[Fi] Rant about Fi

[Amargith]

I think i get finally, that you can't understand Fi logically , you need to shut off logic to understand it.

Actually, it's more like understanding there is more than one system of logic to go around
And yes, Ti does need to be shut down to make room for Fi. I have the same problem, coming from the other side. It's..uncomfortable at best, ime, and feels incredibly limiting. That said... it is worth that peek

I will never use Ti as my main thing. But I can appreciate it when a Ti-user walks me through his thought process - it provides me with an entire new angle on the subject matter that I've already thoroughly vetted through Fi. It gives a more well-rounded picture of the world.

And like you, I try and stay clear (for the most part) of Ti-users that are still learning since I don't trust them not to inflict harm on others (let's just say that their...'logic system' wrt to personal boundaries and dealing with other people -and god forbid, themselves and their own fears - usually has some gaping holes in it). However, it is my own lack of ability to handle Ti properly that gets in my way, because mature Ti-users and even mature Fe-users have no problem handling those guys with ease and undoing any damage they may inflict upon their environment.

Try it - see if you can convince a mature Fi-user to be your tour guide

Of course...that would require actually acknowledging the possibility that Fi might just...be as logical as Ti is. And that perhaps you're not the end-all master (or judge, for that matter ) of all logic

So, I'm curious - what is stronger in an ENTP? The thirst for Knowledge and Truth? Or the sense of superiority regarding logic and reason and their mastery thereof?

*dangles the Key to the Forbidden Forest before you*

...too many inner demons waiting, perhaps?



...Crap, where did my incense, crystal ball and spooky skulls go? I'm so flunking Mood Setting 101

 

[SearchingforPeace]

This doesnt make sense , iagree i am not the best at logic (IxTPs are) but i think that Ne is objective so i may not be able to think clearly but i am able to see clearly

My problem with ENTPs, and my brother is one, is that they often see some detail clearly, but miss the big picture. The lack of Ni or Fi hurts them in this regard. Ne plus Fi can grab the big picture. Ni plus Ti can grab the big picture, but Ne plus Ti misses the larger issues in its hyper focus on things it may not understand....

 

[giorgaros2]

Yeah i too believe Fi is logical , because i had an ENFP friend and we liked to debate and i noticed that Fi users use logic using subjective principles(or values or likes/dislikes) , but this seems too subjective to me.So how do you see your values? As subjective or objective ?

 

[giorgaros2]

My problem with ENTPs, and my brother is one, is that they often see some detail clearly, but miss the big picture. The lack of Ni or Fi hurts them in this regard. Ne plus Fi can grab the big picture. Ni plus Ti can grab the big picture, but Ne plus Ti misses the larger issues in its hyper focus on things it may not understand....

I can see the big picture but i dont care about it since i want to understand it first

 

[Amargith]

Subjective.

Here's the kicker - I see your objective principles as subjective too, because while they may have started out as objective paradigms, they were filtered through a human mind and thus subject to subjective corruption

 

[Poki]

I think i get finally, that you can't understand Fi logically , you need to shut off logic to understand it.

Logic helps greatly with understanding Fi...it's just that to properly understand Fi using logic you must 7nderstand everyone is unique, in a different place, has different experiences, cares, likes, etc. Logic fits...blanket statements dont. I have been told by an Fi person I a one of the first to actually understand her...it was all logic. It takes alot of data though or you are piecing together half personal and half understanding of the world which is not the smartest thing to do. You can't fill in personal blanks with generic data and expect to really understand a person and Fi.

The moment you say "this is how people are" you went down the wrong path. Yes we all feel, we all think, we all do everything. But to differing degrees for different reasons, different priorities, different enjoyments. That plays a huge role that people just dismiss.

 

[giorgaros2]

Subjective.

Here's the kicker - I see your objective principles as subjective too, because while they may have started out as objective paradigms, they were filtered through a human mind and thus subject to subjective corruption

Yeah i agree , this is the Ne-dom hell lol

 

[Amargith]

Yeah i agree , this is the Ne-dom hell lol

Common ground, at last!
I don't consider it hell - to me, it is perfection.

Fi works with individual, subjective information - this is just part of that. To deny it is to deny yourself as human and frustrate the crap out of yourself

[MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] Yup! I've jokingly called it 'personality mapping'. It's the attempt to literally walk a mile in someone elses shoes by using *their* value codex (their value logic system, basically) instead of your own in a given situation. But that means you need to map out their background, their values and their current situation extensively. And, you need the ability to unplug your own and insert theirs. It's a lot of work and a labour of love

 

[giorgaros2]

If i remember though someone said that Fi is objective for him. (an INFP ?)

 

[Poki]

Common ground, at last!
I don't consider it hell - to me, it is perfection.

Fi works with individual, subjective information - this is just part of that. To deny it is to deny yourself as human and frustrate the crap out of yourself

[MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] Yup! I've jokingly called it 'personality mapping'. It's the attempt to literally walk a mile in someone elses shoes by using *their* value codex (their value logic system, basically) instead of your own in a given situation. But that means you need to map out their background, their values and their current situation extensively. And, you need the ability to unplug your own and insert theirs. It's a lot of work and a labour of love

I don't have to do that, you are all defined in little portions of the bigger mapping and all are accessible and mapped individually along side mine. It's not instant to build, it takes time with person, questions, watching because I even go beyond the persons understanding and have that mapped as who you believe you are and who you really are. It's what i do with everything in life

 

[Amargith]

If i remember though someone said that Fi is objective for him. (an INFP ?)

I guess you could argue that the system itself is objective, as it is just a tool. But the second you infuse it with personal values, it becomes a machine that works with subjective matter. As I stated before, though, you could technically learn to uncouple your own values and insert someone elses, temporarily (and depending on your skill, this stuff will be limited compared to your own experience and can get tainted by your own shit if you're not emotionally neutral at the time). The thing is that most values and most living situations, past stories, current situations, etc, come back in a finite amount of patterns, so you can generalise from there and make educated predictions wrt to others which could somewhat hold objectively true? However, the devil, and this case true mastery lies in the individual and subjective details, imho.

/brainstorming

 

[giorgaros2]

For some reason , Fi users have difficulty understanding me though , is it because i repress Fi so much?

 

[Amargith]

For some reason , Fi users have difficulty understanding me though , is it because i repress Fi so much?

Ime with ENTPs (I have the same problem, from the other side, btw), it's due to the fact that they're not always aware of the emotional triggers they use in their word use. They like to go for shock value and their brand of truth, and enjoy fencing and debating and especially one-upping. That often leads to the use of words that have an emotional value that can be really upsetting to those of us that are more focused on that (think kill vs murder, for an example on emotional value of a word). That stuff tends to trigger Fi to no end which then leads to misunderstandings.

Second, which also contributes to misunderstandings, is that obviously, Ti-users want to argue the rational argument of the topic whereas Fi-users usually go for the value argument.

For instance, arguing about the best use of lab animals. A Ti user might instantly dive into the science of the benefit of having white mice be similar to us in a lot of ways, making them ideal test subjects.

...to an Fi-user, the dilemma of inflicting pain and imprisonment on other creatures for our own selfish gains is likely to be a lot more 'urgent' to discuss than which animal to use when.

It happens all to often that when a topic is suggested and not specified enough, both sides of the argument (the Ti and Fi perspective) intermingle and the people effectively talk next to each other and get frustrated that the other side doesn't see their point. That often leads to accusations of irrationality, stupidity and one-upping games from one side and accusations of cruelty, being devoid of morality and being offended on the other side.

It helps to be aware of what you're in fact discussing and sticking to arguments relevant to that side of the argument. It also helps to learn how to word your communication to the best of your ability so it will relay properly to your target audience. When I first started talking to Ti-users, they non-stop badgered me about never making a solid, logical argument. I tended to Ne-hop and expect them to give me the benefit of the doubt and read between the lines (aka showing your work vs giving the result in math class). I learned to put in (to me, irrelevant) qualifiers such as 'ime', 'imo', 'usually', 'generally speaking', and so on just to get them off my ass

TI-users could technically learn the same thing by using disclaimers at first (when they're still learning) and eventually learning the nuances of the wording they're using and the emotional effect they're likely to convey to their audience.

 

[Poki]

I guess you could argue that the system itself is objective, as it is just a tool. But the second you infuse it with personal values, it becomes a machine that works with subjective matter. As I stated before, though, you could technically learn to uncouple your own values and insert someone elses, temporarily (and depending on your skill, this stuff will be limited compared to your own experience and can get tainted by your own shit if you're not emotionally neutral at the time). The thing is that most values and most living situations, past stories, current situations, etc, come back in a finite amount of patterns, so you can generalise from there and make educated predictions wrt to others which could somewhat hold objectively true? However, the devil, and this case true mastery lies in the individual and subjective details, imho.

/brainstorming

Stereotyping, cross-refencing, etc. All play, some jump sooner then others based on subjective statistics. Got into an argument...I only say argument because of disagreement. Not degree of emotions. Really had no deeper emotions as neither of us really cared much. But it was over getting hiv from a mesquito bite. I said the transmission is physically possihle, but probably very very slim. She then researched prior to her arguing that the chance is crazy slim and really close to zero. So she said...see you cant. I argued yes you can, it just said you can. She couldn't argue that she read it's possible, but insisted it's not since the possibility is so slim. Truth vs statistic generalization. To me it's inaccurate data to read it's possible, but not even remotely probable and say it's not possible. This is not logical at all...you know what she is Fi user, but I promise you it's not Fi speaking and saying illogical things. It went so far as to say it's like a million times more likely to win the lotto or something. I would still equate it more to an Ne with a weak Si that is not logical then an Fi thing. I actually find more Fi dom people fairly logical and reasonable, it's usually opinion people argue with as "not logical" as if opinion has to be logical. Those must be the people who think common sense is true by default. Yeah, common sense said the world was flat among a million other retarded thngs. So when someone says it's common sense it means nothing to me other then ooohhhhh...you are average in regard to your thinking.

I know lots of T people who do stupid illogical shit

 

[Coriolis]

Ime with ENTPs (I have the same problem, from the other side, btw), it's due to the fact that they're not always aware of the emotional triggers they use in their word use. They like to go for shock value and their brand of truth, and enjoy fencing and debating and especially one-upping. That often leads to the use of words that have an emotional value that can be really upsetting to those of us that are more focused on that (think kill vs murder, for an example on emotional value of a word). That stuff tends to trigger Fi to no end which then leads to misunderstandings.

Second, which also contributes to misunderstandings, is that obviously, Ti-users want to argue the rational argument of the topic whereas Fi-users usually go for the value argument.

For instance, arguing about the best use of lab animals. A Ti user might instantly dive into the science of the benefit of having white mice be similar to us in a lot of ways, making them ideal test subjects.

...to an Fi-user, the dilemma of inflicting pain and imprisonment on other creatures for our own selfish gains is likely to be a lot more 'urgent' to discuss than which animal to use when.

How does all work with Te-users, then? We have Fi much higher in our stacking than do ENTPs, for example, but are still often accused of the sort of linguistic insensitivity you describe. I can see the same discussion playing out the same way with an E/INTJ.

 

[Amargith]

How does all work with Te-users, then? We have Fi much higher in our stacking than do ENTPs, for example, but are still often accused of the sort of linguistic insensitivity you describe. I can see the same discussion playing out the same way with an E/INTJ.

It's easier for a fellow Fi-user to gloss over Te-'insensitivity' because it's easier to see where they're coming from - even if you don't agree. It's harder with NTPs because you don't actually share those processes so it becomes a lot easier to feel like they're either trolling you or are out to get you.

I've seen the same happen with NFJs and NTJs though - where the Te is so brusk and to the point, and so not considerate of people or the social niceties that NFJs just...refuse to even engage the conversation. There's this sense of 'I'm not even going to waste my breath trying to communicate with this person who obviously has no clue as to what the rules of engagement are.' And they're not...wrong. Te doesn't give a crap about social niceties. Unfortunately, NFJs tend to use that as a means to keep the conversation going and pleasant for everyone, and not actually focusing on your partner and caring about their comfort in the conversation is generally considered kind of...disrespectful. It's something you normally do to people you don't give a crap about, that you don't want to waste the energy on. So the assumption of disrespect is easily made.

Both go back to the emotional cues in the conversation. I have to think this through some more, but so far it seems that for NFPs it's about the emotional value of the words whereas for NFJs it's more the..ehm, sentence formulation and the proper social distance, I think, though I'm sure the two overlap.

It would also be interesting to see the comparison the other way. I got mostly smacked about by NTPs to clean up my logic, make it more precise, show my reasoning and plug the holes in my arguments, mostly by using qualifiers (aka the nitpicky thing Ti does). So how is it that NFJs annoy you guys in arguments? What is it that you're likely to 'correct' them on or misunderstand them on? What would you have them improve in order to make sounder arguments according to Te-rules?

 

[Poki]

It's easier for a fellow Fi-user to gloss over Te-'insensitivity' because it's easier to see where they're coming from - even if you don't agree. It's harder with NTPs because you don't actually share those processes so it becomes a lot easier to feel like they're either trolling you or are out to get you.

I've seen the same happen with NFJs and NTJs though - where the Te is so brusk and to the point, and so not considerate of people or the social niceties that NFJs just...refuse to even engage the conversation. There's this sense of 'I'm not even going to waste my breath trying to communicate with this person who obviously has no clue as to what the rules of engagement are.' And they're not...wrong. Te doesn't give a crap about social niceties. Unfortunately, NFJs tend to use that as a means to keep the conversation going and pleasant for everyone, and not actually focusing on your partner and caring about their comfort in the conversation is generally considered kind of...disrespectful. It's something you normally do to people you don't give a crap about, that you don't want to waste the energy on. So the assumption of disrespect is easily made.

Both go back to the emotional cues in the conversation. I have to think this through some more, but so far it seems that for NFPs it's about the emotional value of the words whereas for NFJs it's more the..ehm, sentence formulation and the proper social distance, I think, though I'm sure the two overlap.

It would also be interesting to see the comparison the other way. I got mostly smacked about by NTPs to clean up my logic, make it more precise, show my reasoning and plug the holes in my arguments, mostly by using qualifiers (aka the nitpicky thing Ti does). So how is it that NFJs annoy you guys in arguments? What is it that you're likely to 'correct' them on or misunderstand them on? What would you have them improve in order to make sounder arguments according to Te-rules?

I have no issues with Fe guilt trips played on me. But it simply makes me see them as bitchy, anal, stuborn, pushy and annoying. If that's how they want to be perceived and judged then by all means throw it out there

 

[Coriolis]

It would also be interesting to see the comparison the other way. I got mostly smacked about by NTPs to clean up my logic, make it more precise, show my reasoning and plug the holes in my arguments, mostly by using qualifiers (aka the nitpicky thing Ti does). So how is it that NFJs annoy you guys in arguments? What is it that you're likely to 'correct' them on or misunderstand them on? What would you have them improve in order to make sounder arguments according to Te-rules?

I don't know. I know very few INFJs, and don't seem to run into trouble having debate-like discussions with them. Perhaps it's because we are usually discussing topics like religion and morality where I don't apply the same Te yardsticks that I would to technical or even political discussions. Their arguments are appropriately subjective, and though I will call them on internal inconsistency, they happily rise to the challenge and explain why to them it isn't a contradiction, or perhaps why it is simply a paradox that they accept as a matter of faith. I can see that, in their own way, they are as goal-oriented as I am, they just have different kinds of goals.

The people I really have trouble with are those that put process over outcomes: means justify the ends thinking. I think this represents a fundamental values disconnect, in the sense that effectiveness is not even a criterion or desire for them. They don't have what I would call goals. The process IS their goal.

I have, however, had the sorts of discussion you used as an example, something like focusing on the scientific utility of lab animals vs. the moral implications of using animals in this way. I'm sure you can guess which side of the conversation I take. I don't know the types of the other people involved, though.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Funny. 'Cause Fe annoys me. I think you all need to learn to be a little less "objective" because that's just another way to say you're:

1. Too stupid/scared to come up with your own value system and rely on "wiser" people to do that for you. Like organized religion or whatever societal rules exist in your area.

2. Highly judgemental of anyone that steps outside those rules, like people who are new to that environment or were raised with different values.

Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe try not to make broad sweeping generalizations even when it's only the unhealthy people that bother you. Oh wait, Ne-dom. That's why you do that.

WHAT I ACTUALLY MEAN:
The point of all this was merely a dose of your own medicine. I'm not actually interested in debating Fi vs Fe or any other function. I'm interested in people not being bullies to people who share my type but are unhealthy. If they are unhealthy, you kicking them for being down will only make it worse. Maybe let Fi doms who are healthy help Fi doms who aren't, instead of giving them "life lessons" to be unhealthy in your type's way.

Hey! You can show him a lesson without critisizing Ne as a main function. Im Ne-Fi and have nothing to do with OP.

Also, all....every single ENTP I have ever met, has a problem with Fi. There's nothing to do about this and they need to grow up and be less obtuse/offensive/arrogant.

 

[Amargith]

I don't know. I know very few INFJs, and don't seem to run into trouble having debate-like discussions with them. Perhaps it's because we are usually discussing topics like religion and morality where I don't apply the same Te yardsticks that I would to technical or even political discussions. Their arguments are appropriately subjective, and though I will call them on internal inconsistency, they happily rise to the challenge and explain why to them it isn't a contradiction, or perhaps why it is simply a paradox that they accept as a matter of faith. I can see that, in their own way, they are as goal-oriented as I am, they just have different kinds of goals.

The people I really have trouble with are those that put process over outcomes: means justify the ends thinking. I think this represents a fundamental values disconnect, in the sense that effectiveness is not even a criterion or desire for them. They don't have what I would call goals. The process IS their goal.

I have, however, had the sorts of discussion you used as an example, something like focusing on the scientific utility of lab animals vs. the moral implications of using animals in this way. I'm sure you can guess which side of the conversation I take. I don't know the types of the other people involved, though.

I've had some time to think and I believe the way that NFJs get smacked by NTJs in arguments is through critiquing them for actually making emotionally charged appeals instead of sticking to facts, as well as avoiding reality (and therefore sabotaging efficiency in dealing with it) and the situation as it is right now. Aka, Te at its best - dealing with the external obstacles ahead. Interestingly, emotional appeals seem to be icing on the cake, and no problem when the actual situation is acknowledged and addressed as well.

What I mean to say is - while NFJs may very well acknowledge in an unspoken way what the situation is, they may focus their rhetoric instead on inspiring the masses to band together and solve the problem with combined manpower. The focus becomes a kind of tribal vision. NTJs will demand that they actually show 'proof' by acknowledging the situation, its dire circumstances and the external obstacles ahead before they can get onboard (which is left out as already understood and bears no need in repeating as it might bring down the inspiration and unity buzz they're trying to generate). It needs to be said aloud, basically, in order to guarantee the work will be done most efficiently and without wasting resources - to know you're all on the same page.

It's basically the equivalent of Ti doms demanding I show proof for the holes I left in my argumentation - where I felt they could give me the benefit of the doubt and easily intuit what I meant. Ti needs that stuff to be visible, so they can be precise and exact in developing the idea, critiquing it and testing it for soundness against their internal standards. Each comma has to be in the right place, before they would consider adopting it into their Ti and building on it, since it would be a lot of work to integrate.

Similarly, Fi wants the emotional intent of a conversation to correctly reflect the person's motivations and integrity, so they know what kind of person they have in front of them. And again, that needs to be spelled out - Ive had ENTPs be utterly surprised that I needed them to word things in a way that made it clear they had no malicious intent, after all - even though i didn't know them very well. It is a given to them (through Fe) that they would have the groups/others best interests at heart and is not relevant to the current discussion, but they don't realise that they display all the red flags of a person who would harm others in their word use and behaviour. To verify their values and who they are, that information is highly relevant.

And Fe wants the conversational dynamic to reflect the respect that exists between the two people involved in the conversation. They too need that respect to be upfront and visible in order to feel comfortable in the conversation, as they are focused on the harmonious dynamic between people and read from there where they stand with others. Not knowing that will make the conversation unpleasant and not worth having - especially if the lack of respect surpasses the 'polite norm' you're to take with strangers. You become a person who's opinions and ideas they're no longer interested in since you cannot even recognise the value of the most basic forms of polite interaction with others. How are they to trust your judgement or opinions on anything else?

...NFJs, is this in *any* way the way you've experienced those interactions? Or am I way off base with my observations?