Fi Demystified

[Tigerlily]

Actually, my suspicion is, most of the people who are attacking him, are the very people he's talking about (still didn't read it, I'm just guessing based on what I know of BW and Fi), which means they were owned before they even read it!

I think it just makes them mad. Angry. Angry at being a part of a group of which a blanket insult was issued.

Doesn't make him wrong. Just makes him a jerk. Which is what an Fier would get all up in a tizzy about.

God, I never thought I'd agree with you eek but I do.

Chill babies. I mean the aspie spumante is just expressing his sadness.

 

[Haphazard]

Chill babies. I mean the aspie spumante is just expressing his sadness.

Fine.

Everyone, there's nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[Nocapszy]

God, I never thought I'd agree with you eek but I do.

No you don't. I want want to have a side in this.

Grrrr.








(but )

 

[Jeffster]

I enjoy my free-floating feelings....ahhhhhhhhhh...riding this bubble is fun....ooh look, a dog with a puffy tail! Here Puff!! hee hee hee

 

[taoista]

How insightful. Another BlueWing great topic.

But still, chill out, man.

 

[Gabe]

Why is it that you consistently attempt to type people based on the functions they don't use?

It doesn't really work that way...

That's like trying to find darkmatter by saying 'well nothing else is there...'

Faulty. Sorry.



As to the public: why do any of you (not just people on MBTIc... anywhere) -- and this is a serious question, not rhetorical -- pander those who you diagnose to be seeking attention by acting the role of the natural opposition?

I have been, and still consider myself to be one of the purporters of the negative stance on a number of issues (especially ones which can't be proven one way or another), and rather than ignore me, I'm given exactly what I want.

Or rather, what the people say I want. It's not really what I want, but it seems to be a catch-all one-liner excusing their attack on me. If I'm just seeking attention, or I'm undoubtedly wrong, why even respond?

I'm not defending BW: I didn't read the article, and I don't much care what he's got to say about Fi; By all means, beat the living hell out of him. Who knows? Maybe it'll work this time. Maybe he'll learn. I'm just curious what makes everyone so sure.

As you well know, just because the quotes BW put out by those people might've indicated a feeling function doesn't make them feeling types, because, as you are so fond of preaching, we use all 8 processes.

I wrote, because, in my opinion, the whole "well BW, you might just be talking about UNhealthy feeling types" thing is a lame, piecemeal, false arguement. They (the three people mentioned by BW) might very well not even be feeling types!

 

[Sunshine]

BLUEWING:

I guess we're supposed to take your word for it with the type guesses of Rousseau, Kierkegaard, and St. Augustine.

But I hope that's not what people do when they read what you wrote.

My immediate guess for the Rousseau example would be demonic extraverted feeling, making him an E_TJ, the Kierkegaard example as demonic Fi.(making him an I_TP!)

Important note:
People are very unlikely to engage in bullshitting and obfuscation with thier dominant process, but are much more likely to do so with shadow processes.

On that note, what I can definately conclude about Rousseau from that example is that he had Fe somewhere in the shadow (in other words, he was either a _TJ or _FP type, (See? _TJ and _FP types are not opposites at all!)). I'll repeat, that Rousseau example sounds a lot like demonic extraverted feeling.

I don't even see how the St. Augustine quote relates to the rest of your rant. He stole a freekin apple, get over it.

On a related note, please stop trying to indirectly defend your views through quotes by prominent introverted intuition types (Nietche, Doesteovsky (maybe)). You put thier names to shame.

It doesn't even matter if they ARE Fi types because they don't seem to be very healthy. Using an unhealthy individual to demonstrate the norm makes no sense. Unless it's the norm of unhealthy people. If one wants to demonstrate the norm for healthy people one should use examples of healthy individuals.

 

[Blackwater]

argumentum ad hominem

why exactly are such arguments allowed on MBTIc?

 

[Gabe]

It doesn't even matter if they ARE Fi types because they don't seem to be very healthy. Using an unhealthy individual to demonstrate the norm makes no sense. Unless it's the norm of unhealthy people. If one wants to demonstrate the norm for healthy people one should use examples of healthy individuals.

This is a good point. I might've misinterpreted what people mean with the "healthy vs. unhealthy" arguement.

 

[Sunshine]

argumentum ad hominem

why exactly are such arguments allowed on MBTIc?

I dunno.

But I'd be happy to prove his arguments wrong instead of attack him personally.

 

[01011010]

Blue, if you're hurt, we really don't want to hear you broadcast like this. It's... undignified.

I felt bad that everyone was ganging up on him (myself included), but he's stubborn and has brought this upon himself. I agree. This is undignified.

 

[Blackwater]

But I'd be happy to prove his arguments wrong instead of attack him personally.

Yes please.

 

[Zergling]

Out of curiosity, what would be considered a dignified way for BW to express himself?

Avoiding the large number of logical fallacies and bad assumptions made in these posts, as well as responding to people's criticisms, rather than just trying to brush them away or write around them.

 

[Sunshine]

Yes please.

grayscale reiterated some of his points and I disproved them here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/6611-f-mystery-debunked-13.html#post243529

And there's this: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...atrices/6644-fi-demystified-3.html#post243583

miked277 also did a good job of disproving his stuff too: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/6611-f-mystery-debunked-12.html#post242784

EDIT: Sorry. Not "disproved" but clarified.

But still. It was addressed at what he was saying mostly and not at him.

 

[Nocapszy]

As you well know, just because the quotes BW put out by those people might've indicated a feeling function doesn't make them feeling types, because, as you are so fond of preaching, we use all 8 processes.

I wrote, because, in my opinion, the whole "well BW, you might just be talking about UNhealthy feeling types" thing is a lame, piecemeal, false arguement. They (the three people mentioned by BW) might very well not even be feeling types!

Preposterous!

Gabe m'boy, you failed to address my question. I should refine it I suppose.

A great number of your type diagnoses make use of the last 4 in the order, rather than the first 2, which, as you well know, are the the most important.

I'd say something that appears more rarely might be inconsistently proportioned, in terms of frequency and strength of use, and are therefore far less reliable than the main two in identifying type!

Duh!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

grayscale reiterated some of his points and I disproved them here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/6611-f-mystery-debunked-13.html#post243529

And there's this: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...atrices/6644-fi-demystified-3.html#post243583

miked277 also did a good job of disproving his stuff too: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/6611-f-mystery-debunked-12.html#post242784

You did not disprove. You only attempted to state how you felt. Miked's response was almost wholly irrelevant to the topic he attempted to give treatment to.

 

[Sunshine]

You did not disprove. You only attempted to state how you felt. Miked's response was almost wholly irrelevant to the topic he attempted to give treatment to.

Oops. Sorry. Not proving wrong. Pointing out your false generalizations though...that's what Mike was doing.

What I was doing was:
A)Clarifying the definition of F
B) Pointing out that F is not an inferior function because the feeling issue that you and Gray were talking about (using pure emotion and nothing else to make a decision) is not the definition of F.

However, if you don't believe that F is inferior at making decisions then no, I wasn't proving you wrong.

And no that was not an attempt to express my emotions.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Avoiding the large number of logical fallacies and bad assumptions made in these posts, as well as responding to people's criticisms, rather than just trying to brush them away or write around them.

What fallacies?

 

[strawberryfields]

A lot of what you're saying reminds me of what Spinoza says about emotions in 'The Ethics' - I notice you’re a fan of his. One of my favourite bits in ‘The Ethics’ (I didn’t exactly feel spoiled for choice) is how Spinoza tries to be so emotionless and impersonal, yet when speaking about unrequited love, you can totally tell he's been burned. To me your original post reminds me a little of that.
I'm not sure if I feel especially enlightened after reading this thread, in fact to me your original post didn't have a great deal of substance. You used some examples of people you have personally typed, [I disagree with Rousseau, for example - an S? He wrote 'the Social Contract' one of the most 'bigger picture' books ever, where the will of the individual subject is lost in favour of the greater good] and seemed to think anecdotal stories of them proved your ‘objective’ point. Rousseau didn’t take responsibility for something as a child (have you ever spent more than 10 minutes with a child? Most young children have difficulty accepting responsibility for their actions, F or otherwise) and was paranoid when he spent time with Hume... I’m not sure what your point is. Kierkegaard got caught up in unrequited love – so? I’ve seen as many T’s as F’s get caught up in unrequited love, and in fact, because T’s are perhaps less used to powerful emotions, I think some of them have been hit harder. Perhaps Kierkegaard didn’t logically analyse why he felt as he did, but I’m not sure that understanding the reason behind feeling something always means we can be freed from that feeling. Besides, feelers are often keen on people discussing feelings to gain greater insight into why they feel as they do, I’m not sure that T’s are any more proficient than F’s in gaining insight into why they feel as they do. I’m not quite sure what you’re demonstrating with your Augustine quote/apple thing and what tremendous insight that one quote gives you into Fi as a whole, so I don’t really know how to engage with it. Even if Fi did lead to the negative behaviour above, all you seem to be saying is that there are downsides to the Fi personality, but there are downsides to all types. For example obviously *entirely* hypothetically speaking, sometimes T’s can be really arrogant and make posts claiming to demystify things when they don’t at all, simply because they are so convinced by their own strange logic. I don’t subsequently generalise that all T’s do that.

 

[Little Linguist]

Have we asked bluewing a question that he could answer with fact, or o we just criticize him ?

I did not ask him a question he necessarily had to answer with a fact, but I asked him an honest question, and I wanted to genuinely hear what he had to say. I was not attacking him.