Wow this thread is growing fast. Page 3 in less than 24 hours.
I partially know the explanation, like 80-90% of it.
First, I already found that claiming to be inaccurate (Fi = Selfish), but perhaps that is a subject for later.
Second, the source of the sources is Jung. I dont like Jung's writing, because it is not really clear. He is so unclear that most analysis of his text are "Jung interpretations", because things can get very high discussable due to the lack of clarity. "Jung means that", "No, your interpretation of him is not correct, he said this!". Sum that with Jung himself stating Fi as being the most difficult of the 8 cognitive functions to describe. Jung never directly stated Fi to be selfish. However...
[Fi description] (...) It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. (...) Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself.
[Fi type description] (...) This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and [p. 495] petty tyranny. This produces a type of woman most regrettably distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty. But this change in the picture leads also to neurosis.
(...)
But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects. Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel ‘what others think’. Naturally, others are thinking, all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues, etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours, he must make convulsive efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card. Such a development must lead to exhaustion. The form of neurosis is neurasthenic rather than hysterical; in the case of women we often find severe collateral physical states, as for instance anæmia and its sequelæ.
Websites that we read like one that [MENTION=22236]OldFolksBoogie[/MENTION] (please dont offend him, hes been a nice guy so far, in the threads I showed up, he even explained and help me clarifying stuff), tends to have cognitive function descriptions that I do think follows this process:
- First, Jung described the cognitive functions
- Second, some post authors starts to write books extending the cognitive functions. One of the most famous ones are Dario Nardi and Linda [I forgot the surname, Berenrs?]. They were already interpretation.
- Then, the website, based more or less on these kinds of books, put a resume of a description that remembers these sources.
So, at one point, someone interpreted Jung descriptions (these parts, the cognitive function is only one chapter) as "Fi = Being selfish", and you have it: Fi is selfish, so lets put selfishness on the type descriptions.
Pay attention that you will rarely see any dichotomy website doing such claims. Thats because their process are different (I like the cognitive functions but I do think the dichotomy sites gets a better type description). Dichotomies website relys on source that passed through "soft" science.
Now, I already wrote a big Fi description on
my own blog, where I explained some stuff including arguments about why this idea is wrong. However, after I wrote that, it came to my attention that perhaps Jung meant that Fi types which are neurotic are selfish. Id rather continue this last line later, here are my arguments:
Vendrah said:
Jung Fi deserves some important observations, since some Jung descriptions of Fi are against FP and/or Fi data or against descriptions of INFP, ENFP, ESFP and ISFP types. First, Jung association of Fi with tyranny. It happens that, as I am going to mention on connection of Fi with Big 5, Fi is the most positive correlated cognitive function with Big 5 Liberalism (Openness to Experience facet). Although I wont enter in details due to controversy, generally, the more “Fi users†a country has, higher are the freedom indexes related to it. There is also an internal inconsistency of Jung, since in one passage, Jungs says that “Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideasâ€, giving to understand that primordial feeling-values of Fi includes Freedom (which is correct according to stats).
(...)
Fifth, and finally starting refer to post-Jung descriptions, some Jung descriptions pass an impression that Fi is selfish, and a good part of community does interpret Fi types as being selfish and some descriptions describe that Fi is easily observed when people act selfishly. Although in definition all pure introverted cognitive functions are equally selfish, statistics on empathy, which are controversial ones (so I wont share, only mention), shows that Fi, Fe and Ne are related to empathy, rather than only extraverted cognitive functions (that’s based on threads of Typology Central that people share test results related to empathy, based on multiple tests and threads). There is no correlation between being Extroverted or Introverted in cognitive functions I/E (Dario Nardi concepts) and being empathetic. Looking wider, approximating NOT being selfish with Big 5 Agreeableness, Fi got the highest correlation with Agreeableness from all cognitive functions, passing even Fe (although facets have different results), although high neurotic INFPs tends to have low Agreeableness (perhaps the selfish description was aimed to described a neurotic Fi type?). Sakinorva cognitive function test, perhaps inspired on this misconception, have the following statement: “You are fiercely individualistic and pride yourself on your uniquenessâ€, where the type rank of that statement is: 1 – INTP;2 – INTJ; 3 – ENTP; 4 – ENTJ; 5 – ENFP; 6 – INFP; (…);12 – ESFP;(…);16 – ISFP. Although it is good to state that this statement not only refers to being individualistic, but also being unique, so it works more or less for the sake of measuring types and selfishness (also, the lowest types in empathy doesn’t follow that sequence).
It happens that, with that stuff in mind, Jung very likely means that Fi people are selfish if under neurosis, because for INFPs with >80% Neuroticism, in average, has low Agreeableness in Big 5. Perhaps he meant the same with tiranny. So, it seems that people interpreted Jung wrongly (and I put no faults on them, that text needs more clarity), confusing a neurotic trait as a regular and normal trait of Fi.
Thats basically 80-90% you will need to explain the issue, I think.