• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] ISTP and subconcious Fi

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Something I have noticed recently with me is that my Fi is completely subconcious. I have no desire to try and control it just understand it, it just drives me. If you can manage to figure out my Fi I will be pwned. Very few people have access to it. I have no control over who I give access to it either, it must be earned subconciously. 2 people can tell me the same thing, but unless I give you access to Fi it will never bother me. There are very few people who I actually care what they think. They can say something very hurtful to me and I could really care less. I have experienced this recently. Almost the exact same words from 2 different people, one I could really careless what they think and the other you wouldnt believe how deep it hurt and I dont know how to supress feelings. I think I just block them from that part of me.

I have also noticed that I hold very few people close to me and I am extremely picky on finding these people. I really try to figure out who a person is, this lets me judge where I can hold them in my life. I try to figure out the dynamics between me and that person and that person and others. When I do let you in close I will be one of the most loyal person you have ever met because you have proven yourself to be worthy of it. The other thing is that I will not push my opinions of someone onto others and try not to pursuade someone into my way of thinking. Everyone has different dynamics with different people and I do not want to disrupt it. Sometimes I may step in and say something, but its only when it is asked of me and I will try to use just perception and not judgement calls. I am a very good judge of character, but it is on my behalf. Everyone has something different to offer and everyone has something different that they want and need.
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
Great observation. I couldn'tve said it better myself.
 

phoenity

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
472
I've been thinking about this myself recently.

I think it's a protective mechanism.

I've realized that Fi has driven me all my life, and mostly affected my relationships with other people. If I was hurting, and I didn't want to experience those feelings, I simply shut off that part of myself. However, that also shut out anyone who had access to it. I had to be alone in order to stop hurting.

What I've found to be helpful is trying to delve into my subconscious, so that I can understand this function that has such a controlling impact on my interaction with others. I need to be able to experience and understand the root of these feelings, so that I can solve problems and move past them. Burying Fi only ever solved the problem for the immediate moment as it allowed me to operate, yet it never solved anything long-term as it was always still burning hot in this deep pit.

I don't think that being more aware of Fi is going to make me any more or less protective of it, as in allowing others in easier. It's only going to serve me in understanding why I'm feeling the way I do, as opposed to just feeling a certain way and not understanding it, or perhaps not even being aware of it.


Wiki Socionics description of ISTP says pretty much the same thing you said, with regards to Ne and Fi working together to perceive someone:

SLIs knowledge of people comes from direct personal experience rather than detached study and comparison with others, and they are largely oblivious to people until they have interacted with them one-on-one. SLIs find it difficult to give accurate general descriptions of people's personalities that would ring true to other people, but they know what the person "feels like" in interaction.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It gets buried, but I dont know how to bury it, the feeling just disappears. Next time it comes on just as strong if not stronger. I tend to think first about the other persons feeling and that ends up making mine disappear into a hole until I am alone. Maybe this is Fe at work with Ti+Ni and putting others feelings before my own. I try to understand why they feel that way which delays my feelings. Then I honestly forget about it and it comes back stronger next time.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I guess what really trips me up is when I get so stuck in my head trying to figure the other person out I never get to get into my subconcious to work out my own Fi. I put them so far ahead of me that I never get out of my head and the feelings just keep getting stronger and stronger. The people that I am the most loyal to are the ones that can figure out my Fi so I dont have to worry about it. I can put that person up on a pedestal and never have to worry about how I feel.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Wiki Socionics description of ISTP says pretty much the same thing you said, with regards to Ne and Fi working together to perceive someone:
I want to add to this thread, but I do not currently have access to the information that I want to provide. In the meantime, this is one of those interesting topics that I have argued since becoming aware of Socionics years ago. I don't consider myself SLI since regardless of system, it indicates someone with Si-Te. Whether you call it ISTp in Socionics or ISTJ in MBTI, it's still not the functions that I use. I use Ti-Se per Jung's description therefore would be ISTP in MBTI and LSI (ISTj) in Socionics. From that standpoint Fi or introverted ethics is described as:
In the company of people smiles and acts like a good friend engaged in easy conversations, not without humor. Mechanistically approaches matters of wooing and relationship-building. The LSI often has trouble differentiating strong relationships from weak relationships. Often he will find himself unsure of his own opinion of the closeness of a relationship.
Just curious, do you consider yourself SLI Phoenity?
 

phoenity

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
472
It gets buried, but I dont know how to bury it, the feeling just disappears. Next time it comes on just as strong if not stronger. I tend to think first about the other persons feeling and that ends up making mine disappear into a hole until I am alone. Maybe this is Fe at work with Ti+Ni and putting others feelings before my own. I try to understand why they feel that way which delays my feelings. Then I honestly forget about it and it comes back stronger next time.

Exactly, it gets buried because we don't want it there anymore. Sometimes it can be so overwhelming and consuming, all we can do is to rationalize it away, since it is so irrational in nature.

We can work with Fe regarding other people's feelings to figure out why a situation happened because Fe has a more rational nature, at least to me.

Fi to me is like this void that I know is part of me, but it's always stayed so far out of the grasp of my consciousness I don't understand how or why it works. When it begins to consume, I have to shut it down.

Yet that is no way to go about solving a problem, because, like you said, when the situation happens again the same feeling comes back stronger.
 

phoenity

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
472
I want to add to this thread, but I do not currently have access to the information that I want to provide. In the meantime, this is one of those interesting topics that I have argued since becoming aware of Socionics years ago. I don't consider myself SLI since regardless of system, it indicates someone with Si-Te. Whether you call it ISTp in Socionics or ISTJ in MBTI, it's still not the functions that I use. I use Ti-Se per Jung's description therefore would be ISTP in MBTI and LSI (ISTj) in Socionics. From that standpoint Fi or introverted ethics is described as:
Just curious, do you consider yourself SLI Phoenity?

I know what you mean, and I've seen Poki speak about the inconsistencies between MBTI and Socionics. They seem to switch around the dominant functions for our type in terms of introversion and extroversion. This would seem to imply that one of the systems is incorrect. Yet I don't perceive it that way now, I just see them as different. I get lost in trying to figure out which is the correct system, since I don't know enough about either to determine that, and realized that there just isn't a point in doing so.

I determined I could either be a Socionics ISTP (SLI) or ISTJ (LSI). The way I determined my Socionics type was not by Ti-Se or Si-Te, transferring the functions directly from MBTI, but rather their descriptions of how the functions worked, and how I used the function.

So in doing that, I found that I identify with the SLI description very well, and not at all with the LSI description.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I know what you mean, and I've seen Poki speak about the inconsistencies between MBTI and Socionics. They seem to switch around the dominant functions for our type in terms of introversion and extroversion. This would seem to imply that one of the systems is incorrect. Yet I don't perceive it that way now, I just see them as different. I get lost in trying to figure out which is the correct system, since I don't know enough about either to determine that, and realized that there just isn't a point in doing so.

I determined I could either be a Socionics ISTP (SLI) or ISTJ (LSI). The way I determined my Socionics type was not by Ti-Se or Si-Te, transferring the functions directly from MBTI, but rather their descriptions of how the functions worked, and how I used the function.

So in doing that, I found that I identify with the SLI description very well, and not at all with the LSI description.

I have never fully relied on either descriptions or definitions and I rely heavily on interactions with others, its like a melting pot where you have to weed out the internal logic from the perception. Perception is not wrong, just not the whole picture, internal logic can be right or wrong. So there is truth in everything, its just a matter of being able to seperate things. Working from the big picture down to the detail.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
I know what you mean, and I've seen Poki speak about the inconsistencies between MBTI and Socionics. They seem to switch around the dominant functions for our type in terms of introversion and extroversion. This would seem to imply that one of the systems is incorrect. Yet I don't perceive it that way now, I just see them as different. I get lost in trying to figure out which is the correct system, since I don't know enough about either to determine that, and realized that there just isn't a point in doing so.
Agreed and when I initially learned of Socionics I asked forum (well back then we typed at Yahoo Groups about the differences. I was told that MBTI was correct because she got her blessings from Jung. However the only indication that references to them meeting was very briefly and Jung never publicly announced an agreement with her.

However contrary to her theory, she says that introverted functions are unnoticeable or less noticeable than extraverted functions. Thus the auxiliary for introverts is the function seen. In practice that may be correct, but Jung does make reference to introverted functions being as noticeable as extraverted functions. So Socionics seems more likely than MBTI to be correct that the Ti is noticeable in me. In fact people who work with me directly have reported me to be ESTJ (same function order T-S-N-F), therefore can see the Ti.
I determined I could either be a Socionics ISTP (SLI) or ISTJ (LSI). The way I determined my Socionics type was not by Ti-Se or Si-Te, transferring the functions directly from MBTI, but rather their descriptions of how the functions worked, and how I used the function. So in doing that, I found that I identify with the SLI description very well, and not at all with the LSI description.
See….. this is where the Socionics theory gets dicey for me, not because of it’s inconsistency but because of the follower’s contradictions in attempting to explain it and separate it from MBTI after years of attempts at correlating the two. Again both systems say they derive from Jung’s cognitive functions. Also if you read the definitions of both, there is no difference. In fact Socionics does reference to LI also being known as Ti:
Introverted logic ( ) is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Ti, L, structural logic, or white logic. Introverted logic is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty.
Compare Socionics introverted logic to MBTIs introverted thinking
Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work.
I don’t think that anyone can argue Se since Socionics makes no attempt to call theirs anything but. However here again is Socionics and MBTIs definitions:
Extroverted sensing ( ) is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.
Extroverted sensing includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.
You are one with the experience. There is no "naming" or describing - just pure, vivid experience. The whole scene comes into your awareness almost at once. You may be drawn to experience more and more, seeking any variation that will intensely excite the senses. Extraverted Sensing occurs when we scan for information that is relevant to our interests, then we mentally register data and facts such as baseball statistics, the locations of all the restaurants in town, or the names of all the actors in the popular television shows.
They’re both using the same definitions, so determining that I prefer Ti-Se is the end result and should be easily transferred to either system and that should not change to Si-Te if both are being defined similarly.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Something I have noticed recently with me is that my Fi is completely subconcious. I have no desire to try and control it just understand it, it just drives me. If you can manage to figure out my Fi I will be pwned. Very few people have access to it. I have no control over who I give access to it either, it must be earned subconciously. 2 people can tell me the same thing, but unless I give you access to Fi it will never bother me.

I have also noticed that I hold very few people close to me and I am extremely picky on finding these people. I really try to figure out who a person is, this lets me judge where I can hold them in my life. I try to figure out the dynamics between me and that person and that person and others. When I do let you in close I will be one of the most loyal person you have ever met because you have proven yourself to be worthy of it.
As stated in my original post, I had a Psychological Report completed years ago and these are snippets that may be relevant to this.
You possess the gift of a clear, strong and objective mind, and you are a lover of truth and integrity in all your dealings. You will always favour reason over chaos, and principles over personal reactions. But there is considerable conflict within you - a dilemma between your rational, detached spirit and your intense and sometimes overpowering feeling. Another way of describing your nature might be to say that you tend to live in your head -because it seems safer, more civilised, and more "decent" - yet your heart often contradicts what your mind tells you you "ought" to feel, leaving you confused and vaguely guilty about "bad" or "selfish" reactions.

Although you may not be an intellectual in the conventional sense of the word, you are naturally quick and articulate, and possess an impressive capacity to assess, weigh and analyse diverse facts and ideas objectively and fairly. This has probably earned you the reputation of being broad-minded, reflective, ethical and considerate of others' points of view. You are also an excellent planner and can transform chaos into order with the penetrating power of your mind. What you do not wish others to know about you, and what you often try to hide from yourself, is that your real feelings give you a completely different and much more subjective picture of life and of others -and these neglected feelings are often more genuinely perceptive than your usually reliable mind.

One of the most creative methods which you might use to make better friends with your feelings is the willingness to give more time and space for their expression through channels which you know to be safe - such as writing, painting images of moods or emotional states, working with clay, expressing feelings through music or dance. These very personal pursuits, done for your understanding alone and not for the benefit of an audience, can help you to learn more about yourself, and also help you to see that your feelings are as important and valid as your ideas.
 

phoenity

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
472
Agreed and when I initially learned of Socionics I asked forum (well back then we typed at Yahoo Groups about the differences. I was told that MBTI was correct because she got her blessings from Jung. However the only indication that references to them meeting was very briefly and Jung never publicly announced an agreement with her.

However contrary to her theory, she says that introverted functions are unnoticeable or less noticeable than extraverted functions. Thus the auxiliary for introverts is the function seen. In practice that may be correct, but Jung does make reference to introverted functions being as noticeable as extraverted functions. So Socionics seems more likely than MBTI to be correct that the Ti is noticeable in me. In fact people who work with me directly have reported me to be ESTJ (same function order T-S-N-F), therefore can see the Ti. See….. this is where the Socionics theory gets dicey for me, not because of it’s inconsistency but because of the follower’s contradictions in attempting to explain it and separate it from MBTI after years of attempts at correlating the two. Again both systems say they derive from Jung’s cognitive functions. Also if you read the definitions of both, there is no difference. In fact Socionics does reference to LI also being known as Ti: Compare Socionics introverted logic to MBTIs introverted thinkingI don’t think that anyone can argue Se since Socionics makes no attempt to call theirs anything but. However here again is Socionics and MBTIs definitions: They’re both using the same definitions, so determining that I prefer Ti-Se is the end result and should be easily transferred to either system and that should not change to Si-Te if both are being defined similarly.


This is exactly what I was saying, if I understand you correctly.

I understand perfectly that introverted logic is the same as introverted thinking, as well as introverted ethics being the same as introverted feeling. They define them as being the same, so that wasn't difficult to grasp the similarities even though they use slightly different terminology.


The issue arises when MBTI states I use Ti-Se while Socionics states I use Si-Te. The better I've come to understand the cognitive functions, recognize their usage in others, and then myself, I know I use Ti-Se.

However, Socionics claims that ISTJ (LSI) uses Ti-Se. This would be perfectly fine with me, except that in the LSI description of how the type uses those functions, I do not relate to a single function, whereas I relate perfectly to the description of ISTP (SLI). I relate to the introverted sensing description of SLI, and not at all to the extraverted sensing description of LSI.


This just doesn't make any sense.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
The issue arises when MBTI states I use Ti-Se while Socionics states I use Si-Te. The better I've come to understand the cognitive functions, recognize their usage in others, and then myself, I know I use Ti-Se.
I think one of us is putting the chariot before the horse Phoenity. I infer you to say that because you are ISTP in both systems, your basic make-up in functions change per the system being used, i.e. Ti-Se in MBTI and Si-Te in Socionics. I am saying the opposite that I know I prefer Ti-Se thus regardless of the system I am the same in either. Therefore I am ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in Socionics. I cannot be the same type since they both define the function order similarly.
However, Socionics claims that ISTJ (LSI) uses Ti-Se. This would be perfectly fine with me, except that in the LSI description of how the type uses those functions, I do not relate to a single function, whereas I relate perfectly to the description of ISTP (SLI). I relate to the introverted sensing description of SLI, and not at all to the extraverted sensing description of LSI. This just doesn't make any sense.
Agreed and that has less to do with the functions and more to do with poor descriptions by authors. I have no idea what Keirsey describes when reading his Craftsman description, yet the similar system of Berens/Nardi describes me perfectly. The same goes for other descriptions wherein I can see myself in the over all theme, but none of them will be 100% since Jung says that pure type is rare.
 
Top