FPs, how changeable are your values?

[Moiety]

Like others mentioned it's about adjusting the value system based on new experiences and situations but always keeping the core values intact until proven wrong. And minding priorities.

I do think Fi works much like a logical system in that coherence is of utmost importance.

EDIT : As far as developing Fi is concerned...well, it's all about caring. Promise yourself you'll uphold a particular standard and mind it at all times. I dunno.

 

[Costrin]

I think mine are pretty changeable, because they are constantly, and I do mean on a day to day basis, being re-evaluated with new insights or new information.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The definition of Fi is as follows.

Feeling: A cognitive unconscious disposition towards processing emotion.

Introversion: A cognitive unconscious disposition to be cognitively inspired by the inner life more than the external world.

What this simply means is that an introvert's mind unconsciously responds more easily to his own thoughts rather than entities outside of him (perhaps his observations of the external world).

Hence, Introverted Feeling is a tendency to process emotion in relation to the intrinsic content of the mind in question.

The tendency to emote leads a person to be interested in values as such a person is closely in tune with his likes and dislikes (personal values). An Introverted Feeler is in tune with the sentiments generated within himself (because they are generated within his mind they are concerned with his inner being more than the external world), hence he is intensely focused on his personal values (or strictly speaking how he feels) more than the community. (An Extroverted Feeler on the hand, whose sentiments are more concerned with the external world is more focused on the values of others and inevitably his values mirror those of others almost by default.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Properly defining Fi has placed us in a position to ask your question in a manner it could be clearly answered and with reliable results.

Because Fi is simply a tendency to emote in relation to the inner life, it ipso facto lacks logical structure. (I anticipate some may remonstrate that there are logical Fi people in the world. I do not wish to deny that. However, they are logical not because of their Fi faculty but due to their competence with their Thinking faculty) Fi, unlike Fe that conforms to the rigid structure of the external world of values (therefore does not change easily, it changes in a manner akin to the whims of fashion, in small ways. We notice that significant traditions and values of the community rarely radically change, and hence neither does Fe for this reason.), has no solid foundation. It is founded on mere fleeting feelings. (There is no solid foundation because Fi in itself does not conceptualize feelings, it only processes them, hence there is nothing stopping Fi from going from one temporary passion to another.)

Simply by virtue of the principle that what does not have a solid foundation can easily change, we adduce that Fi established values can easily change.

 

[Nonsensical]

This is very hard to think about.

I think my emotions are the pillars of my character- they define my best.

I guess they run on seperate levels:

First, there's my values dealing with love. The only thing that really matters to me, honestly. I would fight and die for anyone. I'd kill for it, I'd hurt for it. My family, my close loves.

Then there are the things that are a little more secondary to my values- certain causes. Defending things, standing up for what people want, standing up against unmerciful things.

 

[matmos]

I wish I had your passion.

 

[Costrin]

Simply by virtue of the principle that what does not have a solid foundation can easily change, we adduce that Fi established values can easily change.

I disagree. Any Fi users themselves gonna comment on this? I'm wanting to debate this, but not if an Fi user is gonna pop up and say he was actually right.

 

[Nonsensical]

I wish I had your passion.

You do have my passion..

"gives passion to bananatrombones"

But seriously, Ts do have the passion, they just either don't know how to use it, prefer not to, or feel uncomfortable using it. They channel the energy in different ways than Fs.

 

[BlackCat]

I disagree. Any Fi users themselves gonna comment on this? I'm wanting to debate this, but not if an Fi user is gonna pop up and say he was actually right.

Some values are nailed into our being, others are subject to change. There are some that we simply cannot change and will never change, other we can change if we see a reason to change them. It's just like changing logic, if you were misinformed and you got informed of the correct information then you will change your logic.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I disagree. Any Fi users themselves gonna comment on this? I'm wanting to debate this, but not if an Fi user is gonna pop up and say he was actually right.

What are your reasons for disagreeing?

Some values are nailed into our being, others are subject to change. There are some that we simply cannot change and will never change, other we can change if we see a reason to change them. It's just like changing logic, if you were misinformed and you got informed of the correct information then you will change your logic.

You're confusing type for personality. There are some people who have Fi as their dominant type and also have values firmly established within them (such values do not change easily). Yet Fi in itself does not at all conduce to such a firm establishment of values for reasons mentioned above.

In recap firm establishment of values requires a solid foundation of beliefs, the nature of Fi does not provide that.

 

[wolfy]

Simply by virtue of the principle that what does not have a solid foundation can easily change, we adduce that Fi established values can easily change.

I disagree. Any Fi users themselves gonna comment on this? I'm wanting to debate this, but not if an Fi user is gonna pop up and say he was actually right.

I agree though I think foundation is the wrong word. Fi by itself lacks a solid feedback loop.
That being said we are the sum of all parts.

 

[Valhallahereicome]

An Introverted Feeler is in tune with the sentiments generated within himself (because they are generated within his mind they are concerned with his inner being more than the external world), hence he is intensely focused on his personal values (or strictly speaking how he feels) more than the community. (An Extroverted Feeler on the hand, whose sentiments are more concerned with the external world is more focused on the values of others and inevitably his values mirror those of others almost by default.)

Because Fi is simply a tendency to emote in relation to the inner life, it ipso facto lacks logical structure. (I anticipate some may remonstrate that there are logical Fi people in the world. I do not wish to deny that. However, they are logical not because of their Fi faculty but due to their competence with their Thinking faculty) Fi, unlike Fe that conforms to the rigid structure of the external world of values (therefore does not change easily, it changes in a manner akin to the whims of fashion, in small ways. We notice that significant traditions and values of the community rarely radically change, and hence neither does Fe for this reason.), has no solid foundation. It is founded on mere fleeting feelings. (There is no solid foundation because Fi in itself does not conceptualize feelings, it only processes them, hence there is nothing stopping Fi from going from one temporary passion to another.)

Simply by virtue of the principle that what does not have a solid foundation can easily change, we adduce that Fi established values can easily change.

Some of this makes sense to me. My Ti is pretty strong, so I need for my values to logically make sense and hence they change with new arguments and new information. However, my Fi is very strong and has nothing to do with logic. I'll often see a situation that rouses my passion and have to make myself wait minutes, hours, or days to calm down because I want to go on an unreasonable and possibly harmful crusade.

My values are generated within and often go against those of people around me; my thinking also relies more on inward processes, so often I end up going against the mainstream.

However, I don't think that the passions of Fi are fleeting. Logic changes my values, but the feelings that produced those values stay the same. And some values are buried too deep for Ti to work away at them - the belief that all human beings are more important than any system they live within, for example. Those values might be logically disproved, but the feeling behind them is strong and constant and so they don't change. But it's hard to pinpoint exactly where Fi values come from - what cognitive processes bring them to being, where the solid foundation lies - and so I can see why it would seem that they might be more fleeting, changing throughout a person's life.

EDIT: Just saw this:

"In recap firm establishment of values requires a solid foundation of beliefs, the nature of Fi does not provide that."

I'd disagree here and say that the feeling functions provide a more unchanging foundation than either the thinking or the sensing ones, which are constantly processing new information. Not sure about intuition. Yes, I know that feelings seem to change from day to day, but at least for me there are some strong feelings that I've had since I can remember, and those never change. Compassion, for instance - that's one I've always had. It never leaves me and it drives a good portion of my actions, often flying in the face of logic. I suppose it's possible that something drastic might alter this and thus shake my foundation, but I don't find that too likely.

Guess you could put feelings into at least two categories - moods and passions. The latter are pretty unshakeable.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I agree though I think foundation is the wrong word. Fi by itself lacks a solid feedback loop.
That being said we are the sum of all parts.

Foundation is simply the grounding for a belief. You mention there is a lack of a feedback loop. Feedback loop, for a feeler is often the basis of a belief (or a foundation.) The nature of Feeling is such that it requires direct affirmation or feedback in order to be confident in one's values. Since a lot of Feelers rely primarily on Feeling (and very little on Thinking) they need the feedback loop that you seem to have in mind.

Hence, the feedback loop and the foundation are not distinct notions, the former is a specie of the latter or the feedback loop is one foundation for somebody's beliefs.

Fe on the other hand does have a solid feedback loop because it tends to interact with the external agents which offer feedback or affirmation to the values of the Fe in question. Hence, the values of the Fe are established a upon a solid bank of belief and are not easily changed, yet the values of Fi are not and are therefore malleable.

 

[BlackCat]

You're confusing type for personality. There are some people who have Fi as their dominant type and also have values firmly established within them (such values do not change easily). Yet Fi in itself does not at all conduce to such a firm establishment of values for reasons mentioned above.

In recap firm establishment of values requires a solid foundation of beliefs, the nature of Fi does not provide that.

I don't actually think it's that way, just for other people it's confusing. The logic analogy was to give people somewhat of a grasp of how it works. But yes it isn't solid like logic is, what Fi is built on.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Some of this makes sense to me. My Ti is pretty strong, so I need for my values to logically make sense and hence they change with new arguments and new information. However, my Fi is very strong and has nothing to do with logic. I'll often see a situation that rouses my passion and have to make myself wait minutes, hours, or days to calm down because I want to go on an unreasonable and possibly harmful crusade.

My values are generated within and often go against those of people around me; my thinking also relies more on inward processes, so often I end up going against the mainstream.

However, I don't think that the passions of Fi are fleeting. Logic changes my values, but the feelings that produced those values stay the same. And some values are buried too deep for Ti to work away at them - the belief that all human beings are more important than any system they live within, for example. Those values might be logically disproved, but the feeling behind them is strong and constant and so they don't change. But it's hard to pinpoint exactly where Fi values come from - what cognitive processes bring them to being, where the solid foundation lies - and so I can see why it would seem that they might be more fleeting, changing throughout a person's life.

Note, you're talking about the relation of Fi and Thinking (logical reasoning). Together they shall establish a different set of values than Fi alone. I am talking of what Fi alone can accomplish in principle. These are two distinct problems. In short we are not talking about the same thing.

You're right to point out that Fi which is supported well by Thinking will have a solid foundation but such a solid foundation comes not from Fi but from Thinking.

Most IFPs rely very heavily on Fi and rely little on Thinking, hence their cognitive activity is more similar to the first model than to the second. Or to the work of Fi alone than to a cognitive process where Fi and Thinking collaborate. Hence, the values of most Fi people are malleable.

I don't actually think it's that way, just for other people it's confusing. The logic analogy was to give people somewhat of a grasp of how it works. But yes it isn't solid like logic is, what Fi is built on.

I would agree that Fi has some kind of a foundation. That is merely a set of emotive habits. However, because such habits (by virtue of Fi alone) are founded merely on emotion, the Fi person (unless he uses Thinking consistently and proficiently) will not have a clear idea of what his habits are and how he should act upon them. For this reason he could easily be persuaded to change his attitude towards the world simply because he does not have much confidence in his attitude. In principle, he cannot have much confidence in his views if he does not clearly understand what his views are to begin with.

Not only is the foundation of Fi simply less solid than that of Thinking, it is significantly less solid.

I'd disagree here and say that the feeling functions provide a more unchanging foundation than either the thinking or the sensing ones, which are constantly processing new information. Not sure about intuition. Yes, I know that feelings seem to change from day to day, but at least for me there are some strong feelings that I've had since I can remember, and those never change. Compassion, for instance - that's one I've always had. It never leaves me and it drives a good portion of my actions, often flying in the face of logic. I suppose it's possible that something drastic might alter this and thus shake my foundation, but I don't find that too likely.

Guess you could put feelings into at least two categories - moods and passions. The latter are pretty unshakeable.

You have here pointed out that Feelings can remain consistent or solid and have provided examples of how they could be so. However,you have not shown that Feelings are consistent by virtue of themselves. I can maintain that the reason somebody's feelings are consistent is because of his thoughts or of his knowledge in a way that is compatible with your position. (In short, Feeling is consistent because of Thinking, Sensing or Intuition possibly.)

To reframe the problem, the following should be adequate, in order to argue in favor of the thesis that Fi dominant people tend to have solid values we must show that Feeling by virtue of itself leads to solid values.

 

[wolfy]

Foundation is simply the grounding for a belief. You mention there is a lack of a feedback loop. Feedback loop, for a feeler is often the basis of a belief (or a foundation.) The nature of Feeling is such that it requires direct affirmation or feedback in order to be confident in one's values. Since a lot of Feelers rely primarily on Feeling (and very little on Thinking) they need the feedback loop that you seem to have in mind.

I don't get this part. Do you mean if we took Fi by itself the person would create a feedback loop on themselves?

 

[BlackCat]

However, because such habits (by virtue of Fi alone) are founded merely on emotion, the Fi person (unless he uses Thinking consistently and proficiently) will not have a clear idea of what his habits are and how he should act upon them. For this reason he could easily be persuaded to change his attitude towards the world simply because he does not have much confidence in his attitude. In principle, he cannot have much confidence in his views if he does not clearly understand what his views are to begin with.

I know what my emotional habits are. I act on them to prevent anything from going out of line. This is how I use Te. I have a lot of confidence in my attitude, my world views are pretty steady within me unless science proves them wrong. Just because someone will make me feel a certain way toward something does not mean that I will change. How does someone NOT know what their views are on something? I know very clearly what my values are and what they have to do with, I know why I embrace them in my daily life.

Can any other INFP/Fi user say that they don't know what their views are? Do you now know what your habits are? Because I sure do. It could be a trend with other people but it isn't with me. You can't prove me wrong because I am speaking about myself and I know I'm right.

 

[speculative]

Properly defining Fi has placed us in a position to ask your question in a manner it could be clearly answered and with reliable results.

Because Fi is simply a tendency to emote in relation to the inner life, it ipso facto lacks logical structure.

Definition of feeling from page 3 of "Gifts Differing"

"A basic difference in judgement arises from the existence of two distinct and sharply contrasting ways of coming to conclusions. One way is by the use of thinking, that is, by a logical process, aimed at an impersonal finding. The other is by feeling, that is, by appreciation-equally reasonable in its fashion-bestowing on things a personal, subjective value."

Definition of introversion from page 7 of "Gifts Differing"

"Introversion, in the sense given to it by Jung in formualting the term and the idea, is one of two complementary orientations to life; its complement is extraversion. The invtrovert's main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas, while the extravert is more involved with the outer world of people and things. Therefore, when circumstances permit, the introvert concentrates perception and judgement upon ideas, while the extravert likes to focus them on the outside environment."

To say that Fi is just emoting is a gross oversimplification of Fi. Fi is assigning personal values to things, people, ideas, etc. Stating that feeling lacks a logical structure is a nice excuse to throw some Latin out there, but since we all know that feeling is not logic the only purpose of making such a statement would be to try to prop thinking up on a higher pedestal than feeling. I do not yield this ground to an argument of definition. I could just as easily argue that feeling is more valid than thinking because that's the way I feel about it.

Fi, unlike Fe that conforms to the rigid structure of the external world of values (therefore does not change easily, it changes in a manner akin to the whims of fashion, in small ways. We notice that significant traditions and values of the community rarely radically change, and hence neither does Fe for this reason.), has no solid foundation. It is founded on mere fleeting feelings. (There is no solid foundation because Fi in itself does not conceptualize feelings, it only processes them, hence there is nothing stopping Fi from going from one temporary passion to another.)

If Fe is a mirror, then Fi is a light. Two mirrors that reflect each other cannot change, but a light can illuminate a mirror and thereby change what it reflects. That's why Fi's must be the change they wish to see in the world. You are taking a few nuggets and trying to extrapolate them into a whole theory in the span of a single post. Instead, it may be useful to approach the line of reasoning you are attempting instead from the totality of the type descriptions for each type with F and P. I do not think people generally get the idea that the feelings of INFPs are fickle after reading the type description, or by referencing the famous INFPs such as Gandhi, or Joan of Arc. I do not think many would argue that their convictions (based on feeling, not thinking) were "fickle." I know that most of my values based on Fi are most definitely not fickle and have not changed over several decades.

Simply by virtue of the principle that what does not have a solid foundation can easily change, we adduce that Fi established values can easily change.

This conclusion is incorrect. Again, restating definitions that are already a given is not only poor writing style, but does not make your argument any more logical or any more valid. Sorry if I have come off sounding more brash than I normally do, but I have grown tired of posts that seem pointed down barrel of an upturned nose while in and of themselves adding little to our understanding of the human condition.

To answer the OP, my core values are not very changeable; in fact, I value those values that are firm, and use them to grow. The practical implementation of those values on the other hand is malleable. For example, one value I have is equality of opportunity. ("Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.") Does an income tax system create more or less equality of opportunity than a flat tax would? Again, I would point to famous INFPs who have been leader/healer types that have implemented some fairly drastic change that will be noted throughout history such as Joan of Arc. Fi values are not without foundation, and are not "fleeting."

Edit: I wonder how much we are in disagreement due to definitions? I will sleep on this and ponder it some more.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't get this part. Do you mean if we took Fi by itself the person would create a feedback loop on themselves?

No, feedback loop by definition requires the input of other people, (the input of other people is the definition of feedback.)

What I mean is that Fi's values are contingent on feedback from others and because they can't easily get such feedback, shaky values are resultant.

 

[wolfy]

No, feedback loop by definition requires the input of other people, (the input of other people is the definition of feedback.)

What I mean is that Fi's values are contingent on feedback from others and because they can't easily get such feedback, shaky values are resultant.

That's why I was confused what you said didn't match my understanding of feedback.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

"Introversion, in the sense given to it by Jung in formualting the term and the idea, is one of two complementary orientations to life; its complement is extraversion..".

This does not clearly define what introversion is, though my earlier definition does.

"[The invtrovert's main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas, while the extravert is more involved with the outer world of people and things. Therefore, when circumstances permit, the introvert concentrates perception and judgement upon ideas, while the extravert likes to focus them on the outside environment.".

How did the author of this passage get the idea that introvert is chiefly interested in ideas from his previous definition of introversion? (Which is in itself incomplete).

"[To say that Fi is just emoting is a gross oversimplification of Fi..".

Why is that?

"[ Fi is assigning personal values to things,
people, ideas, etc. ..".

Assigning values requires not only Feeling, but also critical thinking. This requires you to analyze your feelings and external circumstances. Inevitably such a process requires both Feeling and Thinking. You have incorporated Thinking into the definition of Fi, which is a category mistake. Hence, the definition of Fi you propose above is untenable.

"[ Stating that feeling lacks a logical structure is a nice excuse to throw some Latin out there, but since we all know that feeling is not logic the only purpose of making such a statement would be to try to prop thinking up on a higher pedestal than feeling. I do not yield this ground to an argument of definition...".

No, there is a justification for holding such views, and it is posted above.

If Fe is a mirror, then Fi is a light. Two mirrors that reflect each other cannot change, but a light can illuminate a mirror and thereby change what it reflects....".

What is light? Why is Fi light?

That's why Fi's must be the change they wish to see in the world. You are taking a few nuggets and trying to extrapolate them into a whole theory in the span of a single post. Instead, it may be useful to approach the line of reasoning you are attempting instead from the totality of the type descriptions for each type with F and P. I do not think people generally get the idea that the feelings of INFPs are fickle after reading the type description, or by referencing the famous INFPs such as Gandhi, or Joan of Arc. I do not think many would argue that their convictions (based on feeling, not thinking) were "fickle." I know that most of my values based on Fi are most definitely not fickle and have not changed over several decades.....".

Those people were NFs (not all were INFPs) and they were non-fickle not by virtue of Fi but because they excelled at using other functions that made them non-fickle.

This conclusion is incorrect. Again, restating definitions that are already a given is not only poor writing style, but does not make your argument any more logical or any more valid......".

I think you misunderstood the argument. Read it again, let me know if you still have concerns then.

Sorry if I have come off sounding more brash than I normally do, but I have grown tired of posts that seem pointed down barrel of an upturned nose while in and of themselves adding little to our understanding of the human condition.......".

Human condition? I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

To answer the OP, my core values are not very changeable; in fact, I value those values that are firm, and use them to grow. The practical implementation of those values on the other hand is malleable. For example, one value I have is equality of opportunity. ("Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.") Does an income tax system create more or less equality of opportunity than a flat tax would? Again, I would point to famous INFPs who have been leader/healer types that have implemented some fairly drastic change that will be noted throughout history such as Joan of Arc. Fi values are not without foundation, and are not "fleeting.".......".

That is very nice, but irrelevant to my claims.

Edit: I wonder how much we are in disagreement due to definitions? I will sleep on this and ponder it some more.

Considerable disagreement with regard to definitions.