Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms

[PeaceBaby]

But I can see how my morals are subjective ...

 

[teslashock]

I haven't really been paying too much attention to this thread, so forgive me if my budding in seems a bit capricious:

However, it seems to me like some of the people around here are operating under different definitions for objective/subjective than SW is.

SW seems to be using these definitions:
Objective: of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

While the more traditional uses of the words objective/subjective are as such:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
Subjective: placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

(all obtained from the most sophisticated reference material known to man, Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com)

The definitions are a bit intertwined, but they are different enough to be worth mentioning. The first set of definitions contrasts ideas that come from within (subjective) with empirical facts that come from the external world (objective), while the second set of definitions contrasts impersonal reasoning (objective) with personal reasons (subjective).

That being said, according to the second set of definitions for objective/subjective, Ti seems to fit under objective, while Fi seems to fit under subjective. Therefore, when Ti-ers make claims to their views being objective when contrasted to the subjective values of Fi, the Ti-ers aren't too far off. Logic, in its purest of forms, is guided by a universally accepted doctrine of deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion from a given premise and being able to use such deductive reasoning to assert that the conclusion is inarguable fact. This is the logic that Ti-ers associate with being objective. The fact that they value such logic, use logical thought processes as justification for their beliefs, and believe that the rest of the world should operate under such reasoning is subjective (as logic is essentially an abstract concept that has come from the thinking mind), but the reasoning in itself is objective, as it is not clouded by personal biases. Logic necessitates an impersonal lens, and logic does not come from within (as its governing laws have more or less been universally agreed upon). The only thing that comes from within for a Ti-er is the fact that he/she values logic (and this does indeed make Ti subjective, in one sense).

On the other hand, Fi-ers' beliefs (at least according to how the Ti-er sees Fi) do come from "within", making them seem a lot more subjective to the standard Ti-er. Fi-ers seem to have a value system based largely on how certain issues make them feel. They can offer reasons for believing what they believe, but when you reach the heart of the matter, the very core of their belief system, everything seems to be backed by what feels right to the Fi-er and what feels wrong to the Fi-er, outside of an impersonal definition of right (eg, true) or wrong (eg, false).

In a sense, that makes Ti more seemingly "objective" and Fi more seemingly "subjective", but according to SW's uses of subj/objective, any Ji is indeed subjective while any Je is indeed objective.

 

[onemoretime]

Ti is subjective in where it starts from. Fi is subjective in where it finishes.

 

[Space_Oddity]

Ok, so if someone doesnt agree with you then they are not as much of a "soul-mate". Could it be possible you limit your "soul-mates" based on similiar internal morals and have based "universal morals" on this? You control who you are around and in essence steer your "universal" morals based on this?

Well, Babylon Candle worded better in his post what I wanted to say. (I'm afraid my English language abilities don't allow me to express myself as clearly and eruditely as I would like to.) No - I don't limit my soul-mates on if we agree or not; I just call someone with whom I form a special bond of understanding my soul-mate. We don't have to agree, but we understand. So far, I've been best understood by other INFPs, but of course that sooner or later another type of person who will understand might emerge. (That doesn't mean these INFPs have to be my "best friends" - any type can be that. Soul-mate doesn't equal best friend, or love, for me.)

Similar internal morals might have something to do with the "soul-mate" thing for me - I don't get why they shouldn't. But when I said I find something about Fi "universal" I wasn't really talking only about people I know. Literature and movies are full of Fi as well, and I feel it's always trying to convey similar thought.

One thing I notice in Te is hesitation if you feel like someone is trying to unwillingly steer your logic. You close yourself off to maintain your morals or your decision. This may not be you, but people tend to surround themselves with like minded individuals.

Well, they do - I think it's just natural. But of course it's not healthy if people surround themselves only with like minded individuals - they don't get any other perspective. I have friends of every type, but besides INFPs I've continuously got along the best with TPs and TJs - my TP friends are the most fun and we have the most interesting discussions (I call them my mind-mates), and TJs balance me with their common sense. However, I like these individuals because of their character, not necessarily their opinions. I take pride in being very open-minded, actually, but that doesn't make my values any less strong. I just don't try to impose them on everyone; I offer them as another perspective.

Umm, every person's Fi is uniquely individual. If it wasn't, every Fi would have to agree with every other Fi on every issue, which is clearly not the case. Fi is absolutely not universal or objective...but both Fi and Ti users do tend to make the mistake of believing their Fi/Ti to be objective/universal, when in fact neither is.

Of course, but I haven't met any two persons in my life who would agree on every issue, no matter their type. I'd have to say that every person is individual and subjective in their own way, but that would return this discussion to point 0. I'm glad you think Ti is subjective as well, because I agree. But there are different notions and semantics of the words "subjective" and "universal", and I don't think we quite agree on them. Anyway, Babylon Candle worded better what I wanted to say.

Not to mention, if every Fi person had the same universal ideas about ethics, that would really threaten the whole "we are all unique individuals who cannot be categorized by four letters" thing, wouldn't it?

I've never claimed that. Of course people can be categorized. Of course some people will be "the same type of person". One absolutely doesn't need MBTI to notice that. But maybe the point is, the world and human interactions cannot be explained by this categorization alone. The categorization is description, not explanation.

By the way, Fi and Ti are subjective because they exist only within the user and independently of any external influence.

Fe and Te are objective because they depend on external conditions for their definitions of morality and logic.

I like this explanation, but it's up to question if something exist "only within the user" or the connection to the world is just not visible. Fe and Te are correlated to human interactions and human objectives - that's more simple. (But as everyone uses both, no one is entirely subjective or objective, obviously.)

 

[EJCC]

Everybody! Check out these posts:

^ I think I understand to a higher degree than you think, but am still annoyed and irritated by it, so I make threads like this to take out my frustration. This is what looks to you like "forgetting what I already understand"--I'm not forgetting; I'm just trolling you because it pisses me off when Fi-ers expect the whole world to bend over backward to accommodate their arbitrary feelings. (You're damn right this is Fe at work.)

What annoys me most is that society expects Thinkers to develop some manner of Feeling as they grow and develop, and we're ostracized if we don't...but many Feelers (specifically FPs) seem to have this sense of entitlement that their feelings can never be questioned and that they have no responsibility to learn any Thinking to balance them out. It's childish and one-sided. "I mean, that's how I feel about it--you can't question that or you'd be asking me to go against the very fabric of my identity!"

Well, what if ignoring what seems logical to me and listening to your feelings is going against the very fabric of my identity?

As one INFP friend told me, "Listen, if somebody you're working with has a feeling about something, you just have to go with that and respect it, no matter how unreasonable it is!" (Note that I still classify this person as a friend and hang out with him frequently. This implies that I still find enough things about his personality valuable to consider him a friend, despite his childish sense of entitlement to unconditionally have his feelings coddled. That should tell you something about your little "omg sim hates all Fi-ers!!!" theories.)

Frankly I find this double standard unfair and I resent it. It's apparently okay for Fi-ers to "just be who they are" and operate in nonstop Fi mode, ignoring Thinking; in fact, this attitude is glorified and encouraged by popular media--but it's not okay for Ti-ers to "just be who we are" and ignore Feeling because that makes us insensitive assholes.

I find it unreasonable that our cultural standards expect more Feeling out of T types than Thinking out of F types, and if the only place I can get away with fighting it sans significant negative consequence is on an internet forum, then that's what I'm gonna do.

There's some straight up Fe for you. I've learned the hard way not to bring this shit up in real life.

Now that I've actually explained some of my emotional motivations, maybe you all can shut the hell up with assigning them for me without my input. I don't hate Fi on principle and I don't complain about it because I'm secretly in love with PeaceBaby. I really honestly do have some INFP friends and I appreciate a lot of things about them--this has much, much bigger implications than that.

*smiles* Then we're more alike than you think. Fi is bashed more than you realize I think, irl. And NFPs I'm pretty sure share your feeling of resentment that everything taught in schools, everything appreciated out in the real world, is logic and cold hard facts. Sure, there's some room for it, but mostly in dream worlds like movies or novels for people to escape to and it's never considered serious or right for reality. So..a lot of NFPs probably are responding in the same way you are to feeling restricted. In our case we're told to man up, provide logic or be ridiculed. In your case, you're told you're rude and inappropriate

I don't expect for a T to do any of those things. He can be just fine who he is. But don't be questioning my world because you're curious about something that you don't completely understand without showing some respect to the person who actually *lives* there. I didn't go: plz see this and understand me now! You came to look for NFPs and ask for explanations yourself. You find it odd that once you then judge those things from what most NFPs seem to think is a wrong understanding of how things work...they get annoyed at you and consider you rude? You're invading their space. I'm not telling you to stop analyzing or asking for logic. But you're asking it on a subject that just doens't use the same logic as you do. So either you learn the other 'type of logic', or you accept that you'll never understand. And bashing it, or getting frustrated at it won't change that.

I get that you're venting. I'm pretty sure other NFPs here do the same as they too feel that pressure from society irl. From my personal pov: I'd prefer it if all those Fi-thread things died already coz they give me a migraine and make me feel like I'm not able to get away from the real world again. It's more miscommunication, false judgements and more people misunderstanding and getting the wrong idea. And yeah, you could say, you can ignore them. But as I stated before...that annoying rekindling of hope that *someone* will get it, doesn't wanna die

There you go! Sim and the INFPs are all pissed off because they feel like victims (in various ways). Sim was engaging in some catharsis when he created this thread, which is understandable. You guys should also understand the INFPs' reasoning for being angry.

/debate
/thread

 

[Eric B]

poki, do you think Ti more frequently claims to be objective, despite the fact that both Ti and Fi are of subjective origin?

To refine, if the interpretation of objective (in this context) is to mean "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

And with the origins of both Fi and Ti being subjective in nature, would it not be an oxymoron for Ti users to claim themselves to be more objective, more rational?

Do you think this so?

I think Ti is very rational and I would pit my ability to rationalize even the most irrational things against anyone. I can take rationalizing to an absurd level. I would never claim to be objective as I live in my head and realize that I dont have enough information to be objective. There is simply to much that is hidden.

So...

Te is objective and rational
Ti is subjective and rational
Fe is objective and irrational
Fi is subjective and irrational

This is pretty much what I notice. I would say that TPs can seem irrational externally as Fe is irrational when they are trying to work with others feelings.

You have to be careful with the terms "rational" and "irrational". Since we're using Jungian concepts, then we should stick with his definitions of rational/irrational. And that is that judgment functions are rational, and perceiving functions are irrational.

Objective/subjective is the term that can apply either to extraversion/introversion, or Thinking/Feeling.
This ties into what were were discussing here: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...guage-will-someone-explain-4.html#post1019939
It seems "rational/irrational" is here being attempted to be substituted for "objective/subjective".

What tesla said made the point as well.

So it can actually be seen as:
Te is objective objectivity
Ti is subjective objectivity
Fe is objective subjectivity
Fi is subjective subjectivity

 

[Poki]

You have to be careful with the terms "rational" and "irrational". Since we're using Jungian concepts, then we should stick with his definitions of rational/irrational. And that is that judgment functions are rational, and perceiving functions are irrational.

Objective/subjective is the term that can apply either to extraversion/introversion, or Thinking/Feeling.
This ties into what were were discussing here: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...guage-will-someone-explain-4.html#post1019939
It seems "rational/irrational" is here being attempted to be substituted for "objective/subjective".

So it can actually be seen as:
Te is objective objectivity
Ti is subjective objectivity
Fe is objective subjectivity
Fi is subjective subjectivity

Thanks for clarifying, I think this is where Ni and Si come into the picture in what you said vs what I said. Ni is universal and Si is not. I cant keep track of all the different definitions according to jungian, MBTI, etc. I want a universal theory to play with and will merge everything.

 

[Space_Oddity]

(I have to add, my notion of Fi might be a little extreme as 4 of 6 members of my immediate family are Fi-doms and my INTJ mum is also a pretty strong Fi-user, and I've been taught all of my life what is "right" and "wrong".

Anyway, I'm probably wording my opinions clumsily. I didn't want to imply everyone should work according to Fi morals (or my own morals or whatever it is) - I live according to the motto "live and let live", but I don't like it when people suffer, and I think no one should make others suffer. And I admit I don't think that this principle (or Ti principles of logic, for that matter) is that much different for every individual. If it was, there would be no types, imo.)

 

[Fecal McAngry]

No, typology is not an evil conspiracy intended to subvert your right to individuality and self-expression.

No, any and all attempts to categorize anything about your belief system or behavioral tendencies do not constitute a malevolent international plot to rid the world of original ideas.

No, you're not so extraordinarily unique and special and unusual that your personality automatically defies all forms categorization and analysis.

No, typology is not turning the world into nineteen eighty-fucking-four.

No, studying typology does not ruin your ability to feel emotion or appreciate others on a personal basis.

Yeah, we get it already--you're so special and original and creative that you can't possibly be boxed into one of sixteen arbitrarily distinguished categories [no matter how broadly defined they might be]! Yeah, we get it--you have paranoid delusions that any such categorization will turn everyone into robotic slaves to the evil Te agenda to squelch all forms of self-expression.

And yes, everyone realizes how emotionally threatened you are by any attempt at categorizing your personality and realizes you're having a histrionic meltdown over nothing when you make these kinds of outlandish claims.

The solution, you ask? Grow up, stop taking everything as a deliberate attack on your super special unique feelings, and get real.


Your friend,

simulatedworld

Reading the above, I think of two INFP contemporaries and competitors, Bob Dylan and John Lennon, and the diverging paths they took through the 60s and 70s. Bob hated being labeled far more than he wished to be understood by the masses. John desperately needed to be understood far more than he hated to be labeled.

In the work, and in their lives, it showed...

I relate far more to John's choice. Ultimately, it's the better choice for most INFPs, the more mature one, and the one that allows for easier sleep...

 

[teslashock]

It seems "rational/irrational" is here being attempted to be substituted for "objective/subjective".

What tesla said made the point as well.

So it can actually be seen as:
Te is objective objectivity
Ti is subjective objectivity
Fe is objective subjectivity
Fi is subjective subjectivity

+1 for simplifying it so well!

 

[Venom]

I think it's just as possible for an Fe-er to think their group's morality is the "right" or "done" way of doing things

Oh but...it is!

...wait...the Ni is now asking me to clarify: "which group's perspective on which group's morality among groups?"

In regards to Babylons post, that defines Fi in terms of whats its objective or what it tries to do though. Fi "leads", etc. It doesnt define Fi, but through what it does or aims to achieve. It defines it through "lack of Te". How does lack of Te make it a moral decision and if Te is not moral and Fi is moral where do Ti and Fe stand? It sounds like she is defining Fi from what it is not, but all Lenore seems to know is what Fi is not(Te) and what it aims to achieve.

I think some of your criticisms of lenore's ideas are from the incomplete information I gave you. Im sorry about that. Take a look at how all the functions are defined here:
Philosophical Exegesis

When you read the Te one, the Ti one, the Fe one, etc it all makes a lot more sense as a systematic tinkering with functions (rather than just "Fi is absence of Te").