Introverted Feeling: A Quick Reference Guide

[sculpting]

I agree that the Fi description seems to be a bit cold and lacking. There be some judgment built into that description me thinks.

But-I noticed many of the Fi doms describing differences in how they externalize what may or may not be Fi but might be Fe just maybe in this thread.

I have met several enfps who note finding Ni-the real deal-occasionally as it is our fifth function. It feels very obvious and strange when this happens. Do you guys think perhaps at times may be able to tap into bits of Fe, as long as it doesnt violate your core Fi values? I really have no idea or even speculation....

 

[Rail Tracer]

Jeffster's enthusiasm is annoying. I remember him telling purplechknz (sp?), when she was asking for some advice, that he didn't believe in bi-polar disorders or anything like that, and that she was just probably born that way - that whatever she's experiencing is her normal, healthy self. I swear. His enthusiasm has the downside of being completely thoughtless.

I would say what Fi enthusiasm really is is what I'm doing right now. Offering up my opinion and risking unpopularity about a popular member, without giving a damn.

Ok, the way it was posted would probably irritate me a bit (that is for sure.)

Though, I'm talking about his enthusiasm in general I guess.

I agree that the Fi description seems to be a bit cold and lacking. There be some judgment built into that description me thinks.

But-I noticed many of the Fi doms describing differences in how they externalize what may or may not be Fi but might be Fe just maybe in this thread.

I have met several enfps who note finding Ni-the real deal-occasionally as it is our fifth function. It feels very obvious and strange when this happens. Do you guys think perhaps at times may be able to tap into bits of Fe, as long as it doesnt violate your core Fi values? I really have no idea or even speculation....

Could be Fe, or it could be Fi with Se/Ne. Something like keeping a group together could easily look like Fe. But in another understanding, it could just be Fi that wants to be able to keep the group together.

 

[KDude]

That was from an ISFP or INFP. It's from a section entitled: FROM THE INSIDE. That's how those particular people felt - on the inside.



Just because you may not agree with that particular Fi Dom, doesn't mean they don't have the the right to express what is true of themselves. Fi is that subjective. A Dom Fi could be a terrorist bomber. You might not like that either, but it's who they are. That's their own personal belief system, not yours. And just because they differ from you, doesn't mean it's not Fi. Be careful about denying others their rights to express who they are - if you head down that slippery slope then you better be willing to give up your own right to do the same.

You could say I don't idealize avoiding slippery slopes.. I'll just act like I'm out at the waterpark or something. Good times. Redefine the slippery slope as "fun".

Too much innocent bloodshed with a terrorist bomber. I don't care who they are inside. They apparently don't care about others in an even more extreme way, so it's necessary to stop them. Not sure if I want to just eliminate someone like that completely though. Unless necessary. I wouldn't demand their non-existence. I'd let one sit in a cell and be themselves, I guess.

 

[PeaceBaby]

People don't have to accept being personally defined by your words, either.

It's a free country, man, let everyone have their say. Participation is wonderful ... all are welcome here.

 

[Jaguar]

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
O Lord Kumbaya

 

[PeaceBaby]

Of course, in my latest post I was just responding to PeaceBaby's query. I was trying to establish that we Fi-doms use a completely different cognitive process (Decision-making List) from that used by Fe-doms. So we don't need to covet their List.

I don't covet their list, I have core values that make me look like I embody it in how I live my life. Do you see the difference? I've been busy with other stuff atm and I apologize that I haven't had time to reflect & create a response to your previous post; but I do understand that the decision making processes as defined in these lists are not core values. My insight was wrt to what I think of the people behind those statements and imagine what the core values would be of the person who would say them.

I appreciate your post, and will share more on it soon.

 

[Thalassa]

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
O Lord Kumbaya

What would we do without Jaguar?

 

[Thalassa]

I just re-read the OP and for the life of me I still can't figure out what you people are bitching about.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
O Lord Kumbaya

AWWWWW!

 

[Ginkgo]

Is it really the best use of one's time to sit and analyze one's brain until it vaporizes and settles at the base of their skull as primordial goop? It's Fi. It's not an all-or-nothing depiction of one's entire thought process; nor is it an overarching rule for behavior. The behaviors noted in the description were only abbreviated tendencies. Proteanmix has already noted this, so why the clench on absolute perfection?

 

[Rail Tracer]

I just re-read the OP and for the life of me I still can't figure out what you people are bitching about.

The way I see it, the description is too specific in a bad way, its... hmmm. It could probably describe one group of Fi users a lot more while describing another group of Fi users a lot less?

 

[Thalassa]

You know, I actually identify with most of what's posted in the original list, and what ever is missing or doesn't fit isn't sticking out enough for it to be problematic, and I don't see the list as especially negative, honestly.

This reminds me of Every INFPs Favorite Person Who Shall Not Be Named who once told me that people actually are more consciously aware of their auxillary function than their dom function because the dom function is such a part of how one sees and experiences the world. This means that people probably see their dom function with less clarity even though they use it better, or at least more strongly.

 

[Ginkgo]

You know, I actually identify with most of what's posted in the original list, and what ever is missing or doesn't fit isn't sticking out enough for it to be problematic, and I don't see the list as especially negative, honestly.

This reminds me of Every INFPs Favorite Person Who Shall Not Be Named who once told me that people actually are more consciously aware of their auxillary function than their dom function because the dom function is such a part of how one sees and experiences the world. This means that people probably see their dom function with less clarity even though they use it better, or at least more strongly.

Yeah, according to MBTI theory, the auxiliary is our primary outlet for fostering others. This seems strange in light of the extraverted type, since it would be their introverted function that grounds itself with others. In other words, what MBTI calls the dominant function would tend to be egocentric, while the aux would tend to be exocentric. If a function is exocentric, then it makes sense that the subject would be able to observe and control it in relation to others.

 

[KDude]

I don't have much difficulty understanding feelings/values. I hear that about Fi often, but I don't identify. Picasso once said "Great artists steal" - and I'll carry that into other areas (not that I'm great in any way, but hopefully you get the point). If Fi is some realm of primordial ideals, then I'll seek whoever has tapped into some of it. I can always stand on other people's shoulders to find some self- understanding or how to articulate what I feel within too. There are thousands of religions, philosophers, rockstars, poets, characters, myths, storywriters.. whatever. I'm here to learn more from all of it than be original or to reinvent the wheel.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Is it really the best use of one's time to sit and analyze one's brain until it vaporizes and settles at the base of their skull as primordial goop? It's Fi. It's not an all-or-nothing depiction of one's entire thought process; nor is it an overarching rule for behavior. The behaviors noted in the description were only abbreviated tendencies. Proteanmix has already noted this, so why the clench on absolute perfection?

Why the defensive attitude towards any criticism? There are shorter descriptions out there that do a better job; expectations are NOT too high. The criticizers of the criticizers avoid acknowledging the reoccurring point most of the critiques have included; that point being that the description focuses on behaviors & formed conclusions and not the actual cognitive process that leads to those. The is a especially problem when describing an introverted function. There is all this mention of personal values, the inner life, and belief systems, when those are products of Fi. To describe how the values & belief systems are formed & what the inner life actually is would be Fi. Great detail is not needed to comment on that process. I suppose conceding to that point would get in the way of making snarky remarks though.

And this is a typology message board, so you shouldn't be shocked when people actually want to discuss typology, instead of just making cutesy posts (as if that is a good use of time).

 

[Ginkgo]

Why the defensive attitude towards any criticism? There are shorter descriptions out there that do a better job; expectations are NOT too high. The criticizers of the criticizers avoid acknowledging the reoccurring point most of the critiques have included; that point being that the description focuses on behaviors & formed conclusions and not the actual cognitive process that leads to those. The is a especially problem when describing an introverted function. There is all this mention of personal values, the inner life, and belief systems, when those are products of Fi. To describe how the values & belief systems are formed & what the inner life actually is would be Fi. Great detail is not needed to comment on that process. I suppose conceding to that point would get in the way of making snarky remarks though.

And this is a typology message board, so you shouldn't be shocked when people actually want to discuss typology, instead of just making cutesy posts (as if that is a good use of time).

I'm not shocked or surprised. Criticize it all you like, no one's stopping you.

If the subjective processes of Fi are ineffable, and you are attempting to express what it is first-hand, then you are wasting your time (unless you just want to limply peddle around your own values for your own reasons). The best one can hope for is to grasp the essential nature of the process from a categorical approach, which denies the exact symbols of the individual, but demonstrates the fact that symbolic evaluations are being formed. The only way one can clarify this point is by a more objective insight into cognitive patterns, either by the subject or an onlooker. It is no wonder why these descriptions seem to focus on behavior. While they aren't terribly extensive, they deliver.

While the underlying processes are inexpressible, definitions of the function are not.

Most of the whiny responses in this thread are due to an incongruousness between the dissenters' values and the definition. The two things being contrasted are not tantamount to each other.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'm not shocked or surprised. Criticize it all you like, no one's stopping you.

If the subjective processes of Fi are ineffable, and you are attempting to express what it is first-hand, then you are wasting your time (unless you just want to limply peddle around your own values for your own reasons). The best one can hope for is to grasp the essential nature of the process from a categorical approach, which denies the exact symbols of the individual, but demonstrates the fact that symbolic evaluations are being formed. The only way one can clarify this point is by a more objective insight into cognitive patterns, either by the subject or an onlooker. It is no wonder why these descriptions seem to focus on behavior. While they aren't terribly extensive, they deliver.

While the underlying processes are inexpressible, definitions of the function are not.

Most of the whiny responses in this thread are due to an incongruousness between the dissenters' values and the definition. The two things being contrasted are not tantamount to each other.

Eh, it seems here you are limply peddling your own values. Of course the Fi member response will be an evaluative one; you're clearly not above it. My evaluation stands.

Demonstrating symbolic evaluations can help, but is not needed most; simply stating these take place is needed. It's that simple. The "essential nature" is lost when relegating it to behavioral patterns. It makes the process appear non-existent, which is the battle Fi faces to begin with. This is how people confuse Feelings with emotions; they hear about values & beliefs, see behavior, but don't understand what these stem from when the process is so internal. Behavioral patterns only clarify as illustrative examples when paired with a description of the process.

So, no, these kinds of descriptions don't deliver.

There would likely be no (or less) "whiny responses" if an attempt to define exact symbols was NOT made. That would allow for the subjectiveness of Fi to shine through more clearly, as it's a process which results in very different conclusions in individuals. Here, we see specific conclusions, which are fine as general patterns, but fail when shown on their own & not accompanied by some clearer indication of the process.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I think what tater was creatively trying to say is that even if an Fi users values are in opposition to anothers then it is still 'Fi' as the underlying mindset is the same and that the base description can only deal with a generic classification, not specifics. I think I can support that opinion.

 

[Ginkgo]

I think what tater was creatively trying to say is that even if an Fi users values are in opposition to anothers then it is still 'Fi' as the underlying mindset is the same and that the base description can only deal with a generic classification, not specifics. I think I can support that opinion.

 

[rav3n]

I think what tater was creatively trying to say is that even if an Fi users values are in opposition to anothers then it is still 'Fi' as the underlying mindset is the same and that the base description can only deal with a generic classification, not specifics. I think I can support that opinion.

Yes but this concept isn't Fi specific. It's cognitive function specific where values in this example, are part of the database, and cognitive functions are the overarching processes.