Erasing Beliefs From Fi

[Ginkgo]

Mystic Tater, do you think you might be gay?

Uhh... No. Trust me, I'm not.

EDIT: Do I give off some sort of gay vibe or something?

 

[SillySapienne]

No, no, no, I don't even know you.

But I am always suspect of homophobes as being self-hating homosexuals.

Not to say you are a homophobe.

 

[Ginkgo]

No, no, no, I don't even know you.

But I am always suspect of homophobes as being self-hating homosexuals.

Not to say you are a homophobe.

Understandable. I sometimes wonder that myself.

Trust me, I am quite infatuated with mammaries.

^The above was expressed in the dorkiest fashion possible.

I think I'm just going to go on Youtube and find some homosexuals to watch in order to reprogram my morals (otherwise known as conditioning).

Thanks everyone for the help! Oh man, I knew this was going to be embarrassing...

 

[Ginkgo]

Damn, do I always sound this retarded?

 

[Darwin]

You don't really sound retarded.

 

[Ginkgo]

You don't really sound retarded.

Thank you.

 

[Orangey]

I think I'm just going to go on Youtube and find some homosexuals to watch in order to reprogram my morals (otherwise known as conditioning).

Hmmm...I still think this kind of thinking is at the heart of homophobia. It's just the reversed version. Instead of "othering" homosexuals in order to stigmatize and cast aspersions on them, you (not you personally, but a general you) "other" them in order to hopefully glean something from being around them. It's an essentialization of homosexuals.

I think CC gave some good advice when she said that you need to look at individuals in terms of their whole selves, and not in terms of some artificial marker like "homosexual." The point is that the only reason you even have the vocabulary to identify people as "gay" is because such vocabulary has been imposed on you from the society in which you live. If homosexuality were not such a prominent issue, we might not even notice enough to have the word "gay" in our lexicon. It might not have occurred to us to categorize people in such a way.

So do you see what I'm saying? Recognizing that the vocabulary is not natural should remove the entire categorization scheme. To continue "looking up gays on YouTube" is to perpetuate the vocabulary and continue to naturalize the categorization of humans into "gay" and "straight."

Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter (informed by years of indoctrination into the opinions of the liberal arts branch of the academy), so take it with a grain of salt. It's just my justification for doubting the efficacy of your YouTube method in removing traces of "homophobia" from your Fi.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Addressing the concept of a Fi-dom changing beliefs...

If I question a feeling of mine, I gather more outside info & form various theories with is (Ne what-ifs). I admit this sometimes means I focus on info that supports the belief I already hold, but that doesn't mean I dismiss counter evidence. If I don't find enough info or a satisfying argument to satisfy my doubt, then I probably revise my belief, but it stays within the general construct of my value system (the principles that belief was based on may remain). This is how I don't let popular external beliefs totally blind me.

My entire value system cannot be crumbled by one belief adjustment. This means any revising to the whole system is done very methodically, and I'm not going to reject & reform my entire mindset in one swoop. I think this is mostly a positive thing, because you won't see me adopting views of the masses just because they are the beliefs du jour. On the other hand, if I have damaging beliefs (which for me, would probably be ones related to social anxiety), then the slow moving process is a frustrating one. It's baby steps, and I have to make sure to continually reinforce the thoughts that move me forward and dispel the ones that hold me back. It's easy to slip back into the old frame of mind otherwise.

Anyway, I hope that helps you address your own thought and belief-forming process so you can feel more in control of your values and feelings.

 

[Katsuni]

Was just quoting this song elsewhere, but it fits here as well ^.^

I could really use, to lose my Catholic conscience
'cause I'm getting sick of feeling guilty all the time
I won't abuse it, Yeah I've got the best intentions
For a little bit of anarchy but not the hurting kind

In terms of HOW to replace a moral? Only real ways I know of are to either deconstruct it in such detail that yeu notice all the inconsistancies or flaws with the reasoning, which just makes yeu disgusted with the concept and yeu inherantly won't really care for it anymore, but it requires a very intense understanding of it, and assumes that the moral is flawed to start with. The second method I've noticed is to just overwrite it with a conflicting moral that yeu emphasize more. Yeu may still feel bad of the original moral, but it will gradually be phazed out.

This second method is actually referanced in this thread here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...21921-debunking-those-atheists-smart-way.html

It's not actually a quote about debunking atheists, it actually just is a description of whot the mind goes through when changing from one moral belief to another. The reverse, an atheist giving up their morals in exchange for a religion's, would be the exact same process and look practically identical.

Hope some of this helps somehow =3

 

[Totenkindly]

Hey, guy, do you still want this moved?

(In the future, just "Report the Post" and the modstaff will get a message alerting us to your request.)

.... as far as the OP, I don't think religious beliefs are necessarily Fi, I think in many cases it is more Fe -- rules on how to relate to other people within a particular subculture/community, NOT rules on how to be one's own person... I think Fi is actually contradictory to organized religion and fights against control by external values... so to be honest, Fe is what you're thinking, if anything -- and sometimes it can even be a Te sort of approach. (Lots of religious theology is pushed via Te-style methods and logic.)

 

[Usehername]

Hmmm...I still think this kind of thinking is at the heart of homophobia. It's just the reversed version. Instead of "othering" homosexuals in order to stigmatize and cast aspersions on them, you (not you personally, but a general you) "other" them in order to hopefully glean something from being around them. It's an essentialization of homosexuals.

I think CC gave some good advice when she said that you need to look at individuals in terms of their whole selves, and not in terms of some artificial marker like "homosexual." The point is that the only reason you even have the vocabulary to identify people as "gay" is because such vocabulary has been imposed on you from the society in which you live. If homosexuality were not such a prominent issue, we might not even notice enough to have the word "gay" in our lexicon. It might not have occurred to us to categorize people in such a way.

So do you see what I'm saying? Recognizing that the vocabulary is not natural should remove the entire categorization scheme. To continue "looking up gays on YouTube" is to perpetuate the vocabulary and continue to naturalize the categorization of humans into "gay" and "straight."

Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter (informed by years of indoctrination into the opinions of the liberal arts branch of the academy), so take it with a grain of salt. It's just my justification for doubting the efficacy of your YouTube method in removing traces of "homophobia" from your Fi.

Usehername's shortcut to assigned readings of Foucault and Butler? Find Orangey posts.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

On another note, it has been said that INTPs are excellent at seeing factual inconsistencies. By the same logic, does that mean that INFPs are excellent at seeing moral inconsistencies? If so, what functions are at work?

I, myself, can see hypocrisy a mile away. It shines brightly unto me like a shining star.

Noticing inconsistency is a property of Thinking, not Introverted Judgment. The answer is no on that account.

 

[Totenkindly]

The problem is that I still feel a small gut sensation when I meet a homosexual. This feeling can only be described as an Fi phenomena.

However, my feelings are much better than they once were. There was a point earlier in my life in which I was afraid to be anywhere near them.

I am really adverse to assigning stuff like this to a particular function.

I just consider it a "gut response," not necessarily internal judgment. And it doesn't even much matter what function can be blamed for your reaction to homosexuals, it's merely something you have to acknowledge and then work through if you decide that your distaste is wrong.

I agree with Orangey's analysis about how "Otherizing homosexuals" even for good purposes is still creating a distinction that separates gays from other people. However, I see change as a process, and while the end result is simply to not even notice the gay distinction, the fact is that you are susceptible to it, and it's reasonable to take small steps that might still entail this form of otherization -- aka the "positive reason" form -- until you change enough and the distinction finally fails to matter to you, if it registers at all.

Unfortunately, base-level reactions of repulsion or attraction are really hard to change, without repression or some other inadequate form of psychological smothering; they usually change within a gradual process of reindoctrination of self or further self-education and exposure. Hence you might have to accommodate Otherization as a method until you get past your need for it.

I think another method to deal with it is just to not look at the sexuality of a person but focus on other aspects of their personhood as soon as you find yourself starting to mull over their sexuality. Seeing things in other people you value regularly, regardless of sexual orientation, trains you to not even make the orientation a criteria... although it takes time to get past the gut repulsion you might experience without meaning to.

 

[Ginkgo]

Hmmm...I still think this kind of thinking is at the heart of homophobia. It's just the reversed version. Instead of "othering" homosexuals in order to stigmatize and cast aspersions on them, you (not you personally, but a general you) "other" them in order to hopefully glean something from being around them. It's an essentialization of homosexuals.

I think CC gave some good advice when she said that you need to look at individuals in terms of their whole selves, and not in terms of some artificial marker like "homosexual." The point is that the only reason you even have the vocabulary to identify people as "gay" is because such vocabulary has been imposed on you from the society in which you live. If homosexuality were not such a prominent issue, we might not even notice enough to have the word "gay" in our lexicon. It might not have occurred to us to categorize people in such a way.

So do you see what I'm saying? Recognizing that the vocabulary is not natural should remove the entire categorization scheme. To continue "looking up gays on YouTube" is to perpetuate the vocabulary and continue to naturalize the categorization of humans into "gay" and "straight."

Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter (informed by years of indoctrination into the opinions of the liberal arts branch of the academy), so take it with a grain of salt. It's just my justification for doubting the efficacy of your YouTube method in removing traces of "homophobia" from your Fi.

I understand this. In fact, for most people, I gain as much knowledge of them as I can to assess their character. Furthermore, I wasn't entirely serious when I made that "Youtube" comment.

I made that comment because this thread was getting embarrassing for me, thus I attempted to escape it by finding some sort of action to take. However, I still don't fully know what to do. Boy, I'm awfully honest with myself, aren't I?

You are entirely correct when you say that I, and many others "otherize" them. In fact, this is a social stigma that is reinforced by the media, religion, and other subcultures. Ironically, I don't think that is right. (Probably my Fi)

In addition, I am trying not project my moral responsibilities as a humane being onto an abstract object like "Fi". My intended context was to relate to other Fi users, and learn more about it in the process.

EDIT: This "gut feeling" that I speak of does not inhibit me from speaking to and/or being kind to homosexuals. In fact, my art teacher last year was a lesbian, and she and I developed quite a close relationship. I learned a great deal from her. I just don't want to feel the "gut feeling" anymore because I know it is wrong.

 

[Eric B]

Noticing inconsistency is a property of Thinking, not Introverted Judgment. The answer is no on that account.

The "moral inconsistencies" associated with Fi are usually referred to in terms of "congruence".

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The "moral inconsistencies" associated with Fi are usually referred to in terms of "congruence".

I don't know exaclt what you mean, but from what it appears to be, its not relevant to anything that I said. Deductive reasoning is the most effective way to notice inconsistency in patterns. That is the most closely associated with the Thinking type than any other. The INTP by definition relies heavily on Thinking, the INFP does not. Hence, the INTP is more likely to have the Thinking skill than the INFP. Because of the skill in question, here or she will notice inconsistency in patterns.

This of course is not to say that the INFP cannot be good at Thinking and therefore notice inconsistencies in patterns. Temperament is not personality. A temperament is a mere solidified unconscious disposition. If one is a dominant Thinking type, it is simply quite natural for him to use Thinking (and therefore develop the skills associated with this function). If one is a Feeling type on the other hand, Thinking is the most supressed function, hence it is much less natural for such a person to use that function. Therefore the Feeling type is much less likely to have the Thinking skills that are necessary to notice inconsistency.

Surely, however, with great discipline he may learn to use this function adequately and thereby cultivate the relevant skills to notice inconsistencies in patterns.

 

[Jeffster]

EDIT: This "gut feeling" that I speak of does not inhibit me from speaking to and/or being kind to homosexuals. In fact, my art teacher last year was a lesbian, and she and I developed quite a close relationship. I learned a great deal from her. I just don't want to feel the "gut feeling" anymore because I know it is wrong.

So, why do you now feel that your gut feeling is wrong?

 

[Ginkgo]

So, why do you now feel that your gut feeling is wrong?

Because I think people should be treated equally, regardless of sexual preference.

 

[Jeffster]

Because I think people should be treated equally, regardless of sexual preference.

So your gut feeling was that people should be treated unequally?

 

[Ginkgo]

So your gut feeling was that people should be treated unequally?

Read my first post. It mentioned how I have had conflicting values in the past, and still do.

I think you're putting words in my mouth.