Baffled by Fi

[Totenkindly]

I'm ESFP, remember?

You bastard -- you lied to me in the prenup???! :steam:

 

[Jaguar]

You bastard -- you lied to me in the prenup???! :steam:

HONEY BUNNY WUNNY FORGIVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, I'm the one arguing that he is using a kind of shadowy Fe. What I said is that is starts with the personal values, because that is what is preferred by his ego. When the issue expands beyond personal, to group (usually due to stress, because that's not what's preferred), then, it's shadow Fe.

He's only using shadow Fe if he makes a moral judgment based on surrounding cultural values over his own. I don't know how to say that any more plainly. Why is it that applying his values to the group automatically turns them into Fe? You don't have to use an extroverted function to interact with others.

Again it's the source of the values that determines the orientation of the function at that moment, not who the decision is applied to.

But the question was, what would cause him to change orientation like that? Fi could just as well come to a similar conclusion, and it does lead to "caring" about others, because it's about universal values and can understand that wearing shorts might be offensive. That's why Fi is often portrayed as a weighing of values and importance.

Yes, Fi could easily come to a similar conclusion, but what you're missing over and over is that the determining factor is what source the values leading to the decision came from (internal or external), not who the decision is then subsequently applied to.

If he makes a moral decision based on his personal values and ignoring what anyone else thinks about it, he is using Fi, even if he then applies this Fi decision to others by criticizing the group for not following it.

The decision to wear shorts or not wear shorts could be motivated by Fi or Fe--if his personal values are in agreement with the surrounding cultural values, then this is probably best interpreted as Fi, because he's usually going to place more importance on his own values than the group's.

Shadow Fe, particularly the ExFP's "witch/senex" (critical parent) archetype, is described as being disgruntled about group expectations. And Fe in general is described as disengaging, as well as engaging. Of course, if one is disgruntled about group values; it likely stems from them not being congruent with his own personal values; hence the Fi connection. Fe shadows Fi in this case. It's really one function, with a preferred and a suppressed orientation.

We're obviously using different interpretations of what constitutes Fe use. My interpretation is based mostly on Jung/Lenore, where Fi is based on an internal standard and Fe on an external one. So it doesn't matter if the Fi user applies his decision externally; the fact that the decision was made based on internal values implies Fi use and not Fe.

Shadow Fe would occur when he sets aside his own values in favor of the group's.

Sure! This is part of what I have been trying to say. It's all about what is preferred vs suppressed from the consciousness. The suppressed functions will tend to come up, but they will generally be negative or dealing with negative situations, in which case, the normal inhibitions we have from engaging them (or responding to stimuli from them) are removed, and they erupt in a reactive fashion.

That's fine, but you still seem to be defining "extroverted function" as "applying the decision to others after it's been made", whereas I'm defining it as whether the decision came from an internal or external standard. It's the standards upon which the decision was made that matter, not whether it's applied to the self or others. Applying an Fi position to others doesn't turn it into Fe.

 

[Totenkindly]

HONEY BUNNY WUNNY FORGIVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Halla? Is that you, snookums???

... is there where I am supposed to be wearing the skimpy nurse's outfit to check your tonsils, or is the quarterback/cheerleader pom-pom thingy first?

The decision to wear shorts or not wear shorts could be motivated by Fi or Fe--if his personal values are in agreement with the surrounding cultural values, then this is probably best interpreted as Fi, because he's usually going to place more importance on his own values than the group's.

What if I wear shorts just because it is hot, and I don't think really about feeling values at all?

(or because my suitcase got lost in the airport, and all I have are shorts and stockings?)

 

[Eric B]

I'm noticing a bit of equating behaviors with cognitive functions, in this and other threads. One would be wise to recall that Keirsey came up with the concept of temperaments to help map MBTI to behaviors, precisely because the cognitive functions do not represent specific behaviors.

The cognitive functions, both "perceiving" and "judging" are better regarded as perspectives. When one adopts a particular set of these perspectives, there are indeed certain tendencies that can be observed as personality traits. One does not, however, "use" a cognitive function other than to arrive at one's own understanding.

For example, one does not "use Te" to organize one's desk. Rather, one sees a disorganized desk through the lens of Te, and then makes a decision to organize it. It is much like the maxim that if one's only tool is a hammer, then all of one's problems look like nails.

This goes for all of the functions. I suspect that my metaphorical description of Fi earlier in this thread struck a (happy) nerve with many Fi users, because they could read that, and think, "Yes, that's how I look at the world." From that perspective follows all sorts of possible behaviors, some of which are unique to Fi, but many of which are common to people who predominantly evaluate the world with other cognitive functions.

The reason I am making this clarification is because I was finding terms like "Fi user" and "Fe user" were leading me to conclusions that are not supported by MBTI analysis. (I have not used these terms/lenses other than in this forum: elsewhere I have treated a cognitive function as one of many properties of a person, not a descriptor.) Upon reading this terms here, I regarded them as placeholders for "person who has evaluated information with Fi", for example, but in common practice there is a lot of baggage attached, where "Fi user" simply brings to mind other connotations and contexts not addressed by MBTI or Jung.

The real clue to dealing with the behaviors related to Fi and Fe is that the conclusions that one reaches about a particular thing (event/idea/person/object) depend on the function by which one judges the thing. Fi and Fe judgments will sometimes reach similar conclusions and other times reach very different conclusions. Of interest are those conclusions that differ, and result in two people coming into conflict due to a difference in perception.

It's not an issue of an "Fi user" or an "Fe user" typically behaving badly (or well), but rather that choices made from an Fi context can seem "unjustified" in the Fe context, and vice versa. Sometimes sparks fly. (There is also the case where the bad behavior is just bad behavior, with virtually nothing to do with MBTI or Jung.)

This is excellent. I think it was Simulated who earlier suggested the functions as "perspectives", and this makes it make even more sense. Jung, or at least Beebe, said that the functions were really forms of consciousness, and that would go right along woth "perspective".

Then, add in the archetypal complexes I'm always talking about. Those are the real consciousnesses within the ego, which tend to be stimulated by the associated perspectives. If the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk will be his way of "saving the day". If it's "parent" (ITJ), organizing the desk come out in the form of instructing the other person who left it that way. If Te is child or inferior, the act of straightening the table will be more like a good deed, done innocently, perhaps to win approval, or just because they gain some relief doing so. If it's shadow (TP/FJ), the act of cleaning will tend to be more negative, and they likely won't even be conscious of this (hence, the example of my wife).

 

[simulatedworld]

What if I wear shorts just because it is hot, and I don't think really about feeling values at all?

(or because my suitcase got lost in the airport, and all I have are shorts and stockings?)

In the former case, that sounds like Si, I would guess. "When it's been hot in the past, I have worn shorts to cool myself and it has worked, so I will do that."

In the latter, well, I dunno if you can associate that with any function. You don't really have much of an option, do you?

This is excellent. I think it was Simulated who earlier suggested the functions as "perspectives", and this makes it make even more sense. Jung, or at least Beebe, said that the functions were really forms of consciousness, and that would go right along woth "perspective".

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about when I equate functions with value systems. The Fi perspective encourages you to make ethical decisions based on your own personal values (which may and frequently does include caring for others), whereas the Fe one encourages ethical decisions based on the prevailing cultural standards in the group(s) you identify with.

So Fe vs. Fi depends on which perspective motivated you to make an ethical judgment, not on whether you applied that judgment to yourself or others. What uumlau has said here seems to support my point in this regard.

Frequently both perspectives will agree, but it's the perspective from which you saw the situation and made your decision that matters--not what the actual decision was or who you applied it to.

 

[Totenkindly]

In the former case, that sounds like Si, I would guess. "When it's been hot in the past, I have worn shorts to cool myself and it has worked, so I will do that."

Really? You would try to assign it to a function preference?

In the latter, well, I dunno if you can associate that with any function. You don't really have much of an option, do you?

If I were extremely anal, I suppose i could go buy a new outfit.
Or refuse to go out at all.
Or borrow someone else's clothes.

 

[simulatedworld]

Really? You would try to assign it to a function preference?

I'm just guessing blindly on that one, but if you placed your personal physical comfort (not wanting to be hot) over any ethical or logical values, it sounds like some form of the S function. But it would depend on the person and why exactly s/he is doing it.

If I were extremely anal, I suppose i could go buy a new outfit.
Or refuse to go out at all.
Or borrow someone else's clothes.

True...and your perception of these different options seems Ne-related. As for how to make the decision of which one to go with and why, that depends on a number of other variables.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm just guessing blindly on that one, but if you placed your personal physical comfort (not wanting to be hot) over any ethical or logical values, it sounds like some form of the S function. But it would depend on the person and why exactly s/he is doing it.

...Personally, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to assign everything to a cog function.

True...and your perception of these different options seems Ne-related.

Nice, you caught me on that one.
I rapid-fire options without even thinking, thus giving myself away.

 

[Eric B]

...Personally, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to assign everything to a cog function.

True. Becoming more and more obvious.
Forgot to mention that looking at it in terns of perspectives, we are freed from having to force everything into a function like that. While physical comfort IS technically a "sensory" stimulus, it is not in that case part of a particular "perspective" or even "world-view". It is just a physical need at the moment. Love is similar, and an emotional need, and not a "Feeling" perspective.

Also forgot to mention that perhaps the reason why the term "use" of a function is so common, is simply because it's easier to say.

 

[INFtha14]

Post #194

Very lovely read .

 

[Jaguar]

If the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk will be his way of "saving the day".

Why can I hear Edgar laughing?

 

[Eric B]

He's only using shadow Fe if he makes a moral judgment based on surrounding cultural values over his own. I don't know how to say that any more plainly. Why is it that applying his values to the group automatically turns them into Fe? You don't have to use an extroverted function to interact with others.

Again it's the source of the values that determines the orientation of the function at that moment, not who the decision is applied to.

Yes, Fi could easily come to a similar conclusion, but what you're missing over and over is that the determining factor is what source the values leading to the decision came from (internal or external), not who the decision is then subsequently applied to.

If he makes a moral decision based on his personal values and ignoring what anyone else thinks about it, he is using Fi, even if he then applies this Fi decision to others by criticizing the group for not following it.

The decision to wear shorts or not wear shorts could be motivated by Fi or Fe--if his personal values are in agreement with the surrounding cultural values, then this is probably best interpreted as Fi, because he's usually going to place more importance on his own values than the group's.

So it doesn't matter if the Fi user applies his decision externally; the fact that the decision was made based on internal values implies Fi use and not Fe.

Shadow Fe would occur when he sets aside his own values in favor of the group's.

That's fine, but you still seem to be defining "extroverted function" as "applying the decision to others after it's been made", whereas I'm defining it as whether the decision came from an internal or external standard. It's the standards upon which the decision was made that matter, not whether it's applied to the self or others. Applying an Fi position to others doesn't turn it into Fe.

You're misunderstanding what I've been saying. I said I was not making it so much where it was applied.
I said it starts with the personal values (the internal source); and when the issue [meaning the standard] expands beyond personal, to group, then, it's shadow Fe.
As for the whole "caring' thing, the way I understand it, is that an expressed need of other people becomes an "external" source to the one responding. I did not say anything about "application".
So both Fe and Fi will care for others. Fe will respond to the external source, being the person's stated need. Fi will respond based on either a personal sense of need, or a universal need (which is technically "external", but universals are connected with introverted processes, because they each person makes it apart of his own personal system).

We're obviously using different interpretations of what constitutes Fe use. My interpretation is based mostly on Jung/Lenore, where Fi is based on an internal standard and Fe on an external one.

And I guess I'm still more influenced by Berens, which is perhaps the problem. She describes the "processes" more in terms of behaviors (actions) and key words, so I have learned to express them in those fashions, even though I since learned that it is about the source. (I even had one pair of "experts" who operate off of Berens' key word definitions tell me I was "using" Te because I was "extraverting" my logic by sharing it with others or "the logical energy was flowing outward" where the "true" Ti user keeps it inside, at least until the conclusion is complete. So the concept of the "source" is what finally allowed me to see past that interpretation. Jung/Lenore, and even seeing Beebe material directly greatly helped me further straighten things out as well).

 

[CzeCze]

I am baffled by this thread.

Wait..wait..did someone already say that somewhere in these 22 pages?

Sowwy. :looks pitiful:

 

[wildcat]

I don't know about you, but I am positively baffled by Fi. When people tell me to "go inside myself and see what I want and need and feel and believe and blah blah blah," I just scratch my head and wonder what the hell that means.

Of course, I wouldn't say that I have no values or principles! I have very strong values and principles. I just find it hard to go 'inside myself' to see what 'I want' if it is not an 'instilled principle.'

Can anyone else relate? How did you overcome it?

Fi is field independent, therefore it is conscentious to what is outside of the field.
What is the role of introversion in judgement?
Objectivity. Fair play.

 

[simulatedworld]

whooo boy, somebody went and revived this thread