Pretentious Fi

[PeaceBaby]

This is as good as work, watching the NT's go at it!

Carry on! It's very exciting.

Oh, and I had a question above. Get to it at your own pace.

 

[Poki]

I don't believe that Ti/Fe users can use Fi and that Fi/Te users can use Ti. The two systems are just so fundamentally contradictory.

I disagree. I think certain types can pull out functions in others that they are not used to using. This is from experience, not theory.

 

[teslashock]

I disagree. I think certain types can pull out functions in others that they are not used to using. This is from experience, not theory.

Bah, have you even read the last 10-20 posts here?

 

[teslashock]

^ I like how you've expressed that sim.

But do you think a Ti dominant would never use Fi? Never, ever?

This has been said/implied several times, but I'll say it again:

Ti and Fi yield value systems. You cannot possess a Ti value system and an Fi value system, as the two value systems contradict (one is based on impersonal logical consistency while the other is based on personal empathetic/emotional harmony). The only way that you can be using Ti is by possessing a Ti value system. Likewise, the only way that you can be using Fi is by possessing an Fi value system.

If you ever seem like you are "using" Fi as a Ti user or "using" Ti as an Fi user, then you are just behaving in a way that Fi/Ti users behave, but you are not actually using Fi/Ti. Instead, you are using another function or combination of functions to reach the same kind of conclusions that are motivated by Fi or Ti.

 

[onemoretime]

Actually, no that's not what my post implied. I said "a lot" and "many." I never said "most" or "nearly all." My specific example only confuses others when they think that my example should be ubiquitously applied, and I never said that it should.

Thank you for generalizing it, but you did it in a way that seemed like you were correcting me, and I don't think my post warranted correction. Generalizing is fine, but that's not what I was trying to do.

Then don't use it as a representative example. There's nothing illustrative about that dichotomy unless you're using it to represent the whole. It's the same kind of crap as the assumption that all ENTPs spend their time inventing machinery, not realizing that there are plenty of other options available for expressing creativity.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I was looking for yes or no actually.

I think I understand what you are saying. I know you'll correct me if I'm off so here's my interpretation - Basically you are saying that behaviour is a derivative of only 4 functions for any given type. For example, something can look like Ti but it is not really Ti. It will be a combination of dominant / auxiliary / teritiary and inferior functions. Nothing more.

Correct?

 

[teslashock]

Then don't use it as a representative example. There's nothing illustrative about that dichotomy unless you're using it to represent the whole. It's the same kind of crap as the assumption that all ENTPs spend their time inventing machinery, not realizing that there are plenty of other options available for expressing creativity.

Um, wrong. The example was meant to illustrate how Fi/Te and Fe/Ti can contradict in a specific instance. The rest of my post was broader, but I wanted to provide a more concrete example for it to make more sense. Christ will you please quit telling me that I intended for my politics example to be representative and that it's meaningless if it doesn't align with a larger whole?

Again, I never said that all XXXXs have a certain political stance. Just as when people say that ENTPs may spend time inventing machines, they don't mean to imply that this is the only possible creative outlet and thus all ENTPs do it. It's an example. Not everything is meant to be a generalization, ya know. Specific examples can do a lot for helping people grasp concepts. Things do not always have to be general and abstract for them to make sense. Geeze, tone down the Ne for a sec and hone in on some more tangible details.

 

[teslashock]

I was looking for yes or no actually.

I think I understand what you are saying. I know you'll correct me if I'm off so here's my interpretation - Basically you are saying that behaviour is a derivative of only 4 functions for any given type. For example, something can look like Ti but it is not really Ti. It will be a combination of dominant / auxiliary / teritiary and inferior functions. Nothing more.

Correct?

Yes. I believe that Ti/Fi are contradictory, as are Si/Ni, Se/Ne, and Te/Fe.

 

[Poki]

This has been said/implied several times, but I'll say it again:

Ti and Fi yield value systems. You cannot possess a Ti value system and an Fi value system, as the two value systems contradict (one is based on impersonal logical consistency while the other is based on personal empathetic/emotional harmony). The only way that you can be using Ti is by possessing a Ti value system. Likewise, the only way that you can be using Fi is by possessing an Fi value system.

If you ever seem like you are "using" Fi as a Ti user or "using" Ti as an Fi user, then you are just behaving in a way that Fi/Ti users behave, but you are not actually using Fi/Ti. Instead, you are using another function or combination of functions to reach the same kind of conclusions that are motivated by Ti or Fi.

I went through the same thought process as you several months ago. And came to the same conclusion, but I have changed. Sorry experience is what brought me to this new thought, not logic. Good luck trying to use logic to get me to think different.

 

[Eric B]

However, as for your claim that we all use Ti and we all use Fi, I don't really agree with this. I don't believe that Ti/Fe users can use Fi and that Fi/Te users can use Ti. The two systems are just so fundamentally contradictory.

I was just trying to explain to you why I think that Fi/Ti are so contradictory and thus cannot both be used by a given person.

Yes, and it's my (our) contention that Fi/Te people never make internal value judgments on any basis other than personal ethical values because they have a fundamental worldview that defines ethics as personal and subjective, and logic as dependent upon external conditions.

Ti and Fi contradict each other because one says that internal value judgments should be made impersonally and the other says they should be made personally.

Let's not forget the shadows! Everyone does use all eight processes, only the last four or five are rejected by the consciousness, and hence not normally used, but do come up in certain situations (good and bad). The first four can degrade directly to their shadow counterpart (with the attitude reversed), and also, the first two can do the right or left brain switch, and keep the same attitude, but reverse the function. For an Fi user, that would be Ti.

When Ti and Te get lumped together into just "T" and Fi/Fe turn into just "F", it's very hard to discern the difference between Te+Fi and Fe+Ti--but it's definitely there.

They weren't "lumped together"; that's the way they were originally conceived, actually.

If you understand that there are really only four functions (SNTF; no i/e yet), which an ego uses in an internal or external way (simulating the "Xi/e"), then it figures how the shadows will play out for each type.
T and F are just two sides of the "rational" (J) coin, and S and N are two sides of the a-rational (P) coin. And then if these function coins are split along the edge into separate coins in themselves, the different orientations of them are just different sides of those coins. While Jung did later make introversion and extraversion essentially properties of the functions (such that I/E became little more than "the dominant function attitude"), initially, they were properties of the ego. It's the ego that chooses an internal or external preference.

 

[teslashock]

I went through the same thought process as you several months ago. And came to the same conclusion, but I have changed. Sorry experience is what brought me to this new thought, not logic. Good luck trying to use logic to get me to think different.

Ok well I won't waste my time then. Your experience shows you that Ti users do things that appear Fi and vice versa, I'm sure, but SW and I have already explained how different functions can be used to reach the same conclusions and/or yield the same behaviors as Ti and Fi. However, if you want to be stuck in your own arbitrary frame of reference with no impersonal external backing, then go for it.

 

[teslashock]

Let's not forget the shadows! Everyone does use all eight processes, only the last four or five are rejected by the consciousness, and hence not normally used, but do come up in certain situations (good and bad). The first four can degrade directly to their shadow counterpart (with the attitude reversed), and also, the first two can do the right or left brain switch, and keep the same attitude, but reverse the function. For an Fi user, that would be Ti.

If you understand that there are really only four functions (SNTF; no i/e yet), which an ego uses in an internal or external way (simulating the "Xi/e"), then it figures how the shadows will play out for each type.
T and F are just two sides of the "rational" (J) coin, and S and N are two sides of the a-rational (P) coin. And then if these function coins are split along the edge into separate coins in themselves, the different orientations of them are just different sides of those coins. While Jung did later make introversion and extraversion essentially properties of the functions (such that I/E became little more than "the dominant function attitude"), initially, they were properties of the ego. It's the ego that chooses an internal or external preference.

Honestly I've never really bought into or fully understood the whole shadow thing. Are you saying that our unconscious uses the other 4 shadow functions?

 

[onemoretime]

Honestly I've never really bought into or fully understood the whole shadow thing. Are you saying that our unconscious uses the other 4 shadow functions?

When what our brain is used to isn't working anymore, and escaping the situation is impossible, it tends to throw anything else it's got at it. Since this situation tends to be highly stressful, and these cognitive pathways not used very often, it tends to express itself in a fairly unpleasant fashion.

 

[teslashock]

When what our brain is used to isn't working anymore, and escaping the situation is impossible, it tends to throw anything else it's got at it. Since this situation tends to be highly stressful, and these cognitive pathways not used very often, it tends to express itself in a fairly unpleasant fashion.

Ok, so maybe when we are under high levels of stress we use the other 4 functions. That's not really pertinent though, as we aren't our usual "cognitive selves" under situations of high stress. You found a special example that's not really applicable to a very expansive whole, so you of all people must not find it particularly relevant. Why bother even sharing it?

 

[onemoretime]

Ok, so maybe when we are under high levels of stress we use the other 4 functions. That's not really pertinent though, as we aren't our usual "cognitive selves" under situations of high stress. You found a special example that's not really applicable to a very expansive whole, so you of all people must not find it particularly relevant. Why bother even sharing it?

It's still part of our psychological profiles. It's like having to write with your left hand when your right hand is cramped - sure, it doesn't work very well at first, but it's still there, and it's worth exercising so when you DO have to use it, you can use it more effectively.

This also has to do with why NT and NF are two groupings, while SJ and SP are the other two. NTs tend to use Ne, Ni, Te and Ti fairly effectively, while NFs do the same substituting Fe and Fi for the last two (Keirsey's thoughts). Meanwhile, sensors tend to use both sensing functions fairly effectively.

 

[Poki]

Ok well I won't waste my time then. Your experience shows you that Ti users do things that appear Fi and vice versa, I'm sure, but SW and I have already explained how different functions can be used to reach the same conclusions and/or yield the same behaviors as Ti and Fi. However, if you want to be stuck in your own arbitrary frame of reference with no impersonal external backing, then go for it.

lol, I can argue that your in your own external arbitrary framework with no internal backing.

You see no conclusion was reached, nor external appearance, nor decision with my experience. Maybe if you could get out or your "external framework" you would realize there is more to life then what happens on the outside While a decision is definite, the process is not definite as you have so many things to weigh.

To explain my experience, its like trying to merge digital logic with an analog signal to work on making a decision.

 

[teslashock]

It's still part of our psychological profiles. It's like having to write with your left hand when your right hand is cramped - sure, it doesn't work very well at first, but it's still there, and it's worth exercising so when you DO have to use it, you can use it more effectively.

I don't know if I agree with the claim that we HAVE to use the other 4 functions in times of desperation. I may agree that we do use them in times of serious stress, as at these times, our actions do not correlate to our typical personalities. But as far as it being an obligatory means of solving a desperate problem, I can't say that I agree with that. I think a balanced mixture of the 4 functions alone is enough to solve any problem.

Again, I still don't see how our use of the 4 shadow functions in times of desperation is particularly pertinent when it comes to evaluating our personalities, as the way we deal with desperate situations doesn't really align with our true selves. We are basically acting off of primitive and involuntary whims at that point, not serious thought processes.

 

[teslashock]

lol, I can argue that your in your own external arbitrary framework with no internal backing.

You see no conclusion was reached, nor external appearance, nor decision with my experience. Maybe if you could get out or your "external framework" you would realize there is more to life then what happens on the outside While a decision is definite, the process is not definite as you have so many things to weigh.

To explain my experience, its like trying to merge digital logic with an analog signal to work on making a decision.

Wtf are you talking about? My arguments were not based off of external experience. They were based off of logical and abstract conceptualizations. How can you say that I need to be more internal when the basis of my argument was a more a priori approach? You're the one arguing based off of experience and what's happening on the outside, not me.

 

[onemoretime]

I don't know if I agree with the claim that we HAVE to use the other 4 functions in times of desperation. I may agree that we do use them in times of serious stress, as at these times, our actions do not correlate to our typical personalities. But as far as it being an obligatory means of solving a desperate problem, I can't say that I agree with that. I think a balanced mixture of the 4 functions alone is enough to solve any problem.

Again, I still don't see how our use of the 4 shadow functions in times of desperation is particularly pertinent when it comes to evaluating our personalities, as the way we deal with desperate situations doesn't really align with our true selves. We are basically acting off of primitive and involuntary whims at that point, not serious thought processes.

It isn't just stress: depression can also evoke similar reactions. We're a lot more the product of our environment than we often like to admit.

 

[teslashock]

It isn't just stress: depression can also evoke similar reactions. We're a lot more the product of our environment than we often like to admit.

I'm still going to argue that under times of stress or psychological illness, we are not actually our selves. But I think we are about to be having an argument of semantics or an otherwise silly philosophical argument about what the self is.