Trying to zero in on my type, after looking into functions more. Help please.

[Mal12345]

Because maybe... he doesn't have a strong preference towards judging as his dominant function?

Judging isn't a function, it's a lifestyle preference.

 

[Entropic]

Judging isn't a function, it's a lifestyle preference.

T/F are judging functions because you use them to judge information gathered by N/S that are perceiving functions.

 

[Eric B]

That entire section of the OP shows how he interprets or interpreted functions. I didn't find anything useful in determining type from that.

I was going to point that out too. It's not like it was some official statements or something, so the descriptions of Fi, especially, were what were based on stuff like "feeling strongly", and that is only partly true, but is often overgeneralized.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

I was going to point that out too. It's not like it was some official statements or something, so the descriptions of Fi, especially, were what were based on stuff like "feeling strongly", and that is only partly true, but is often overgeneralized.

Can you elaborate further on that?

 

[Eric B]

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61569&page=3&p=2056053&viewfull=1#post2056053 and the whole exchange after that. (I got these two threads mixed up; .e. which posts were which thread, and thought you were over there as well. But that's where I elaborate on the misunderstandings of Fi).

 

[Entropic]

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61569&page=3&p=2056053&viewfull=1#post2056053 and the whole exchange after that. (I got these two threads mixed up; .e. which posts were which thread, and thought you were over there as well. But that's where I elaborate on the misunderstandings of Fi).

Just reacting a bit here but since when did you become the authority of how Fi operates over an actual Fi dom? Unless you actually know the feeling of Fi, that is, how Fi feels like, I think if anything, it's you who most likely don't get Fi rather than the feeling of Fi being over-emphasized. Fi is very much a feeling. It's just not a feeling in how we generally understand the word because it's not a feeling of say, sadness, happiness or love. Rather, it's a feeling of whether something feels right or wrong, good or bad.

To emphasize this, I am going to use an example that most people actually think is Ni but is Fi, and that is when Han Solo says "I have a bad feeling about this." Why? Can't Ni provoke feelings? Actually not in the context that is occurring, because the reason Han Solo is even expressing what he's expressing is because there's a sense of wrong-ness to what's going on. It doesn't feel right. This situation doesn't feel right. Him being there isn't right. He has a bad feeling because he shouldn't be there, he should not have gotten involved and it just doesn't feel right. It's a bad feeling. It's Fi over Ni because Ni would be an insight something like, "I finally know why I'm here!" Fi in contrast is about what feels good or right for you.

Not because I actually genuinely believe you'll understand this (most likely not as a Ti dom) but anyway.

 

[Eric B]

We're arguing over definitions of a logical system, so if anything, that would be more the domain of Ti. Whether Fi dom. or not, Fi is said to be very difficult to explain. (As is Ni). Those two are the most misunderstood). So people will touch upon the whole "right or wrong" thing, but then turn it into an overgeneralization where anyone who ever thinks something is right or wrong, is "using Fi", and therefore must prefer it.

Feeling (both introverted and extraverted) is a judgment function, Meaning a rational decision-making perspective. Han Solo's "feeling" is more a means of taking in information, or perception. So Ni would be more likely. There is a subconscious pattern he is likely sensing in the situation, that tells him that it isn't right, and being there isn't right. There's no rational principle [the elements of judging functions, basically] or anything like that there.
Now, if he says "I see something that isn't right, and I don't think I should be somewhere where things aren't right, then he's making a rational decision, that is a judgment, that might be Fi. (Where I might ignore it, using logic only, and that is what Fi unconsciousness is like).

Right there, you mentioned "right or wrong", which touches upon the correct definition, but then veered into the common equivocation with the general meaning of "feelings".
Fi is not so much about feeling "feelings" (which is the common misconception I was addressing), but being more aware of them, so that we make decisions based on them. (We all "feel" them).

 

[Entropic]

We're arguing over definitions of a logical system, so if anything, that would be more the domain of Ti. Whether Fi dom. or not, Fi is said to be very difficult to explain. (As is Ni). Those two are the most misunderstood). So people will touch upon the whole "right or wrong" thing, but then turn it into an overgeneralization where anyone who ever thinks something is right or wrong, is "using Fi", and therefore must prefer it.

Yes, Fi good and bad is different to morals but they're not exclusive either. And I explained Fi in a way I think is very simple to understand and I provided a practical and known example to exemplify. I was saying that you made it sound like Fi has nothing to do with feelings at all but that isn't true and I also further explained the difference between the feeling of Fi and feelings as a whole.

It really can't be simpler than this.

Feeling (both introverted and extraverted) is a judgment function, Meaning a rational decision-making perspective. Han Solo's "feeling" is more a means of taking in information, or perception. So Ni would be more likely. There is a subconscious pattern he is likely sensing in the situation, that tells him that it isn't right, and being there isn't right. There's no rational principle [the elements of judging functions, basically] or anything like that there.

Feeling as a function, especially Fi, can often be mistaken for intuition in particular since Fi, just like intuition, can create hunches and so on. I already outlined why this is Fi and not Ni. He's not intaking information, he's clearly judging information. Why otherwise call it bad? Saying that it's good or bad, that's a judgement. Perception would simply be, "this is a situation". But in order to evaluate the situation itself, is it dangerous, it is positive, is it logical? we need to turn to our judging functions.

Now, if he says "I see something that isn't right, and I don't think I should be somewhere where things aren't right, then he's making a rational decision, that is a judgment, that might be Fi. (Where I might ignore it, using logic only, and that is what Fi unconsciousness is like).

He doesn't need to say it like this because all this is captured in his expression. Why would he otherwise even say it's a bad feeling to begin with? It's a bad feeling because he, personally, experiences the situation as bad. This in turn implies that he does not want to be there, that he should not have done whatever action that led him there and so on. Why would he want to be in a bad situation? It doesn't feel right for him to be there, it's bad. He should not have gone. I get that you don't get it, you just filter it out, but what you're showing here is just a poor understanding of the system. It clearly doesn't help you to get Fi, that's for sure.

Right there, you mentioned "right or wrong", which touches upon the correct definition, but then veered into the common equivocation with the general meaning of "feelings".
Fi is not so much about feeling "feelings" (which is the common misconception I was addressing), but being more aware of them, so that we make decisions based on them. (We all "feel" them).

Nope, sorry, it's not. It's not about being aware of feelings of love, hatred or happiness. No, the feeling of Fi is different. Again, it's simply a feeling of good and bad, right or wrong. For example, I can go to a party and after a while I can have this feeling of "this doesn't feel right". The people present are not the ones I like. The music being played is the one I like. And so on. It can be a myriad of reasons why being there doesn't feel right. What's important however, is the feeling itself in this example. It doesn't feel right and as a result, I'll probably leave. That's the feeling of Fi. Similarly, I can go to a party and feel "this feels so good" because the people are right, the music is right and so on. It's kind of like the feeling when people say, "it's so good to see you again." This is Fi and this is what you need to understand. You cannot treat Fi as Ti.

 

[Thalassa]

Actually it is being aware of feelings of love, hate, happiness, despair, empathy and being very adept at analyzing or interpreting what they mean on a deeper level, which is why some people say it's a "deeper" function than Fe, like Ti is to Te, analyzing the systems and reasons instead of just doing what works.

That's why young Fi types seem so self-absorbed and selfish because they've got to figure themselves out before they can start extend it to the rest of humanity. I think what young Fi types call empathy is actually just projection of what they would want or feel on to other people, and it's only with maturity that the Fi dom/aux actually starts developing real actual empathy by interpreting other people's genuine feelings.

Yes, it's about things feeling right or wrong, and having a system of ethics (and an Fi dom can have a twisted sense of ethics, just like any feeling type, an Fi type can stay locked somewhere in mid-maturity).

An unhealthy Fi dom is a sight to behold. "I am unhappy. This all feels wrong to me. Wah." Jung says the unhealthy or immature Fi type is vindictive, meglomaniacal, and basically has delusions of selfish grandiosity about their own ethics or wishes.

Usually though it's milder than that, just manifesting in a form of vaguely childish, cranky self-absorption, masked in a cloak of wide-eyed sensitivity.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, "good and bad" are generally associated with Feeling (where "correct/incorrect" would be more Thinking). But what you're describing sound sounds like undifferentiated Feeling coupled with iNtuition. There is still no rational process there; it is totally irrational.
That is the definition of judgment vs perception; Jung's original terms for them, in fact. So this would be an area where the "good/bad" judgment is from an unconscious "Feeling", that is at this point, not differentiated.
Again, as was described to me, undifferentiated functions remain tied to the emotions. And that is what you are describing: emotions that produce this F-like sense of "bad", but does not fit the j-defining criteria of being rational. It's just an "emotionally freighted image". When you say "he" judges, that implies the conscious ego. But that's not what's happening there, at least not initially.
Now, if the person prefers Fi (or one of the complexes brings it to the surface for the other types), then he will bring it into consciousness as a rational decision making process, such as the example I gave.

 

[Entropic]

Actually it is being aware of feelings of love, hate, happiness, despair, empathy and being very adept at analyzing or interpreting what they mean on a deeper level, which is why some people say it's a "deeper" function than Fe, like Ti is to Te, analyzing the systems and reasons instead of just doing what works.

I realize I misread Eric B's last comment but regardless, my point still stands in that there's still feeling involved regarding Fi that extends beyond the feeling of emulating what others feel through empathy which I argue is still not so much a feeling as it is a logical process in many instances. It doesn't necessarily have to result in feeling anything particular in itself, I think.

Anyway, aside that, I rather not have a discussion about the exact nature of Fi with you specifically because you're an Fi dom because it tends to just result in a clusterfuck because there's also the Fi evaluative process involved where Fi types just... don't get other people's Fi. Because that person's Fi doesn't match up their view of Fi.

Seen it happen too much on PersC and I'm pretty sure you know what I'm referring to. Not because I don't mind talking about Fi but I wonder how fruitful it'd be.

 

[Entropic]

Yes, "good and bad" are generally associated with Feeling (where "correct/incorrect" would be more Thinking). But what you're describing sound sounds like undifferentiated Feeling coupled with iNtuition. There is still no rational process there; it is totally irrational.
That is the definition of judgment vs perception; Jung's original terms for them, in fact. So this would be an area where the "good/bad" judgment is from an unconscious "Feeling", that is at this point, not differentiated.

I never once implied, assuming you're referring to the Han Solo example, that his feeling is particularly differentiated. I am however implying that his judgement in this very scenario seems introverted because as you note, in this very scene he doesn't seem to first check his feelings with the people he's there with which I think would be an Fe thing to do. Than Han Solo could potentially Fe throughout the rest of the entire Star Wars series which would thus imply a somewhat undifferentiated F function since it doesn't seem to prefer any attitude strongly, but in this very example it's clearly introverted in terms of judgement.

Again, as was described to me, undifferentiated functions remain tied to the emotions. And that is what you are describing: emotions that produce this F-like sense of "bad", but does not fit the j-defining criteria of being rational. It's just an "emotionally freighted image". When you say "he" judges, that implies the conscious ego. But that's not what's happening there, at least not initially.

He would still need to perceive, we all do, but the question becomes where our focus lies.

Now, if the person prefers Fi (or one of the complexes brings it to the surface for the other types), then he will bring it into consciousness as a rational decision making process, such as the example I gave.

Doesn't have to be that elaborate. It's not like you always go around and think, "This is logical/correct for XYZ reasons", rather, just knowing it's logical should be sufficient, no? And are you implying my feeling is not differentiated then considering that the examples I gave were examples of my reasoning process? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Thalassa]

I realize I misread Eric B's last comment but regardless, my point still stands in that there's still feeling involved regarding Fi that extends beyond the feeling of emulating what others feel through empathy which I argue is still not so much a feeling as it is a logical process in many instances. It doesn't necessarily have to result in feeling anything particular in itself, I think.

It's not a logical process for me. When I was six or seven years old, I could see disappointment on the face of some old person on the Price Is Right on tv and feel sorry for them. I feel physically sick if someone hurts an animal, I can't even bear it. I knew when my grumpy, non-expressive ISTJ grandfather had sadness or despair in his eyes. All before puberty. Not a logical process.

In my teens, I became unduly self-absorbed about my own feelings (however, considering the life I've had, it's been in my best interest to self-examine) and would "wallow" in Feelings...like the beauty of something aesthetic, or I even had that "sadness is beautiful" trip at 15 or so (which I grew out of once I left home and got more life experience, sadness is not beautiful, but nostalgia or mild longing might be under certain circumstances, it's more of an honoring of what was, or what could be instead of actual "sadness.")

By young adulthood I was a defender of the weak and down trodden, but had also developed an unhealthy inferior Te-ish tone of bratty boot stomping indignation. I suddenly had clear, rational definable ethics starting around junior year of high school. Things which could be expressed in what could be called a slightly more logical manner.

But it still wasn't until my late twenties and early thirties that I began developing real perspective, and progressively sharpening my ethics more and more. I wonder if this is just a never ending process of moral maturity, especially given in my case, where I've suffered abuse, and therefore been distracted from the "normal" maturity process by my own need to self-heal.

Which is why Fi types can also be seen as so artistically or poetically or philosophically creative, because even when their ethics are not fully mature, or they are emotionally unhealthy, they can still move other people with their creations that strike some deep nerve in other people. And that's the power of Fi too, even when it's not expressed in definable rational ethics.

It's the power of feeling. But unlike the charisma to sway a crowd, it's more like dong things from such a deep and authentic place that it strikes the same nerve in others, and so it helps us all to grow, and hopefully also the person doing the creating, learning from the process.

Like my adventures in foruming.

Anyway, aside that, I rather not have a discussion about the exact nature of Fi with you specifically because you're an Fi dom because it tends to just result in a clusterfuck because there's also the Fi evaluative process involved where Fi types just... don't get other people's Fi. Because that person's Fi doesn't match up their view of Fi.

Seen it happen too much on PersC and I'm pretty sure you know what I'm referring to. Not because I don't mind talking about Fi but I wonder how fruitful it'd be.

I do.

 

[Mal12345]

I realize I misread Eric B's last comment

You seem to do that a lot.

 

[Entropic]

You seem to do that a lot.

No, that was the only time I think I've ever actually misread anything on this forum.

 

[Eric B]

I never once implied, assuming you're referring to the Han Solo example, that his feeling is particularly differentiated. I am however implying that his judgement in this very scenario seems introverted because as you note, in this very scene he doesn't seem to first check his feelings with the people he's there with which I think would be an Fe thing to do. Than Han Solo could potentially Fe throughout the rest of the entire Star Wars series which would thus imply a somewhat undifferentiated F function since it doesn't seem to prefer any attitude strongly, but in this very example it's clearly introverted in terms of judgement.
He would still need to perceive, we all do, but the question becomes where our focus lies.
Doesn't have to be that elaborate. It's not like you always go around and think, "This is logical/correct for XYZ reasons", rather, just knowing it's logical should be sufficient, no? And are you implying my feeling is not differentiated then considering that the examples I gave were examples of my reasoning process? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My point there was not so much whether you implied his Feeling was particularly differentiated, but if you acknowledge it was not, then you can't really use that as an example of Fi. When we speak of what Fi is, we're generally assuming it's differentiated. Else, it loses its character. What makes it Fi. So, again, you see a "feeling" that something is "bad", yet there is no rational conscious decision to differentiate this from the emotions, as a form of the "feeling" function.

 

[Mal12345]

No, that was the only time I think I've ever actually misread anything on this forum.

Yes you have, you just don't think you have.

When you wrote "judging as his dominant function," that means J is his dominant function. This is wrong, so of course I corrected it. If you meant to say T or F is his dominant function, then you should have said so in the first place.

 

[Entropic]

Yes you have, you just don't think you have.

When you wrote "judging as his dominant function," that means J is his dominant function. This is wrong, so of course I corrected it. If you meant to say T or F is his dominant function, then you should have said so in the first place.

When I say judging as dominant function I am clearly referring t T/F because T/F are judging functions. We use it to judge incoming data collected by our perception functions. This is completely irrelevant to the MBTI letter code J/P which describes something entirely different, namely the function of the first extraverted function in the type.

In other words, you're not correcting anything because there's nothing to correct. You're in fact the one being wrong, factually here.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

It's not a logical process for me. When I was six or seven years old, I could see disappointment on the face of some old person on the Price Is Right on tv and feel sorry for them. I feel physically sick if someone hurts an animal, I can't even bear it. I knew when my grumpy, non-expressive ISTJ grandfather had sadness or despair in his eyes. All before puberty. Not a logical process.

Can't Fe users also do this? Albeit, ones that are higher in hierarchy.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, but the difference is that for the Fe type, they will "emote" directly based on the other person's reaction, while for Fi, it will be from referencing one's inner state and matching it to what the other person is expressing.
This is what I was saying; that the two are pretty similar or can do the same things; only the reference point (internal or external) is different.