge being "just right."

I can go further, though, to say that I contemplate the suffering and viewpoints of other beings, like I attempt to empathize with their pain or suffering, or ask myself how I would feel in that situation, though it's much faster than that. Like it's very hot, the cat must be very thirsty, and I feel it, like really FEEL bad that the cat would not have water.

When it comes to other people, I try to analyze their motives, and I tend to decide "right" or "wrong" based upon context, their individual background, their weaknesses, etc...it's what helps me to not judge other people (well some other people).

When I'm thinking about these things I don't always feel in terms of emotion, but I often do. When I don't feel anything in terms of emotion, it's more of a clear headed feeling of "knowing" that this is the most humane or empathetic thing to do, without actually feeling any emotions myself.

I think the bolded is very important because I think it's more of what you're asking for aside from the gut level of knowing right and wrong, it's actually an analysis process of building morality.

 

[BAJ]

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-private-forum/36584-what-s-infp-logic-like.html

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/44650-question-about-fi.html


I discussed similar in the above threads.

Edit: here's one my posts from those threads. I plan to read this particular thread, and perahps make another post, but for now, this is an old one.

Most of my replies are personal and anecdotal, so it may be thought that I do not speak for all Fi users. Also, I can be close to the center INXP, and I use both. I believe you are right in that we use all the functions. I agree.

Perhaps when I'm in "Fi-dominant-mode", I'm caught up by feeling. Nothing may be on the surface, but inside I have feelings in my gut, in my muscles, and my whole being. It can be depressive feelings, anger, shame, or elation. It can be in relationship to thought or in response to internal and external imagery. These things are in the lead. The visceral is the factor of decision more than whether something makes sense. I like being led by good feelings, like harmony. In this case, thought may be involved in tandem or conjoined, but typically smaller.

In the harmonious stream...I'm seeking...like a fish seeking fresh water. I'm looking for a way to "fix something" with that person, so that I can be harmonious with them. Also, if there is something very negative (causing depression or anger) in relationship to a person, I'm trying to avoid it, and if I can't then I'll either blow up or have a break down. Of course, there's another option: LEAVE.

When I'm in "Ti-dominant-mode", it's more like a juicy or campfire sort of feeling, like Ummmm, this is interesting. It is more near the mind itself, and not in the body, gut, and whole being. This is what I may get if I'm playing chess, solving a math problem, or thinking about something. Feelings may be there, but they are suppressed or stifled. For example, I may have a feeling of shame while taking a math test (or definitely when I'm getting my ass beat at chess ), but if thought is interesting enough, I may have little feeling at all. Also, feeling doesn't help solve math problems -