That's really interesting. I hope I don't sound like a twit for saying this because I really respect and enjoy reading your opinion - so I don't want this to come out wrong. But I find it really hard imagining the world from the perspective of someone who begrudgingly accepts the idea that knowing who you are and what is important is only marginally important. I mean, I'm constantly asking myself, "Is this really who I am? Is this really what I want? Will this bring me further in life? Will other people really benefit from this? Where does this fit in the grand scheme of things?" And trying to imagine a world without that is like taking my essence and drowning it.
That's not to say I don't respect your perspective. On the contrary, I'm trying to imagine it, but find myself remiss in being able to do so....It's really interesting how we can be so different.
Oh, no worries, and no, I don't think it came out wrong.
Actually, it's hard being T sometimes -- at least it has been for me.
I have to be fair in situations I do not want to be fair in.
Reasoned in situations I want to be emotional.
Detached from situations I want to engage with passion.
Picky about logical wording when I'd rather be casual.
Skeptical when I'd rather be sympathetic.
But I just ... can't be another way.
I try.
It's like a planet trying to be in a different orbit than the one physics has decreed for it.
I think I've always done better with your latter two questions.
Will other people really benefit from this? (Due to Fe being my learned interpersonal pattern, i find it easier to give others their due than me.)
Where does this fit into the grand scheme? (That's pretty N, to me.)
I can find ways to include myself, but it comes more from a big-picture systematic approach: Where do I, with my unique abilities and talents and thinking and life experience, best serve the system I'm part of in order to make it function most efficiently? Instead of operating with an internal personal compass, I usually operated with a big-picture sense where I would basically let situations and environments dictate what my choices were.
This actually is also a valid way to approach things, but it has its plusses and minuses. And I think there is some deep part of oneself that needs to be exposed, engaged, and honored if someone is to be ultimately happy. I really did not begin my "adventures in Fi" on a personal level until maybe the last five years, and it brought very drastic, painful changes to my life. Basically, I did reach that point where, after squishing myself down and approaching myself so impersonally over the yeasr, I simply could no longer go on unless I started honoring my own needs.
But until then, I couldn't really tell the difference between my own needs vs wants, as well as the difference between "fitting into the system as it exists, in the best possible way" vs "creating a niche for myself and letting a system develop around me." The latter always had felt extremely crass and selfish to me, and literally everyone in my environment would put pressure on me if I drifted in that direction, so even when I realized I needed to "find me" in here somewhere and honor that "me," it took me a long long time to build up strength where I could deal that consistent pressure and take care of myself if and when the system spit me out.
So that's kinda how my comments tie into Fi.
I find it necessary, as part of being a complete person.
I just don't always "get it" and/or prioritize it, but it definitely plays the sort of role you suggest it does.
For example, to me everything else can be in order and perfect (as perfect as our modern world gets) but if my inner being isn't in order, everything's messed up.
Yeah, and I'm kind of back in that rut again. When my inner world is messed up, my outer world starts to go unstable and messy. It's funny, but that's how you can tell how stable inside I'm feeling: Look at the persistent state of my bedroom and eventually the entire house.
Fi is neither useless nor exclusively about vanity.
It is intrapersonal intelligence. Yes, intrapersonal intelligence is useful.
Unless, once again, we are opposing it to Te. It is more accurate to say Te is the most "useful" and then say Fi is "not useful" by Te standards.
But to compare it to Ti and say it isn't useful is kind of absurd.
I don't want to assume I have a total handle on what wildcat is saying, but knowing his posting style, I think you're taking his comments far too literally. You'd probably be closer to the mark if you'd interpret "useful" as practically/pragmatically useful. You're also reading his comments as referring to Ti, when I think you'd do better to realize he's probably talking about Te, not Ti ("linear logic"). Look at his comments again:
Fi is the counterpole of linear logic.
It is the least useful function.
Everyone does not hate on Fi.
Fi does not hate on everyone.
Use has limits.
So has vanity.
Fi is the opposite of Te and/or linear, practical logic.
It is the least "useful" function -- IOW, it doesn't bring practical defined results and/or procedures that can be specifically and easily applied to resolve concrete problems... and in fact it is a "fuzzy" logic often only understandable by the individual in question,
Non-Fi People don't hate Fi people, nor vice versa.
Te (AKA detached utilitarianism) has its limits.
So does Fi (AKA internal personal congruence).
Make more sense now?
I think you completely misread what he meant by his post, it was far more supportive than you realized.
EDIT: Okay, my detail Se-tardness took hold. You did say this in the middle, whereas I scanned and just caught the bookends of your comments. Sorry. But yes, I think you've got it, there, with that middle part.