My Sorting through my own functions and type

[Eric B]

I'm still looking at the definitions of the functions, and which ones I use, and in which roles. I'm pretty sure I'm TiNe, though it is just a matter of continuing to make sure I'm understanding the descriptions of the functions, and working out things that don't seem to fit perfectly. Rather than just start threads asking others about my type (and it's clear here that the tendency is to "degrade" professing TP's with uncertainties down to F's or TJ's), I figured the blogs would be perfect for that.

For much of the year, I have been buying books on the types and functions from 16types.com (Linda Berens' site). The basic four from Berens herself (type, temperament, Interaction Styles, cognitive processes); Hartzler's Functions and Facets of Type, Nardi's 8 Keys To Self-leadership; and now, I finally decided to order Haas and Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality Type. It is very good, though it didn't go into more details of Beebe's archetypes as I had hoped. (Beebe's copncepts are basically only published in his lectures). Yet it made me understand the different functions even more, further confirming my Ti preference.

Some descriptions:

•Gridlike system of categorization. If you magnify the labels at the grid coordinates, you might see that each of the intersections is made of a finer grid, which in turn is made of finer ones. Have to think on that one.

•Focuses on how task get accomplished. (While Te is focused on the goals, of course). This would seem to contradict Berens' new definition of Process vs Outcome for the Interaction Styles. INTP is behind the Scenes, which is Outcome focused, but it is Ti dominant, which is Process focused. I'm looking into how this harmonizes. Probably just a differentiation between interaction and cognitive processing. But I had acknowledged how I was truly Outcome focused when it came to things such as bills, but when it comes to technical stuff, I clearly like processes. Like chronicling the shift of subway cars as new cars come in. (Old cars are often pushed around, and end up on unfamiliar lines). I was wondering if that was Te, (arranging the external environment), especially as I and others then make our own suggestions and forecasts. But it seems it is just focus on an interesting process (which is actually being arranged by someone else).

•Use a cyclical, zeroing in process of thinking where thinking becoming more refined each cycle. I had noticed this a lot of times, over the years, up to these theories, now.

•The one that helped me the most was the illustration "All of my life I have thought I might have some kind of learning disability. Everything in school seemed to come much slower to me than to others. Elementary school rewards kids who raise their hands to answer first. Now I realize that I just needed time to let my internal logic do its thing".

Where my "struggling to understand the framework" of MBTI was once used as evidence of a "Trickster" role; it actually betrays the dominant role of the function. I was familiar with the FIRO model, and MBTI was totally different, and FIRO was the reference point I was trying to use to understand the 16types.
All the writing I do on the subject also seemed to contrast with the "precision" and "clarity" Ti demands. But I was basically learning as I put together and shared my correlation, and I certainly do seek precision and clarity, but while things are unclear and not yet refined, my output may still be long and drawn out. But the goal is to narrow it down to a short simple formula. (which is what I have attempted to do in the "MBTI Primer" box on my page.

One thing I have found that explains that illustration is that if I don't get the precision I want in a definition, the concept or framework does not register in my mind, and thus remains unsure, and I continue to struggle and stumble trying to understand it better through a more precise, and consistent definition, and won't be at rest in it until I "get it down pact". (which again may appear to others as poor Ti use. But Ti is not about instantly understanding all frameworks. Trickster Ti is not wanting to use frameworks yet misunderstanding them; but rather not normally being interested in or trusting them, yet trying to use them under stress).

I first began noticing this in high school and college, when I would fall behind in class and never be able to catch back up; and in the very subjects I had been most interested in and chose as majors.:blushing:
Either if my mind was elsewhere, or even if a class was not taught well*, some key elements of the subject would not register, and I would essentially be lost for the rest of the semester.

*(Like when the teacher would begin jumping into complex math formula aspect of Technical Electronics or computers, but without establishing the concepts well enough. In TE, when doing all of these formulas of circuits (voltage = current × resistance, etc) I would sometimes wonder "what is all of this stuff anyway?" I had already had an algebra class another period, as was more into that stuff then! Then the teacher mentioned that these were electric circuits, and it's like I had forgotten that. I chose that shop because I had liked playing with litle light circuits when I was younger (and thought
I wanted to go into that vocation, before computers came into NYC high schools my senior year), but now I was totally removed from anything I understood about electronics, and had nothing to ground all of the mathematical formulations on. No "framework"!

The reason why I have still been taking time to completely sort out the introverted vs extraverted judging functions is because of the difficulty different writers in clearly/precisely and consistently explaining the concepts. (Admittedly, in cases like Fi, particularly, which they all say is hard to define).

Like I had been getting hung up on what these "categories" and "frameworks" associated with Ti really were. On one hand, it is mentioned as understanding models and frameworks in general, such as the example used by Hartzler: the solar system, or in Nardi and elswhere, "how things work". So then, I say "Yeah; I do that", but then I have to wonder, since a lot of stuff I had thought was Ti had been called Te, whether my thinking was "focused on the object" (properties inherent in the thing being analyzed), and it became unclear again. then, I see the mention of subjective framework, and I wonder how is understanding the properties of things "subjective'. That's about the "object". So it looked like an inconsistent or ambiguous definition, and failed to completely register.

Then, on the F side, Hartzler had said that the Fi "Conscience", because of its grasp of "universal" values, might attempt to to get other people to operate according to them, and thus become a crusader for what is right, and may even impose its values on others. I was then looking into myself to see if I do this, and it seemed like it a lot. But then Haas and Hunziker say that Fi does not impose itself on others, but accepts others (only unless a value is violated, and then it is still more defensive). Assuming everyone else's values are universal, it is no use is disputing over or even trying to understand them. I had already been surprised to hear this when this same thing was earlier said here on MBTIc. Meanwhile, Fe is the one "crusading" for a "cause" is attributed to by H&H. Of course, crusading for a cause is also generally associated with all NF's (which will be either Fi or Fe preferring). But then the SFx's will have the same preference.

The ambiguity seems to lie in the issue of what's really "objective" or "subjective" to begin with. When values or principles are really yours, or were simply adopted from the outside. And if it starts outside, and you internalize it; whether it's still considered external or internally oriented.

I guess if it's only the "universal" values Fi crusades for and tries to impose on others? (Now I'm seeing that it seems when I do it, it is most likely projective Fe, evidenced by it being more focused on the object, then any "subjective emotional grid". For one thing, H&H point out that Fi "values" are non-negotiable, and they don't wont to argue over them. But I do tend to argue, debate, prove, defend, etc. mine.

As for Thinking, as I continued to try to identify the so called "grid" of "categories", I figured it might have something to do with the symmetries and parallelism I always use to try to understand things. If I'm presented with a concept with a bunch of elements to remember, I always find it hard to remember all of that stuff, yet I look for ways to group them in categories; often with parallels and symmetries, to narrow down the categories and make it easier to remember.

 

[Eric B]

An example of my referencing parallelisms and symmetries as my "subjective framework" is on my index page http://www.erictb.info/index in the section "Division between man's soul and spirit: the 12 primary emotions". This stems from a book my wife had bought Conrad A. Baars (Feeling and Healing Your Emotions Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1979) to help us with our emotions. "Soul vs Spirit' was always a cloudy concept, with people not sure which was which, and even some people called "dichotomists" who claim they are synonymous (yet the Bible had said they could be separated, though that may have been a figurative statement). So this writer links several of our emotions to the soul and spirit. 11 "primary" emotions were identified (the rest are determined to be combinations of these emotions). They were in pairs of opposites, like joy and sadness; with 3 pairs for "soul" (which are "utilitarian' and shared with animals), and 3 for "spirit (which are strictly human or "humane". Animals are believed to lack spirit; and hence what sets us apart from them). So I tried to remember them in the categories of soul and spirit, grouped into three pairs for each.

Yet what threw me off was that one of them was missing. Baars had concluded that there was no opposite to anger, the "ultimate emotion". So with only the prime number of 11, the model was off, and it didn't register. Figuring there HAD to be something to complete 12, I then reasoned what really is the opposite of anger? You would think happiness or joy, but that's already in there as the opposite of sadness. Using parallelism, I then deduced that anger and sadness are sort of "cousins", one simply more charged than the other. Hate was also similar, and apart of the 11; the opposite of love. So the opposite of anger would seem to be similarly related to love and joy. "Peace" or "contentment" is what seem to be the closest things. I had even written Baar's organization (he's deceased), and they suggested that peace as deemed more of a spiritual state than an emotion. But this would probably result from the fact of anger appearing to be the "ultimate emotion". It's opposite then, may appear not to be an emotion at all. Since Anger is on the "utilitarian" side, being shared by animals, then so is peace (like when you pet an animal), and goes along with the idea.

So now with my model of 12 and the parallels complete, I'm able to look for ways to group each pair of pairs (across utilitarian and humane) into three categories; so that "humane" and "utilitarian" would thus have parallel counterpart emotions to each other. This would make them easy to remember. The best thing I could extract from them was time categories (similar to the way the perception functions have been divided, see this chart I did recently: http://www.erictb.info/spacetime.gif). Some of them were more reactive to situations; others involved anticipating, and some were sort of inbetween or general: Anticipating (future): desire/aversion (H); hope/despair (U); Present reality: love/hate (H); courage/fear (U); reactive (past): joy/sadness (H); {peace}/anger (U).

And all of this was years before I even got into temperament theory. I wonder if there is some way to tie these emotions (this framework) in with the functions, or something. (I started a topic on this here on "other Psychological Concepts", http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...-between-soul-spirit-11-primary-emotions.html and it was totally slept on).

Then, my MBTI-FIRO/APS comparison is the best example of all. MBTI seemed interesting, (with all the symmetries) yet with all those intertwining letters and functions, it was really hard to begin to grasp. I had no model to map it to, nothing registered, so of course, I had to use the model I was familiar with. Already, you had an apparent start with the one factor they appeared to share in common: E/I (expressiveness). Then, both T/F and J/P seemed to match the other E/R factor of Responsiveness, but I wasn't sure how. S/N seemed to be totally foreign, however, along with Keirsey's "pragmatic/cooperative". So I figured they just HAD to have the rest of those parallels between the two in there somewhere, to build the correspondences. (Wondering how could you could even have a "four temperament" system, with each temperament being equally divided between E and I types, rather than two as introverted and two as extraverted). The Interaction Styles (which I first was exposed to in a Yahoo group) were the begining of my making the connection. Finally, with a working reference system between the two models, (though not perfect, however with some positive evidence from people's test results), I could now more easily grasp and begin to focus on learning the functions.

Now, I'm still trying wondering about some aspects of Fi. What is this "emotional filter" I hear about. H&H also say that when a value is violated, the Fi person cuts the violator off, sometimes unexpectedly, or without realizing it. I know one friend who seems to be ENFP, who takes issue with men hitting on women, for instance. How does anyone who knows her "violate" that (other than being a man and hitting on her, I guess). It seems rather general. The examples used in the book is a person not liking his sister, but loving her because "loving one's family" is his value, and two pallbearers dressing informally at a funeral because the deceased person had always wanted them to be themselves; so they weren't going to dress "appropriately" to please others. I don't quite get the "emotional filter" in that. In fact, one could argue that the value they were following was "external" (focused on the "object"), since it was the wish of the other (deceased) person. This remains the last thing that needs to be clarified.

 

[Eric B]

Here are some more of my weighings of the preferences, as I have come to understand them:

Possible Fi or NF-like traits:

Seem to empathize by projecting my own feelings on someone suffering something (and even if they don't feel that way; and would even be annoyed that such people would "take it" passively).

Hard to feel any other way at those times

=negative Fi reaction from powerlessness felt when I suffered similar things; especially being "different" and misunderstood when younger.

Champion of things I like

=NTP's can be this way, but interests are more "technical" than "personal" as they would be for a true NFP type

Feel strongly and want to crusade for certain things; annoyed that no one else is (best example, reacting to conservative ideology. I don't even believe in making ogvernment bigger and it controlling the rich, but do not like conservatives' rhetoris, like the rich deserve everythign they have, and the poor simply didn't work hard enough).

=increased sensitivity from strong Fi, but many things I crusade for are either not really as personally important, or are being overreacted to. This from the shadowy nature of Fi plus [possible Aspergers'.
(With AS, "personal" attachment is often made with things, routines, etc. So Ti "technical" interests + Fi-like personal attachment to them = apparent Ti/Fi ambiguity. Also, while Hartzler and others attribute "championing of causes" to Fi; according eo Haas and Hunziker, that would actually be more associated with Fe. Fi types generally assume that everyone else's values are non-negotiable like theirs, and thus feel that arguing or imposing are a waste of time, and only react when their own values are violated. Fi/Te users in politics generally have their agendas they want to implement. I realize the limitations of all of the existing or proposed policies, and don;t really have anything I think is better, but rather just challenging what I see as inaccurate, and trying to create awareness of this).

Conscience; think actions are "bad" (cursing; etc)

=Fe influence. Originally reasoned "they're just words; what's the big deal", but upon becoming Christian, the spiritual basis for their inappropriateness sunk in.
Conscience is driven more by fear of punishment (external disharmony) than internal disharmony.

In some situations; I like to be diplomatic; don't like to see senseless discord among people

=projective Fe (external harmony), plus "people-orientation" of Interaction Syle (Also, if there is already a battle going on, in some situations I actually do like "watching", and am certainly argumentative myself at times).

Desire to be "somebody" (well known; acknowledged; jealous of the famous)

=Substitute for lack of power; again. Was always made to feel incompetent, and "becoming somebody someday" was a way of "showing them", and eventually becomes more ingrained.

Sometimes think of the value of people (and animals) as living things; celebrities no better than people I know

=Connected with above observation. Then, looking at people around me, and realizing through Ti, Ne and Fe, that they are fundamentally no different from those "personalities" we see on TV. "People are People". It then seems to become ridiculous that certain people are exalted in society and given so much attention and fortune like they're better than everyone else.
Also, according to natural biology, we are fundamentally the same as animals. (the religious debate on this is about the role of our intellect, or "spirit",, and those who fight agains tthe notion of man as an "animal" are either barking up the wrong tree, or are confusing the definition of "animal"). So cats and dogs I see as almost like "little people". Just see how many people have 'kitties' as avatars here. Including INTP's!

Desire idealized life

=focused on external (not internal) harmony, and based largely on "child" Si nostalgia towards a more calm, peaceful living environment earlier in life, plus natural "survival" instinct. Even though I felt powerless, the basic surroundings were nice, and this made me want to recreate that atmosphere, and basically redo the situations without the powerlessness. (According to Berens, the "aspirational" Si of ENxP's is described like this: "they often desire some future life that is set, with conventional trappings, yet are drawn to novelty". But for the "relief" position, it will be similar).


Desire to analyze is accessed consciously, but negative feeling when a personal value is violated just "pops up" and "imposes itself" on its own, unconsciously, which is characteristic of shadow functions.
Fi is sometimes described as acting unconsciously or only being noticeable when a value is violated, even in the good roles of those who prefer it. But then if Fi is high like that, then Ti ends up going down into the unconscious depths, and it is NOT that way for me.

Even though I may feel strongly about my ideas and interests, they are still "thing" oriented technicalities, rather than "feeling" values which are generally more personal. My parents or others would often ask why I'm so into things which are not *personally* IMPORTANT (which is what Fi is ultimately about).
While all NP types are "imaginative" (from the Ne, with the introverted types being more "In their own heads"), still, the things a person, especially a child, spends his time imagining, will either be more thing oriented or more people oriented. From earliest childhood; I was clearly imagining/fantasizing about things. People would come into play in relation to the things. I was often criticized for being too much into things moreso than people.
An NFP'S fantasies are described as being more about people, emotional experiences and idealized relationships. I had some of those, but it was more about things, including the universe and theories.

I always derived self-worth externally (what others thought; even if I didn't comply, which was due to Fe being subordinated to Ti-what 'makes sense'; not Fi-what 'feels right', or is 'important' or ethical). If I was upset from not being accepted or respected, then my parents would tell me to derive worth internally. I did not even see how that was possible; and would be greatly annoyed by the suggestion. (Just look in a mirror and love yourself; certain psychologists' "hug the inner child", etc.) Without mastery over the situation; any self-worth was seen as imaginary.

May seem to "parent with Fi" at times, but (as "Feeling" also deals with "harmony"), my focus is on external rather than internal harmony. Whether telling a person they shouldn't get so upset at me, or thinking that the rich CEO's and entertainers should evaluate whether they need all the material they horde; in either case, these behaviors create external disharmony. The CEO's utter greed while the economy crashes; and then, as Christian teaching often points out; all the money doesn't even make them happy. I did not start out thinking about that, but I learned it from others who often questioned why people need all of that stuff, and have to make it hard for everyone else. So my standards for these value judgements are really external.

 

[Eric B]

Early on in my membership here, I was still wearing ENFP. But as I learned more about the processes, I gradually started going back with NTP. During this time, I got into this thread, http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/what-s-my-type/5701-enfp-infp-8.html debating Gabe, Xander, arcticangel and Dom over my type. Simultaneously locked in a battle on another site with a supposed "expert" who first suggested ENFP, I found the same tendency over here to make anybody with any T/F ambiguities an F. So when Dom asked me to give an example of a big life descision I had recently made, I had thought of my recent move. I was still learning the functions, and getting several books on them. So I was afraid everything I said would be taken as Fi or Te, and sort of fudged the answe. (said I was indifferent). But measuring it up with Berens descriptions of the functions (like the examples of buying a dog), I see that I was more Ti-like, while my wife was the one who was F or "personal" about it. (and particularly, Fe. She thought how nice it would be to host others in, unlike the rat traps we had been in before). But I focused strictly on technical things about the house, and location

Criteria (categories) for choosing a place to live:

Construct (no wood; as fireproof as possible)
Rent
Size needed
Location (trains)
Surroundings (not run downs, people, etc)
Looks
Specific "dream" model.

It's this last point that was looming in my mind, and made me afraid of looking like an F. But this actually would be more the "relief Si" I described on the last post above. It was on the bottom of the list, as there was nothing like that anywhere in the neighborhood. I did want to move to a neighborhood that looked nicer like the one I grew up in, but considered my wife over my own emotional attachment. (Fe over Fi). Moving where I wanted to would take her away from her friends, and church. (Plus, it might be more expensive, a technical reason).

Another, hypothetical "decisions" I thought of.

Car:
Teenager: dream car was electric (gas is dangerous as well as pollutant) and stainless steel (looked nice, like bare material, no paint to chip or wear out, etc. Did not care for DeLaurean because of the awkward doors).
Also like minivans, because they are easy to move around in. I prefer particularly the Caravan/Venture/Windstar style, with sliding doors, and these were the first minivans to feature an openable rear passenger door. Also the big open rear area. Before these, I had liked small four door hatchbacks for similar reasons).
However, once I have decided that these are the most convenient, then I notice the design, and I think the sleek rounded body is cool. (I hate the SUV's, which look like misshapen station wagons: blown up taller but crunched shorter. And as modified Jeeps, they probaly flip over more easily).

So I start out with technical details, but then also have this sense of desirability, that often stems from technical detail and convenience. Like I like metal furniture because it's both ligher, stronger and non-flammable compared to wood. So then I come to like the "style" of it as well, and like looking at it in stores. (Have to argue with an SFJ wife who wants the traditionally "nicer" looking wood instead).
Also liking symmetries, like in buildings, and design details in old buildings and chords and production techniques in music.

So this has made it hard to completely sort out Ti vs Fi, since choosing based on technical details is supposed to be Ti, but desiring is supposed to be Fi. (In Berens' analogy of buying a dog, the person drawing up the checklist of criteria, basically trying to fit the dog into the apartment, is Te, finding out information about each dog, to see if it fits the checklist is Ti, thinking about which kind of dog the sister wanted was Fe, and finally getting one because it was cute and about to be sent to the pound was Fi.

I was also recently in a discussion with someone about the reason one would choose one store over another. Such as "the feel" of a store, or avoiding one that does not treat its workers right. I remembered choosing one because it had an ambience to it. It wa also interesting as it was apart of an enclosed mall (which was unusual for a grocery supermarket) that was converted from an industrial building. It had high ceilings, which produced a nice "atmosphere" soundwise, and it was wide enough to have a center isle running down the middle. (I grew up thinking of supermarkets as minature 'cities', with "blocks" and all, but there were only two "avenues": the front isle and the back isle where the meat and freezers were. This one had a third "avenue" in the center making it seem more like an urban street grid). So again, I like things that strike me as "nice" or "cool" like that, which makes me wonder where it really fits with the processes. But again, it's usually tied to some "technical" things .

As for businesses with unethical practices, I don't usually bother trying to boycott. (My mother, for instance, has suggested not shopping Walmart). To me; it's too engrained into "the system" for that to make a difference, and I was always more concerned with getting to what I see as the ideological root of the problem and challenging political rhetoric made in defense of the system (e.g. unbridled capitalism; with any regulation seen as "socialistic" or whatever), and trying to make people wise to it.

 

[Guest]

I'm at work, so I've only skimmed your post - did you mention the source for your Linda Beren's dog example (i.e., book title)?

Sorry bout that! Thought I should include it, but was too lazy to first get the exact title, and then have to type it, and figured everyone probably knew:
Dynamics of Personality Type: Understanding and Applying Jung's cognitive Processes (in fact, also forget which is which between this and Understanding Yourself and Others: Introduction to Personality Type code. This one focuses on the types, while the other is more on the functions).

Very cool - thanks. (Sorry to mess up your blog)

 

[Eric B]

Even though I might seem to have a lot of F, and that Ne might be the actual lead (like the enthusiasm and "sharing" stuff like this being extraversion), some of the function roles are pretty definite.
We can start then with the easiest to understand: Sensing.

Si is definitely "relief" (tertiary), and not "inferior". Developed WAY too early, and recharges rather that taking a lot of energy. (It would just be starting to develop now if it were inferior, and even once developed, the inferior is still said to require a lot of energy). Si is quite literally my "eternal child".
Se is Trickster (7th place), and not destructive (last place). I believe this explains why I like making things with a lot of color, such as the bar graph in my signature. (comedic/clownish) Would also tend to play jokes on people with sensory or "here and now" type things.

Next easiest to understand is Ne. It may seem like the lead, but it is really what I support with. Like I usually help others with questions by throwing out possibilities. I do not usually tap into universal or personal values to help others. I've been criticized as being too impersonal at times (including by the very person who insisted I 'parented' others with Fi!)

Ni is harder to understand, but it is definitely the "critical parent" (6th function), not merely "oppositional" (5th place). I'm realizing this more and more, as I understand it better, and see that it covers all these negative symbolisms or "universal"-oriented fears I come up with for things in my day to day thinking. I do not demoralize myself or others with Fe. Of course, like any other INTP, too much of it from another person will not land on us well. But deep inside I do aspire to its ideals, and have been trying to be more in tune with social values.

I would think this alone rules out ENxP. It could suggest INFP, but then Ti is definitely not destructive! Fi would easily fit that better, though it does appear so visible to some others, and apparently gives me my aesthetic enjoyment and desires of things. This might actually be more compatible with the "transformative" role of the last place function.
elfinchilde's "dissection' was very accurate for my experience:
http://mbti.spampudding.com/showpost.php?p=11986&postcount=126

Te also seems more the "oppositional" for me, (what I use to become stubborn and argumentative and "fight back"). Gabe had posted on this forum, from Beebe: "This is usually the first process to jump to defend us, if we are articulating our mission in response to an insult, it is this process that we use. When people hear remarks from someone who's dominant process is their fifth process, they often 'blow it of before it even registers'. When someone is using this process a lot, we get frustrated and think 'this is so dumb/pointless'".

All of this is true.
Basically, what seems to happen a lot is that type suggesters seeing me or someone else use supposedly a lot of Te, but realizing we are not "directive" enough to be a TJ type, then figure ENFP as the "next best thing", with Te in third place. (the "inflated" child archetype). But it also serves to back up the INTP's dominant Ti, and Ti+Ne may also appear as Te, because Ne basically "arranges the outer world" as well, regarding seeing all the possibilities.

On this post at INTPc, http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=942696&highlight=Titanic#post942696 I had outlined my eight processes (as a child, reacting to the tradition of "Girls First") in their archetypes according to Beebe, based on what I had newly come to realize as to how the dynamics play out. Here is another, similar analogy:

Can't see the city for the building

Lead with Ti and Ne:
Notice the symmetries and patterns in old masonry and other structural elements (fire escapes vs wooden "porches" on old multiple dwelling buildings, etc), and how they differ in other different regions or cities.

Find relief with introverted Sensing:
Nostalgic about the old buildings in the neighborhood I grew up in, including the one I grew up in. Then others I visited (grandmothers, etc)

Aspire to extraverted Feeling:
Share desire to preserve old structures and neighborhoods with others

Oppose with extraverted Thinking:
Rearrange developers' plans and urban planning in general. Question why cities were allowed to deteriorate decades ago, and yet they are moving in with all these developments now (so that buldings that survived the earlier blight are being removed or grossly altered for new structures)

Immobilize with introverted iNtuiting:
See the patterns of redevelopment as leading to an amorphous "Jetsons"-like world with the same bland boxes or grotesquely shaped structures (asymmetrical, with odd shaped windows and balconies sticking out everywhere) becoming ubiquitous in every city.
Modern developers clearing out smaller old buildings (and entire neighborhoods) for shiny glass towers, large fancy co-ops, new arenas, and even remapping the area, seems to symbolize the exertion of power, with the big and powerful stamping out the small, weak and often neglected old. It turns the entire world into a giant neighborhood (a new neighborhood build here in NYC will look just like one in Europe), and the world is already such a "neighborhood" to the powerful corporate and government officials who jet across it regularly in business and pleasure, as expensive as that lifestyle is.

May trick/be tricked with extraverted Sensing:
Overestimate the elimination of the old framework (as if they were tearing down every old building that exists).
In tandem with the critical Ni; perceive conspiracies on the part of the powers that be

Destructive with introverted Feeling:
Make it so important to me when it's really not

 

[Eric B]

OK; above I ask what is the "subjective filter" of Fi. Now, I've figured it out, and it was expressed nicely by Black Cat here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...uper-typology-overview-doom-6.html#post622618

Fi is about value typically. This value is usually self centered, and it's about making the user feel good. These values can branch to other people, for example making it so if X person feels good then the Fi user will feel good as well as a result. Fi users are also granted the ability to know how someone is feeling (one way or another). With this ability the person may be able to see through other's intentions, or anything that you could have based on knowing the other's emotional state.

My theory about how all of this works is that Fi is a database of emotion within the person. You can take from this, add to it, look at it as a reference etc. This may be where "values" come to be, within this database. The person's emotional experiences and the emotions they have felt go in this database, and they are stored as a memory sort of. While in there the person will remember how they felt when a certain thing happened, and they may want to influence their emotional state by experiencing this again. Or on the other hand, something may make them feel bad, and they may want to avoid these feelings of negativity. This is where "something just doesn't feel right" comes in. This also may be where things may feel a certain to someone, and they make this judgment immediately when they come in contact with something. As Udog said later in the thread this could be called "resonance" with something. If this resonance is a bad one then the person will try to make it good in some way, and if it's good then it will be kept good.

I have to admit, that I have always had this emotional grid. But then, I still have also always had the love for analysis of models and frameworks. So it looks like I had both.
The issue becomes one of determining which is "preferred", and which is an "active shadow". To repeat, the tendency has been to make anyone with T/F ambiguity automatically an F. But the test can be found right here from the site of perhaps (in practice, from what I have seen) one of the sources of that tendency:

http://www.infj.com/BeebeOnINFJs.htm

Here's a new wrinkle: the first four functions are what Dr. John Beebe calls "ego-syntonic." That means when we access these functions, we are in "synch" with them. They feel comfortable, they come naturally to us, and we feel "normal" when we use them. When we access them, our "ego" says, "Yep, that's me."

What about those last four functions?

Dr. Beebe calls those functions "ego-dystonic." That means those functions do not come as easily or naturally to us, and we do not feel "normal" when we use them -- in fact, we feel like we're alien, not ourselves. When we access them, our ego says, "Who was that? That doesn't feel right. That's not like me!"

As a result, we naturally tend to be more deft and graceful at using our first four functions than our last four functions.

To take this understanding a step further, we may automatically dislike or reject persons who prefer to use our "ego-dystonic" functions. This results in the ever-popular "personality conflict," without anyone ever doing something provocative.

Clearly, the first bolded section is my experience with introverted Thinking, and the last bolded section is my typical experience with introverted Feeling --despite however much I may actually use it, or others see it, or it influences my writing; or others think my Thinking is not fast, concise or clear enough, etc. I have also never had any negative reaction that I know of to Ti use or a Ti user, but am rather very drawn to them. And I do not have that Fi good judge of motives strength either. I often get fooled by people's behavior!

The process overall "tears me down and builds me back up", (and this constantly); which we would expect for a "transformative" role.
I may feel strongly about something, and champion an issue I feel is important, but I had noticed that there was always a sense that something was not quite right; that I shouldn't have such strong emotions, I wish they would go away, it was "gooey", it made me weak and ineffective, and I had to check that the emotion was not skewing my responses (especially on issues as emotionally charged as these:
http://www.erictb.info/predestination.html
http://www.erictb.info/ccm.html

In those projects, I would react with emotion and begin responding to the teaching or provocation that set me off, but objective analysis would always get the upper hand, I would repeatedly edit, toning it down, and at the same time, gaining great insights into the issue, and better ways of saying things, becoming more focused on "true vs false" rather than "desirable vs undesirable". It was real hard with that "Predestination" topic, because the Predestinarians know their doctrine is offensive, and many make a point to rub it in your face, trashing both thinking and feeling in favor of "scripture" (the "objective" authority). But all I had to do was sit down and put emotion aside and look at their main proof-text, the 9th chapter of Romans, and see it was being taken completely out of context ("false" judgment {T} based on underlying principles {i-the context and framework of Paul's message, and who was being "elected" and "hardened to destruction"; it was particular people; not everyone!} rather than just "undesirable"), and this was the final judgment on it.

This might sound like "immature" (my term for inferior or tertiary) Ti, but then I know I'm not an FJ type. It doesn't seem like a "good" use of a normally "regrettable" (deceiving/destructive) seventh or eighth place Ti, which is either "comedic", or "transformative" in a negative situation.
Some of here on the Central boards have acknowledged the possibility of strong opposing processes, and I had once pointed out (I think that was on INTPc) a "dissonance", and this is certainly my experience.

I like this brand new [at press time] thread http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...lity-matrices/16815-76-personality-types.html where someone basically picks up where I and a few others had left off before, with adding the idea of a moderate scale in the four dichotomies, and they worked out the complete order of the eight processes of all but five of the resulting 81 types.
(XSXX, XNXX, XXTX, XXFX, and XXXX were deemed as being too out of whack, so there were only 76 types. When I first tossed out the idea on a Yahoo group two years ago, I basically made an enemy of a type leader who thought it was "playing with letters", and making me ENFP seemed to be a way to strip me of my Thinking by making it "trickster". However, while I was accused of Te use for that, the fact that I kept putting off arranging all those processes like this and never got to it, shows that I do not have that process in an inflated "relief" role [i.e. tertiary] after all! Just the thought of doing all that was tiring. So thanks to jackandthebeast!)
Anyway, XNXP (I have recreated the tables here: http:www.erictb.info/temperament3.html#fullprocesses), does fit, both me and several others who seem to be close on the Ti/Fi scale, particularly as reflected by the Cognitive Process test.

Ne and both introverted judgments vie for the first spot, while Si falls in place in the background (now, 2nd place). Te and Fe run neck and neck in the middle (7.666th place; have to figure tha one out), while Se brings up the rear (8th place with me, Ni is actually the weakest, though here, it is with Te and Fe). When I first signed onto this board, I was trying on ENFP, but still not sure enough of it to display it on my profile. So I was using XNXP. But as I got several books from Berens, Nardi and Hartzler, I got enough of a sense of the full Beebe model to realize the archetypes to see which really fit into which roles, and it really did match Ti-Ne-Si, with a strong daemon Fi; and the Cognitive Process test also helped; hence I was able to soon drop the X's.

I often wonder what it would be like from the other angle: If I was actually an NFP with a strong comedic or transformative Ti. I imagine Fi would be what I would more readily embrace, and Ti would be "iffy", and feel funny (perhaps "cold" and "distant" or whatever), yet help out in the end. I would think that in my case, the Fi seems to jump out ahead because that's simply its nature. The emotion is what drives one to act or react, while logical analysis is more stationary and impassive. Still, the true determinant as to preference is what has the final say. I'm always striving to make things more logical, not more emotional or ethical.

 

[Eric B]

Occam's Razor and type sortment

All of this seems to explain all the variables in the simplest way I have found, though it may seem complicated. So once when I was explaining it; I ended up getting a lecture on Occam's Razor, (with all of this from my experience dismissed as a "concoction". Occam's Razor is a logical principle (and hence, the domain of Ti) that is often used in historical debates, especially involving religion; such as evolution vs. Intelligent Design and Catholic tradition vs. evangelical "Sola Scriptura". You even see it mentioned here in the "Religion and Spirituality" forums. In both cases, we are removed from a hypothetical "point 0" (the origin of the system in dispute), and basically have to reconstruct the events of history the best we can with the data we have.
So the Razor argues for the simplest interpretation of the data. Often, the religious traditionalists will try to insert some more complicated explanation, and when they run out of evidence, tell people to have "faith" in it. (Using God to fill "gaps", or that the doctrinal development we see in the early church is really a fully developed "oral tradition"). Problem is, they are trying to pass their belief off as science and/or history! (Which "faith" is beyond the scope of).
The same person had accused me of "parenting others" with Fi, because of mentioning my Christian debates a few times. But that was from the context of an evangelical environment where we were on a "Mission" to both defend "the truth" (read: our positions) and convert others to them, and yes, it was heavily Te/Fi; but what wasn't realized is I had long struggled with it and since reshaped my beliefs for those very reasons. Precisely the "parenting" aspect of Evangelicalism (approaching people under the premise of "you're lost and need to adopt our beliefs to be saved") was always the hardest aspect of it for me; especially when much of the world has made it clear that they don't want it, and many (especially in the science community, as well as my own family) can provide unanswerable logical arguments (based on the way the universe works-Ti) against it.

So in thinking on all of this, I realized that I did hold deeply the principle of Occam's Razor. And I have not violated it in with regard to my type.
In my case, "point 0" is my own internal experience of the functions. It is not lost in time, as the origins of the universe or the Church are. It's just a matter of recognizing and interpreting them and fitting them into the archetypes. Yet some fit together "all of the variables" they see, only. But that's not all there is to it.

 

[Eric B]

After discussing the issue of emotions and especially Fi with INTPs in a few places, I have become convinced that Lenore Thomson's model is what will best explain the apparent out-of-place functions many of us experience.

She effectively swaps the tertiary and inferior for the 7th and 8th place functions. I had read about this before, and (along with socinonics' similar rearrangement) quickly put it to the side, as it seemed to completely contradict John Beebe's model, and it was hard enough trying to square that away without entertaining these new sets of archetype orders. But more recently, I have come to see it as a helpful alternative; and that's the key word: "alternative".

The INTP's right brain alternatives are Fi and Se. So they will come up when the preferred functions cannot solve a problem. I can remember a lot of things in life seeming illogical, and becoming frustrating. That would be when I would turn more to feeling. Like in politics, I recognize the 'universal' principle (Ti) of "survival of the fittest", yet it does not readily help me when I struggle in the system. I then, in frustration begin making value judgments and "congruence" or "importance" evaluations (as can porbably be picked up when I discuss stuff like economic issues, though I haven't been jumping into debates on that lately). All of this made it difficult to sort T vs F. My intuition never seemed to be as hindered (and it is a perception process, and I always had a colorful world with unlimited things to draw possibilities out of), so Se never needed to develop as much.

Does seem to make sense, and even explain a lot.
Many of us had been following strictly the Beebe model, and it is generally assumed that Fi, as the last place or "demonic" function, is hardly ever used. Nowhere does it come out and say that, but from what I have seen, in Beebe-influenced circles (including here at TYPOc at times), if a person is identified as using a certain amount of Fi, they're assumed to really prefer it.
And again, there is not enough of Beebe's own teaching readily available to see what is allowed in the theory. But Thomson's theory would explain how "last place" Fi could be used a lot by an INTP. And many INTP's, especially those who have taken the cognitive process test also attest to strong Fi. (I believe the common image of the INTP as always calm and emotionless is more a mask many wear, to fit a stereotype. But they will admit to having and even displaying a lot of emotion at times).

It also helps explain why processes may not line up with Beebe's model. The 7th and 8th processes, while appearing to be something we would least use, do come up to fill in for the first and second.

Here is a possible reason why:
The tertiary and inferior often do seem to be the weakest in practice, for a lot of people. I guess those, in the traditional theory are supposed to be the ones that "fill in" for the dominant and auxiliary. But one thing to consider; if your dominant fails, for instance, then the tertiary will be the same attitude, yet it will be the opposite kind of process (judging or perceiving). If your inferior kicks in instead, it will be the same kind of process, yet it wil be the opposite attitude. Both will be the opposite brain hemisphere. The 8th process, however, will be the same kind of process (though opposite dichotomy) with the same attitude, and same brain hemisphere. So it makes sense as the most effective process to fill in and keep the "balance".

Thomson's model turns the function model into a circle rather than a line, and this really clarifies it. So I just came up with this illustration of it. Now, the so-called 7th and 8th processes (according to Beebe) really do not look remote to us after all!

I also believe the mapping of the functions to the brain hemispheres is very interesting, and it could prove to give us the hard empirical proof we need to gain respect as a science, if it can ever be proven scientifically.

 

[Eric B]

Here are a couple of interesting quotes, on why INTP's may seem to use what is often labeled "Te" (non-concise longwinded reasoning), which are often at the center of TP/TJ/FP typing debates (recall the "analyses" made of BlueWing/Solitary Walker and a few others in the "Mistyped Members" thread!):

My understanding of INTPs is that they think more like a huge web of interconnected ideas, are always spinning off side-bar comments that threaten to outgrow the main text, and are basically trying to say "everything they know." They want others to know the "full context" of what they're arguing for, so there "can't be any chance of being misunderstood." Consequently, they overload their listeners/readers. That has been my experience and cross to bear, anyway!
Theory matters to INTPs. When they feel they have not made their argument clear enough, they will try harder -- and usually at greater length.
(~e-mail)

...a peculiar behavior of ITPs when they're trying to get their in-depth ideas heard in a public space. They force them into Te language, turn the conversation into a "debate", and generally find that their ideas were lost in translation and the whole experience is a drag for everyone. Ti leads you to psychological attunement with real causal and mathematical relations, but not to a strong bargaining position.
(~Ben Kovitz, author of Lenore Thomson wiki; on Yahoo list)

 

[Eric B]

I actually entered an e-mail conversation with Lenore Thomson, and discovered that her model is actually more different from type theory as we know it than I thought. She is trying to be more true to Jung, whom we have deviated from a bit. To her, the Beebe atrchetypes are complexes, so the right/left brain alternatives I discuss above, which are associated with the Trickster and Demon archetypes, do not appear as much as I assumed. They are associated with cases of ego-disintegration. However, as complexes, they are different from the actual functions, which do not have to be associated with the archetype role. So I do not have to "use Fi" when I have emotion or like something, and neither do I have to worry that it is playing the right role, or my type might be wrong! I still believe the complexes do appear more than she suggests. (And there are a lot of other issues she differs greatly on). But what I have learned is that the problems many of us face with type ambiguities stems from taking Beebe's model too far. (I call it "hyperBeebeanism")
Here, I discuss it further:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446
Using Jung's original definitions http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm, the way to figure my type is:

My comfort zone has always been in the inner world. Regardless of how enthuiastic I may get, or how long my posts, how much I post, etc (all of which taken as "external focus" by some). And my focus is obviously logic. Even if it appears to be used in an "extraverted" manner at times, by definition, putting these two factors together, it still matches Jung's "thinking introvert". [And of course, iNtuition is auxiliary, and compensates by taking the opposite attitude from the dominant ego orientation].

The other method acknowledges that a lot of logic is being used, but declares it "extraverted" because of the working with existing concepts and the extensive rationale used to prove it all to people (where Ti analysis is presumed to always be kept internal, to be concise, and come up with new concepts), and "childish" because of the enthusiasm. So then, you have to prove a less apparent Fi is really the preferred judging function, in the "parent" position. This is done by searching for any form of emotion or valuing, including even expressing likes or dislikes. Even valuing of and enthusiasm over logical things and theories is said to be Fi, even though it is traditionally characteristic of NTP's! (Ironically, Beebe himself said in his "An Archetype Model of the Self in Dialogue" that all functions make valuation, and that F is simply the one that places the highest premium on assigning value!)
Fe is forced into the Critical Parent, with any negative use of it as proof. But then, inferior can also be negative; the Anima archetype even described by Jung in a similar fashion as the witch/senex:

So all of this creates ambiguity. Then, the struggle to figure all this out is used as proof Ti is "trickster". Also, the perception functions must be forced into the spines, which involves the difference between Ne as hero or parent, Si as puer or anima, Ni as opposing or critical, and Se as trickster or demon. These also are very ambiguous, as those pairs of roles are very similar.

So this is what I had been sorting through. Ironically, this latter method is what was I was told conformed to Occam's Razor! But which of the two is more simple?

 

[Eric B]

The Tertiary Tempatation and I

When Lenore told me that the Puer was a defense mode ("represents the way we normally mount our everyday ego defenses...or naively defending the [ego-boundaries] against perceived threats"), I couldn't believe it, because I was led to associate the puer with "finding relief" and "childlike innocense". She seemed to make it sound more negative, like the Opposing Personality, which I had thought was the primary defense mode (she says it "mounts defenses, but of a different order: aggressive Shadow energies to fight for what the Hero believes is right and good").
Yet looking at the very reason why I am so nostalgic about the past, it suddenly makes sense.

When I was really young, the outer environment was really nice, and as an only child, I had a whole circle of adults I received attention from.
But then it changed: the neighborhood changed, the people changed, there were now more kids, the adults changed and became more critical as they expected me to grow up, and I was for the most part, 'spoiled'.
So I then became very nostalgic about the way things were, and would begin finding relief through old music, TV or places that brought back the memories. I would wish things remained the way they were, so life could "pick up" where it left off, or I could redo certain things "right". That to me, was "settlement", but because life could not go backward like that, the complex became very "unsettling" (Beebe: "the enemy of a settled life")

If Ne were really heroic, then I would have welcomed the changes, and adapted easily like a true extravert. But being so focused on the inner world, and the model of the outer world that had been constructed; I could not easily adapt. So as Lenore says, the tertiary (Sensing) in the dominant attitude, allowed me to keep my "introverted" outlook on the world, in opposition to the "parental" auxiliary (Ne) telling me things must change and other options must be explored, and also the equally extraverted inferior "pressuring" in the social direction.
Now that I think of it, there always was a back and forth battle between accepting and resisting change.

INxP's with weak Si probably never had that sort of experience to trigger the Puer complex so much.

So this means that the so-called "inflation" does not occur at just any old time. ("this complex becomes inflated largely when a person is avoiding the tempering influence of the auxiliary function". And keep in mind; "What gets inflated is not Si, but the Puer complex").

The ENFP assessment was based on me supposedly "having childlike fun with Te" in enthusiastically discussing the theories, and under that application of Beebe's theory, it became totally ambiguous and almost impossible to prove or disprove. However, there was no puer complex engaged at that time. While Ben Kovitz' description of how tertiary Te might come out according to Lenore's theory might seem to fit some occasions I might appear to use Te in defense ("Unfair!! I have to stick to my guns, I will not be bullied or cheated..." www.greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Tertiary_Temptation), the reasons for its engaging are totally different. It is going against Fi's tempering effect (which would point to what is the 'greater good') and what Si would do (as inferior) is pressure the ego to follow the auxiliary.

With me, the logic I was using played a more natural (and heroic) DEFAULT role of the ego, not as a complex that only came up on a defensive occasion.
It had been suggested that the enthusiasm was the influence of a parental Fi working "in tandem" with the puer, but the puer, according this theory, works basically in contradiction to the auxiliary. So when I was "playing around with the theories", I was neither going with nor against any Fi evaluation of anything like some "greater good" for the sake of something a dominant Ne couldn't handle. (as discussed on Ben's wiki). I was actively engaging a parental Ne in spreading possible ideas. (which is where the enthusiasm and emotional investment comes from).
So the notion of a "process" continuously "inflated" to the extent it 'looks preferred'; with people claiming apparent preferences like "NiTi", "NeTe" or "TiSi", is greatly stretching the theory. It appears strongly when the complex is inflated, and otherwise is not differentiated. If anyone is "using" a function that much, (as I use T) it is not a "puer"!

As for the "playful" part of it: "this complex gets activated when we're playfully ignoring the usual boundaries of the Heroic ego-identity". That aspect of it I will have to examine further.

 

[Eric B]

http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf

This two part aricle of Beebe's seems to contain the key to a lot of the ambiguity I have faced in telling one archetype from another. It seems to lie in the precise roles of the spine and arms. Thse are mentioned in other places (such as his "Evolving the Eight Function Model", which had been available online for awhile), but from that description, you just get the idea that the "spine/arm" designation is based simply on the shape of the diagram. In other words; it's a cross, with the dominant on tope, and the inferior on bottom, and auxiliary and tertiary on the left and right. Hence, the dom/inf. So it kind of resembles the skeleton of a human spine, with the dom/inf as "spine" and the aux/tert as outstretched "arms". But it's actually more than that. According to this article, the spine deals specifically with
"what we can be or do in and for ourselves", while the arms deal with "the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others" Basically; a matrix consisting of "the axis of our relation to self, and the axis of our relations to others"

Now, things really start to fall into place! Before; I and others experienced difficulty in telling the difference between pairs of archetypes such as the Opposing Personality and witch/senex. The difference by itself determines I/E, which is the least important type difference, yet it did still pose a significan barrier in either proving or disproving the whole INTP/ENFP dispute.
All one has to do is look at whom he uses the process with, and it becomes a big clue as to its position.

In the ENFP assessment, it was said that I seemed to have an "irrational spine". I knew what the spine was, and remembered that Jung used "irrational" to mean a perception function. But I could not for the life of me understand how that would figure by itself like that. Now I can understand how that supposedly figured.
I appeared to be using perception for myself: tossing around ideas, and occasionally reminiscing about things. My use of logic was compared to "Nemo", and assumed to be seeking the approval of others, as Beebe describes the Puer. Then, evidence was sought for "parenting" others with Fi. Hence, the rational functions as the "arm" dealing with people.

It should also be pointed out that Berens said that the good parent is supportive to both others and self, and this now seems to be a slight contradiction between her and Beebe. Beebe had said that the parent is not good at taking care of yourself, and hence its shadow, the witch/senex comes in to stop others from taking advantage of that. But it's true that it can still be supportive of yourself; but its main focus is still somehow others.

So there is still seeming ambiguity at times, as it does seem I am feeding the ego more than anything else with Ne. However, it still always means nothing unless I can share it with others, and help them by throwing in more possibilities. as I mentioned above, this was interpreted as extraverting the judging function of Thinking (with Fi as parent, providing the "importance"), but I have never been good at actually helping others with actual decision making! Another significant bombshell is that not only do you tend to help others with your parent functions, but people will then tend to come to you for help using that function!
Now, we finally get to open another pane or two of the Johari Window in the assessment: "known to others"! Some may think I am biased towards a particular type, but you can't argue with those around me who know what to come to me for "parenting" with, using a particular function!

No one ever asks me for help with personal or universal values! It's usually things such as how to get somewhere, or some question in a subject of interest.
I have always just tossed multiple ideas out, and that is what people know I am good with. When people will on occasion press me to choose one for them (such as different ways to get from one place to another), unless there is some logical reason I have determined one way is better; I will feel pressured. (My wish is usually for them to look at what I have given them, and then determine what is best for themselves).

For the other primary functions; in truth, Ti is used for myself, first. Then, using ideas generated with its conclusions, Ne is what I parent with.
Si is what I seek approval with, as I always like to share recollections from my life, and wish to relive things with people.
However, in type discussions, this really did not have any opportunity to surface, so people did not see it. (until I began rehashing a year old conflict at one point, and then it came out in full force, and what I was doing was appealing to others!) In discussions of my other interests (such as cartoons) it is more apparent. Hence, the puer as a complex that arises, rather than a "function" that always appears that way.

I have always noticed; since childhood, a certain "male-hero/female-vulnerable" dynamic in my psyche. One is associated with my own interest in technical things, and the other with people and acceptance. When I first heard about Jung's concept of an "opposite gender" part of us, I thought it was 'out there', but now it has suddenly dawned on me that this was the spine dynamic I had been sensing all that time!

 

[Eric B]

Now; for the SHADOWS; which figured most prominently in the type question, and yet were the hardest to figure out! Hence; I'll start with the "Critical Parent" and some things I had been trying to sort out and do something about recently (midlife crisis!) and now suddenly falls into place in the cognitive model.

I have long recognized that when things don't go the way I wanted, I often get this sense of a deliberate conspiracy; especially if it involves multiple events or a particular sequence that add up. Negative coincidences, unfortunate patterns, no logical explanations, etc. I get very angry at the person involved, even if I consciously know that he is not at fault. If there is no one who can be pointed to at all, I get extremely exasperated, often beyond words. The goal of blame is a sense of being owed for whatever discomfort I experience.

The fact that I cannot control these feelings, despite knowing rationally that it is not true, shows an irrational process at work, and the fact that it is so negative means it is from the shadows.

Thinking again about a mind trick used as an example of an irrational function: "don't think about elephants";
it dawned on me that my reactions were coming from an irrational (i.e. "perception") process; one that is subjective and abstract.

Berens focused on the "future" aspect of Ni, and this is what most who are familiar with the Multiple Models will think of it. But the "foretelling" is only one aspect of the function. In its basic definition, it is simply a subjective abstract perception. This may lead to an implication of the future, but it also may simply interpret past or present reality. (The future may then be inferred from the patterns observed, but it doesn't necessarily have to be).

I could not figure out how someone could be "viciously critical" with the internal perception function Ni in the Critical Parent role, or give "looks that stop people dead in their tracks" with it. (Especially when Berens describes it for INxP's as simply "putting a damper on future plans with negative thoughts of how things will turn out"!) I could understand Fe; an external judgment, used to be critical (like lashing out at someone's bad behavior), but could not compare it with Ni to verify which was the real Senex.

But now I realize that you are not necessarily "using" Ni on people; the Critical Parent complex erupts, which then perceives the environment, and then, from that diverts anger at others, based on its perceptions. I have gotten fighting mad based on this stuff, and had to restrain the way I approach the person I am asking why something happened, because if he reacts defensively, a fight just may erupt. The person won't understand why I am so annoyed, and it would look like I just attacked someone for no reason at all. And it wasn't my intent to fight; I am just aggravated about a sequence of events, and don't know what to do about it. And as observers (especially S's) will be quick to say, it is totally "irrational". For according to Jung, it is an "irrational" process.

If the issue might involve social values, expectations or conflicts, then it would appear I was being critical with extraverted Feeling. But with me, it was never the group expectations in themselves that drove me over the edge. It was the implications of the situations I was critical about.
This is what happened when I got into a heated conflict with an NiFe user. It was the Ni that set me off by hitting me right in my own negative intuitions about the meaning of life and circumstances, yet my critical reaction was attributed to Fe. Nobody saw the internal perception going on, and by the time I figured it out and tried to explain it, everyone in the place was set on me being some kind of anti-Fe type.
The difference should have been clearly evident when an actual ENFP jumped into it, and basically played the role of an angry parent, using Fe solely to criticize behavior, and then challenged the group's values for allowing the whole thing. She then disengaged; just as Berens described. (And a Trickster Ti aversion was seen in the way she unfortunately dismissed the entire eight-process model being tossed around, as excuses for bad behavior. Think: bad child; bad behavior!)

On one hand, my Fe was judged too weak to qualify for even an INTP's inferior. But then, I was often asked why I cared about what everyone thought aboout me and my type. Here was your evidence for the "missing" Fe. Yet it was interpreted as proving I'm NF instead of NT. This was a fundamental attribution shift. And notice the slide from the cognitive process model to the temperament model. This is how that whole assessment worked.

Fe is in a vulnerable area for me, so it comes out not as "considering others", which is the more mature form of it, but rather being concerned about what they think, (and not knowing very well how to act upon it).

Basically, the way I am seeing things, is that life is normally random. If I see a particular sequence that is consistently unfortunate, or leads to a bad situation in an intricate way (the more "elegant", the more angry I will be), then I cannot accept it as "just life" (as the SJ's will always tritely tell me). Such a pattern MUST be by deliberate DESIGN, and there MUST be a DESIGNER who is to BLAME, and I want that person's head (or some other recompense)! If I allow this to go unchallenged ("take it laying down"), it will prove I am worthless and thus "justify" it and set a trend for it to continue happening in the future. (So here's the "future" aspect of the process!) Hence, the Critical Parent looks for someone to blame and lash out at, demanding restitution, even if rationally, I know there is no ill intent on anyone's part.
Ne as "parent" looks at multiple possibilities, and expects them to stay open. Yet, when circumstances seem to be fixed toward one [undesired] way, and all the other possibilities are for some unexplained reason, [de-facto] shut out, this now triggers the Critical Parent.

So I can attest that when I am really grumpy and critical, there is always some negative subjective perception of the meaning of events involved. Basically, this comes out in "sore spots" I have, and anything that fits the negative intuitions will set it off.
Ni never did make sense as backing up my ego (as Opposing Personality), and that was one of the things that kept me fixed to an INP rather than ENP type, despite all the wrangling, and not having enough evidence otherwise, to tell the two positions apart.

So all of this shows that Ni lies on the "arm" of my shadow. If it were simply "oppositional", it would be on the spine, and not so focused on looking for people to blame. Hence, it would only become "stubborn" about things. So NOW I can finally understand Berens' distinction between becoming "stubborn" with a process, and being "critical" with it. The OP simply aims to defend the hero, so it will stubbornly challenge others who offend the hero, yet its main purpose is supporting the ego (hence, the person's relation to self). The Critical Parent's main purpose is to find fault with others and criticize. (hence, "point out flaws", "immobilizing", etc. in the definitions, and thus, dealing with the person's relation to others). Hence, it will be more sharp in its attacks. It will tear the person up inside as well, yet this will always be projected out onto others somehow. People will be blamed for the person's own misery, just like the proverbial grumpy old man or ugly witch.

Te is clearly what I use to defend the ego.

Se as trickster: I always try to reverse expectations of me (double-binding) by pointing out that they do the same things (and it's usually true!) Others might do that when pressured at times, but it's my main MO when feeling I am unfairly being criticized for some sort of behavior. It is what my SJ family (for whom Se is opposing or critical) complain I "always do" (—"...instead of looking at yourself").
The archetype is also said to "want its own way", and when things aren't going the way I want, I become bratty, and always begin grossly exaggerating the facts of the situation, and rehashing them over and over (even if in my own mind). "I always get the worst of it!" type statements (and I know it's not true). It's as if I am pleading a case with whatever "force" is controlling the situations or imposing the unexplainable patterns on me, and trying to trick with the exaggerations so I can get either what I want, or recompense for what I didn't get (as mentioned above with the Ni, which this process works in tandem with).

Thus the Trickster, also being on the arm, also deals with other people (or external situations); basically getting them off your back. Hence, why Beebe described both witch and trickster as "tying others down" in the article Gabe had cited.

Now, Lenore said that the trickster and demon only erupt when the ego is close to disintegrating. But notice, her descriptions of them involved only how they affect the person inside.
So perhaps both views are right, in the different realms. The trickster only turns on you in severe cases, to protect the ego. Otherwise, it is used mostly against other people, and in that form does appear much more frequently.
This now would begin answering my long standing questions of how the archetypes are used on others, and how they play out within one's self, and what triggers them in either form. (and the positive forms of them as well). A fourth question I used to ask is how others' use of them affects you. I imagine that this would still tend to be irritating, as you are not "using" the process, it is just hitting you in an unconscious place.

 

[Eric B]

Just like Ti (as described by Jung) is thinking (logic) for its own sake. Fi would be feeling (ethics) for its own sake.

When I use Feeling, it is not for its own sake, but always in reaction to practical problems, particularly where my boundaries are affected.
Even though it is said that Fi values are not apparent until one is violated, still, the person will nevertheless focus on more personal matters and ethics, just for its own sake.
To me, it's like why bother having something like that, when people in the world will only violate them? The same could be said for logical principles, but I nevertheless still find pleasure in logic and think it is the solution the the world's problems (if only everyone else would THINK, and adopt its principles).

Here's one thing that made me wonder about my preference.
I realized that "survival of the fittest" was an example of a "universal" principle, as in the kind of thing Ti deals in. Yet this principle has not really settled on me well, in a competitive environment, on both the social and political levels, where people with enough drive gain all the power to get what they want. Hence, I came to prefer more harmonious ethics, where people are not trying to outdo one another, and often complain about the way things are. This is often associated with Feeling.
This is what really made it look like I preferred Fi. Especially when I heard the notion of NT's as "Spocks". They shouldn't care about survival of the fittest; NTP's, at least, should embrace the principle with their Ti, and in a personally 'detached' fashion, simply adapt and do whatever they have to do to survive ("pragmatism") without any negative valuations, shouldn't they?

But if the manifestation of this particular principle is not conducive to one's own lifestyle, then you will naturally not take it well. And this is where the point that any function (as ego) will make valuations and give rise to emotions, is so helpful, along with the notion of nonpreferred functions being undifferentiated. So making decisions based on stuff like "comfort" is considered Ti (see Berens, Personality Type Code, p.5), not Fi, (though it technically may be an "evaluation of desirability/undesirability"). Hartzler also points out that believing it is wrong to kill arbitrarily because it would create an environment where it is OK for someone to kill you arbitrarily is arriving at a principle, not a value. (Functions of Type, p.40).
Both Personality Page and Haas & Hunziker's Building Blocks and others also link "fairness" as a Ti principle. One might think that was a "value", especially since when you think of someone emotionally crying "unfair"!

So even if a "subjective emotional filter" constructed by remembered experience, as described above, is present, it still does not indicate a preference for Fi. Those who prefer Fi will use the filter as their primary judgment system, (and consciously controlled). For those who do not prefer it, it will likely be more reactive to situations! (And unconscious. Though Fi's emotions or values may be described as unconscious; still, there will be some sort of consciousness involved in the process, if it is preferred by the ego).

So with an INTP, their dislike of various universal principles comes out in their familiar cynicism towards life. There are plenty of unpleasant things in life, which they can recognize with their Ti as universal principles. The difference between them and F's is that F's; particularly NF's, relying on values, will have a "faith" that values can spread and solve the problem, or at least we can try. INTP's don't trust values as much, and see them as futile, so they are left observing the principles and being cynical about the outcome, not liking them or being totally indifferent.

Another area was the issue of animal cruelty, or even the thought of slaughter for food. Fi would react, because of its belief "in the worth of all living things", wouldn't it; while Ti would always be totally indifferent, right? Like they might be the ones to put small animals in a microwave, to see what happens {shudder!} (supporting this being many INTPs apparent fascination with the macabre; like many of the avatars on INTPc).
But for me, the aversion to such carnage is the fact that we are very much like the animals, and whatever is done to them can easily be done to us. (Like suppose there are aliens who come here, like in "To Serve Man" or the Alien series?) This also drives my fondness for cats and some dogs (whom I affectionately say "they're little people!", as they are so much like us), and horror at the thought of them being brutalized, run over, even eaten by different people, etc.

Hence, while I recognize the principles of what makes us what we are, I still have this fear of vulnerability, which is what gives me the bad feelings whenever I see gore. (The Alien series I can hardly watch; even though I could admire the technical idea of how they reproduce, for the unique combination of earth reproduction it employs. It seems, as in the discussion above, the parental Ne looking at the hypothetical possibility of such creatures existing and heading our way, suddenly locks onto the notion irrationally, creating an intense fear as if it were certain to happen, hence becoming like a negative Ni).

So this is a Ti-basis for an ethical consideration of animals. Rather than focusing on their worth or feelings as living things, it references back to us, based on common physical principles of living organisms and survival, not a universal value of living things in themselves.

Perhaps one thing that needs to be questioned is the definition of Fi as "knowing what you want", as can be read in the Beebe/Berens/Nardi circle. That was one thing that seemed to support the "unemotional T" misunderstanding many face. (Like they're really robots who have no wants, or something).
If that's really Fi; it would have to be in undifferentiated form. It's too general and broad. Fi is ultimately about ethics.
This is where MArk Bruzon's definitions http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/jungian_functions.htm come in handy. I had thought that my having strong dislike of things at times might be a sign of Fi. However, I always have a reason for not liking something, while I have noticed that many others can have strong dislike for things, and have no reason why. It seemed to make no sense at all. It defied logic. So for me, there is always some connection to something else that causes the evaluation. Hence, linear connection as Bruzon called it. For Feelers, it is a "holistic" connection between multiple objects, hence not being able to give a specific connection for the particular judgment in question.

Also, should point out, elfinchilde over on the Spampudding finally answered an old question of mine, which I had mentioned above: I had asked her to dissect a hypothetical ENFP with strong Ti and otherwise similar scores to mine. This as a sort of balance, so I could weigh and see which fit better: http://mbti.spampudding.com/showpost.php?p=21972&postcount=14

The INTP dissection is still more accurate.

 

[Eric B]

So now I will outline the development of my apparent Fi traits, and how they shape my "use" of the function today. This should be interesting, since I believe it is the last place function (just what role do you think it really plays here), and there is very little information on the shadows out there.

Grew up with constant problems with acceptance from people, (later suspected due to AS). Made me very self-conscious in a negative way. One of the biggest issues was unfairness; like how I would be chastised for somehow misbehaving towards others, yet when others did wrong to me, it was usually dismissed or justified (they've earned more status, they're older, you need to be tougher, "that's just life"; it's not important/just accept it and move on, you did wrong and deserved it, etc.) One probable cause of this was my parents "not knowing what to do with me" from their own inexperience, coupled with them trying to "compensate" for my natural social problems from AS.
To give an example, a hard to deal with ENTJ cousin also led to a lot of injustices I couldn't understand; such as when she's in my house, she's a guest and we're the hosts, and therefore should be allowed to change the TV to whatever she wants, but when I'm over at her house, it's her house, so she should have the rights over the TV. (Making this worse is that all of our parents are ISTJ's, whose sense of public values comes from their own Si, and not genuine Fe, which was their Trickster). This sort of asymmetry in relations was very hard to swallow for a child.

Became self-involved, and clinging to things I liked, as the internal world was "safer" than external. Inner world was filled with logic-based interests, yet with an emotional attachment (part of which was likely due to AS).

Also could feel for other people and fictional characters in situations I could "relate" to; including certain villains. Hence, an essay I did on when to root for the bad guys. (Particularly when they are themselves hapless).
Very stressed by notions of powerlessness; whether right or wrong.

Father constantly told me to "look at yourself". Resisted vehemently.
He also began dressing me down totally with overarching universalized judgments ("you don't give a s___ about anybody", etc. This made me feel horrible, and when I responded "why are you making me into such a monster", he claimed he did not SAY that (to me it was IMPLIED), and that it was coming from my own "negative self-image": I saw myself as a bad person, and thus "projected" it into what he was saying. This was one of the most exasperating things I have ever experienced. It like blew a fuse in my brain. It seemed highly unfair that people could talk to me any way they want, and I'm the not only the wrongdoer, but also the one judging myself as bad. The other person I'm dealing with is totally in the right. (Which I have compared to a rapist calling his child victim a whore).

This leads to evaluation of congruence (see next post) as I am having standards imposed on me that the one judging is not even practicing, or holding others up to. I did not start out caring about this. It was the circumstances that made me aware of it. My main purpose is to maintain "inertia": If I'm at "rest", to stay at rest, and if moving towards something, to maintain momentum and direction. For maximum chance of this, I scale my actions down to try to be as unintrusive to others as possible, but this is still not enough for many, who want to maintain their own absolute inertia, and often gain this through "status".
So I attempt to get the people off my back (shadow "arm" dealing with others--Se Trickster: point out that they/others do the same thing; Senex Ni: if I allow this, I will have no rights and prove inferior. Shadow "spine" supporting ego--Fi demon: try to maintain universal congruence of values; do not want to be held to unfair standard which eliminates my inertia, and very emotional about injustice; Opposing Te: rearrange others’ thinking to conform).

Relations with peers improved in pre-teen period, but plummeted in high school, and got even worse in college.
Got deeper into inner world of logical connections. Also became very depressed, (which Beebe associates with Fi “integrity” issues).

Female "purity" became a high value from wanting girls and seeing other guys get them. Connected with the concept of “integrity” (“untouched”) as Beebe discusses, and most likely involving projections of a wounded anima and especially its shadow.

Later, when upset for lack of acceptance from others, parents began saying "love yourself". This seemed silly to me (especially when they all along accused me of being too self-involved), yet they insisted (based on popular psychological teaching) it is what would make others like me.
They also sometimes came up with some of the other stuff you would read in books, such as "love the inner child", “hug the inner child”, "write a letter to yourself with your left hand, so that it's you as a child...", and a counselor I as seeing always had me pretend to talk to people who had offended me. I thought all of this stuff was totally stupid, and felt incredibly embarrassed at the idea of doing it. (Also felt similarly silly talking to babies, since they could not understand you).

Came to find emotional lift in music; especially that which evoked old memories from childhood, or captured some emotion. (like certain lesser known Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye "let's spread love" type songs). Developed some capacity for “feeling-tones” associated with music and other memories.

Hence, I could often use emotions to make myself feel good, though I often felt very embarrassed about them.

I also got a sort of a "heroic" fix from the sound of interstate bus engines. These were Detroit Diesel two-strokes (8 and later 6 cylinder; which have recently been regulated off the roads due to higher emissions standards) which conveyed a sort of sense of "power". Like many guys were into sports cars or motorcycles; with the roar of their engines, and for me, it was buses.
Hence, I got into interstate travel, both to explore different cities, and for the ride. I was very attached to these trips, as they really gave me something to look forward to, in a very tough young adulthood. (Some of this must have been the "relief" aspect of both attitudes of Sensing).

In total frustration, adopted Christianity and its value system. Christianity had long bugged me because of the apparent self-contentedness (Fi) of preachers in their moral crusades against society and liberal politics. Triggered "Conscience" (Fi-Hartzler), which evaluated how the stuff being preached would affect me personally, and made me feel guilty for not living up to the high standards being imposed. (Which to me were hypothetical possibilities perceived through "parental" Ne, and thus could not be ignored and readily dismissed). I really did not like such ethical self-evaluation imposed on me.

Yet by now, I felt I had "nothing to lose" anyway. Notions of judgment of world seemed to offer a promise of vindication.

This went against long term logical sense (naturalistic science, with no proof for religion), but was lured in by apparent fulfillment of prophecy in historical events. Spent most of my time fighting against illogical or unjust doctrines, such as Calvinism, conservative politics or the condemnation of contemporary music by old-line fundies. Also tried to bring clearer understandings of controversial doctrines such as the Trinity, which apologists smugly condemned others for questioning and claimed it could not be understood, but must be believed anyway. Later on, went after the popular (best-selling; e.g. "Purpose Driven" series) teaching that said all our pain is sent by God for good. (Often used to dismiss my or other people's pain).

As beaten down by life as I felt, I was extremely jealous of Christian leaders, and tried to beat them at their own game. Fi became used like a club to attack others' self-righteousness and self-contentment. My father had always pointed out the moral inconsistencies of Christians (racism, war, not living up to the mores they preach at others, condemning abortion but not caring about those born, such as the corrupt foster care system, etc), so I learned to attack belief systems by pointing out inconsistencies in values.

Father's drinking problem erupts, with constant attacks against both my new Christian profession, and all my old problems. Became extremely stressed. If there was any occasion for "shadows" (Beebe) or "ego-disintegration" (Thomson) it was now.
Tried to respond with logic, however, Feeling/emotions erupted and totally derailed my response. (Couldn't think of responses until later. Hence, why I was also never good at "ranking out" games as a kid). Totally frustrated, felt awful, and like a total idiot and loser.
Try to escape in Air Force, but fall apart and is home in 9 months. Begin to find release through writing.

Things slowly get better, but the damage has been done, and my faith begins eroding.
Marriage and new Christian friends make things better, but it is still very difficult, due to both of us having a lot of pain from the past, as well as financial difficulty.

Eventually grow disillusioned with futurist reading of scripture that says God is working all world/life situations for some unknown purpose, and ffind better system of interpretation that is more logical, while upholding inerrancy of scripture. Come to stop being intimidated by many Christians' attack on "logic". Now recognize this is their only way out when they run out of explanations for the holes in some of their beliefs.

 

[Eric B]

How all of this plays out today:
•Can now outline all of these inner emotions and values; though feel a bit funny doing so.

•Enjoyment of interests and comfort become very important. Very upset when these are threatened.

•I am made aware of these things through all of this self-reflection forced by the circumstances (and analysis of these concepts).

•Fi behaviors may be visible to others, making me look like an NFP.

•Feel like I need meaning and significance, but this is really more compensatory than natural temperament need. It is really about mastery and control.

•Still put off by moralizing and self-righteous talk of "values" by others. Have changed Christian views realizing that I had earlier been doing the same thing, for a very desperate, shadowy reason.
Used to appear to "parent" with these values (due to evangelical pressure to convert others), but have dropped this.

•Strong demand for basic respect. Do unto me as you want done unto you, even if I do not share your status.

•Strong sense of justice (starts out as fairness, which is actually associated with T, but when this is repeatedly violated, it becomes a broader issue of justice. --Right brain switch from broad area (Pe/Ji) linear (T) connections to broad area (Pe/Ji) holistic (F) connections).

•Greatly aggravated by abuses of power, status and wealth

•Relate to "underdogs" (real or fictional) in these areas.

•Can sync with Fi users when shared values are discovered (e.g. politics). Otherwise, Fi will leave me dry (trite platitudes, etc), and often come off as pacifying the weak and condoning the corrupt system.

•Will "evaluate importance" for others when feeling threatened, even if hypothetically. Like when dealing with the rich who have it all and leave nothing for anyone else. Or other kinds of social bullies. I often will wonder "what do they get out of it"? In fiction, like in the Gulliver cartoon, Captain Leech, who does nothing but try to get the treasure map from Gulliver. His every move is treasure map, treasure map, treasure map. And on Ugly Betty, it's Wilhemina, whose every move is a scheme to take over the company. She will stop at nothing; even get people killed, start all sorts of wars between others, etc. Just so she can own the company, or whatever position that is she's trying to get. You would think it was eternal salvation or something.
Of course, this is just a reflection of all the real life capitalists who have gained so much wealth and power. Everything being an apparent scheme to make profit charts go up, and their income along with it. Raise prices and lower quality. Many tech products are full of bugs which are hard to figure out for the average person, with hefty phone charges for support. And then manipulating politics so they can continue to get all sorts of tax breaks and deregulation, as if all they have now is not enough.
The same with all the wars in the Mideast. For what? A sandy piece of land? Or to compete with the very opponents you call the “Great Satan” for control over the world’s resources?
I just wonder why it's so important; is this really going to make them happy; that they will go through such lengths and create such turmoil (and then Christian teachers are always telling us that such people have all that stuff, and are not happy. What an irony!) Just to have something for a few years before they die?

My perspective here is one of a desire for inertia. Life should flow smoothly as possible for all (really, for me, but to be fair; I have to include everyone else). Yet people like that ensure that life is hard and unsafe; for you constantly have to be on guard against them, and often compete with them to avoid being controlled (bought out, outranked, victimized, them getting all the money and resources). It's like they fill the "quota", as it were, that "life is difficult". (Then, they become what I call "beneficiaries" of this difficulty, as they profit off of it!)
Then, I imagine what it would be like to gain what I want by those means. I would never be able to enjoy it, from the guilt, and fear of retaliation; and just "being" a bad person deserving that retalitation.
I just wish these people could all go somewhere else and do that stuff. Like if they had their own planet or something where they could devour each other and leave me alone. Or if the poor and weak all disappeared; and then see what would they do.
Then, you have substances such as tobacco and alcohol which have also always bothered me, as they have the potential to gravely affect others around them, and neither even taste good. People force themselves to like it because of peer pressure, or "it looks cool", etc. When I see a work area littered with cigarette butts/ashes/stench (and smoking on the property is against workplace rules); I'm like why can't these people go an hour or so without a smoke, and why did they let themselves get hooked on this destructive stuff in the first place?

So I often wish I could convince all these people that what they are doing is stupid and just making life miserable and not even really benefiting them at all.
Again, the purpose of the evaluating is really to knock down the other side from their threatening pose, and betrays the vulnerable place Feeling has in my consciousness. (And notice, also; I naturally tend to think more in terms of "stupid" rather than "bad").

But then the Thinking kicks back in, and I realize there is no convincing these people. (I tried it for years). But since Thinking cannot solve the problem, this triggers the switch back to the right brain alternative of Fi all over again. I then wonder what God is doing in all of this.

•Occasionally will evaluate for someone, when they are in a situation I can feel for, and something I have come (often through pain) to really value is at stake. Witness: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=1157805&postcount=672

•Anger at violated universal values generates wishes of destruction; like all of this is futile and should just end already. Anger at God, wondering if “He’ really is “personal”.

These are all of the things I had to sort through when weighing between Ti and Fi. I read Fi descriptions, and could thus relate to a lot of it, but something still did not seem right as to preferring it; and Ti did not have all the negative connotations. Hence, the archetype system explains it, but it was just a matter of finding the info to determine what Fi was really like as "demon", and whether my experience fit it.

 

[jenocyde]

Wow, Eric B - your background is incredibly similar to mine (at least the way we felt about things) right down to the SJ parents. It drove me nuts.

As far as the Fi stuff goes... I exhibit a lot of the same behavior (I always thought this stuff was Fe - the sense of justice, the relating to underdogs, the annoyance at people preaching at me, strong need for mutual respect and equality) so much that some people thought I was ENFJ when I first started on here.

But I also agree that Fi for me is like a demon. I try to exercise it but it comes out all distorted and wrong and usually very aggressively. It's not something I am comfortable with. I don't trust it to make decisions.

But now I am confused about what is Fe and what is Fi, when not in a dom or aux position. This is all so confusing for me.

 

[Eric B]

I didn't even know anyone responded. I guess I assumed it would come up in the notifications, like a PM or visitor message.

Nice to find someone who can relate!:hi:

A lot of NTP's or at least INTP's, attribute ALL of their "feeling" responses to Fe. But then they are using the four-process theory, which does not consider the opposite attitudes of the functions. Yet Beebe shows that what some would associate with "inferior Fe" was in fact demonic Fi!

If you're an ENTP, Fi would be "Trickster", which is basically the "bratty, bad child, trying to get its own way". But since this is still deep in the shadow, it won't be that different from the demon, and hence can come off as "devilish".

Functions not in the dom. or aux position will likely be less differentiated, and harder to tell the difference between the attitudes. That's why it's better to start with four functions, with "i/e" as the orientations we use them in; hence, the line between Fe and Fi is really more fuzzy than it is often made out to be.