G
Ginkgo
Guest
Ok well..in my own experience, thats how it starts out..it changes and becomes more refined as you develop it though.
I'm glad.
Ok well..in my own experience, thats how it starts out..it changes and becomes more refined as you develop it though.
I'm glad.
I guess your Fi has been reassured then.
It can't be that easy, can it?
Why not?
The main similarity is that Ni and Fi are the two most subjective functions of their respective domains (i.e., Judging and Perceiving).
This is a question that I had wondered awhile ago but was reminded of it again by someone bringing it up recently in this thread.
In looking at a bunch of old threads, I noticed that there were several people (all dom/aux/tert Fi-users) independently saying that Fi (or Fi/Ne) was like Ni. Because several people are saying this, there must be something there. But I'm not understanding it. They have similarities that all introverted functions have, but I don't see it beyond that.
My concept of Fi is that it has to do with the personal values and feelings of the person using it, and that it identifies what values are at play in a given situation.
Ni on the other hand has nothing to do with values or feelings, and is as impersonal as a computer spitting out data.
So I'm obviously lacking in some understanding of what Fi is.
What do you think about this? What am I missing about what Fi is? Does anyone have any theories about how Ni and Fi (or Fi/Ne) are similar? Or how they work differently?
Similarities of Ni and Fi:
Both subjective functions (Introverted and Personal)
Differences:
Ni is a perception
Fi is a judgement function
Ni is irrational
Fi is rational
But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.
And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?
I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?
But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.
And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?
I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?
I think in Jungian terms, introvert perception, especially Ni, isn't even that aware of how differently it sees the same things. It takes it's own peculiarity for granted. The rationals Fi and Ti otoh are vent intent on distancing (judging).
As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle.
But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.
And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?
I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?
I how non-Ni-doms try to tell me how Ni works.
I how non-Ni-doms try to tell me how Ni works.
I don't think they need to be revised. Rational, in this case, means via reason, not logic or exclusively impersonal reason. Personal reason (F), or impersonal reason (T). Deconstructing established terminology is sure to confuse people who actually take interest in cognitive functions, whereas just using the terminology that's already underscored by Jung's reasoning (hah), is likely to confuse many people until they dig deeper down the rabbit hole. Who needs to revise a theory when you can come out the other side and develop your own from scratch?... unless, of course, someone really wants to cling to Jungian thought instead of digesting it.
Not grounded in reason. (Compare rational.)
Jung pointed out that elementary existential facts fall into this category-for instance, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element or that water freezes at a certain temperature and reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade-as does chance. They are irrational not because they are illogical, but because they are beyond reason.
In Jung’s model of typology, the psychological functions of intuition and sensation are described as irrational.
Both intuition and sensation are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction. For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason.[Ibid., pars. 776f.]
Merely because [irrational types] subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as "unreasonable." It wouldbe truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves entirely on experience. ["General Description of the Types," ibid., par. 616.]
Here, I'll illustrate more. Since you love it.
I'd contrast a intro perceptual person making a music album as someone with a unique approach or theme but doesn't even realize just how different it is. They might even come off innocent about it in interviews or something. It just naturally comes to them. The dom judger could be unique too, but it's often a more conscious or conceptual critique. You might read an interview where an ISTP might say what he intended to do with the latest album, what direction he decided to go in, what issues he wanted to shit on. It's all very conscious. He's looking clearly at the "object" and placing judgement.