Uumlau answers your questions about Fi

[uumlau]

Nary a unicorn did I long for (well not counting when I was five and wanted to actually be a unicorn)-until I came to type C. Then it was fun to stumble into the stereotype. But my user name then-Happy puppy, ah, well that was from day one. When not an incinerating bitch or hyperanalytical ENTP groupie, I am like a little kid, galloping through life. A happy puppy with big, stupid, hopeful eyes, just wanting to play, love and be loved, full of silly.

Analytically:
Does the unicorn stereotype ring true for infps or just enfps? Seems more like enfps-but please correct if I have remembered incorrectly.

The "unicorn" bit is more about the very strong desire to be happy, and a tendency to indulge in fantasy when real life happiness is scarce. Your "happy puppy" theme is very much the same thing.

A real question:
What are Fi values? Can you list some concrete examples of Fi values?

I don't think you can differentiate Fi values from non-Fi values. It's more a matter of how an Fi-user would weigh the values differently. When making an important decision, my personal value would usually take precedence; even if it clashes with the community standards.

I think of "Fi values" as being overarching axioms, analogous to "parallel lines don't intersect." The Fi feelings/readings/interpretations all derive from these very particular axioms. The really funny part is that you "just know" that an axiom has been violated, but it takes a while to figure out "why." It all interlinks in a subjective way, and it takes time to parse through and interpret it and verbalize it coherently (with Te for example). All of the Fi judgments of good/bad/right/wrong are based on the Fi axioms, thus they are entirely derivative. That's part of the reason why you need to drop your prior concepts of right/wrong when reevaluating Fi axioms.

Now, you can't just choose your Fi-axioms willy-nilly. If they're inconsistent, you'll make yourself completely miserable. E.g., "Axiom 1: I should be able to eat anything I want whenever I want. Axiom 2: I want to be healthy and slim and sexy." I wouldn't recommend adopting either axiom, of course, I'm just demonstrating in a very obvious way how Fi-choices can be very bad without even being particularly evil.

Te has a very important role, here. Te is able to objectively determine that your axioms suck. It's no good at figuring out what they "should be," but it's great for telling Fi to go back to the drawing board and try again. It can help you see the implications of a set of values before deciding to adopt them. Ne, for xNFPs, can serve a similar role, if well-trained, for more quickly identifying potential downfalls than the slightly-too-objective Te.

Now for an example of a real Fi value of mine. There's a gazillion ways to phrase it. (Wow, "gazillion" doesn't make my spell checker barf!) One way to phrase this particular value, which I've referenced before, is that "love is more than a feeling."

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm_-sW4Vktw"]Ne moment ... [/YOUTUBE]

More precisely, love is an ability, a choice, an act of will. It's bigger than that, though. Every feeling is as much a choice or an act of will as love: it's just easiest to see with love.

So, whenever I see a love story where two people just "fall in love" and enter into all sorts of tragedy because they let that love dictate asinine choices, it makes me cringe. It violates this core Fi value of mine. That is not to say I do not understand how they feel, or how it all happens. It is that it makes me upset to see such poor choices being made, that they could be so much happier by making ever so slightly different choices (which is where the Fi "nuances" to which Satine was referring come in). They could still completely acknowledge and fulfill their love, and well ... not fuck it up.

I should note that this is a particularly INTJ Fi value, in that it values the Te analytical side to make sure that you don't let your feelings make you do something stupid. INTJs tend to take it too far, and just not listen to feelings very much. My personal axiom, restated again, is more akin to "listen to your feelings, then come up with a plan to make your dreams come true." (It's all the same axiom, stated in lots of not-quite-complete ways.)

A somewhat contrary, but equally valid Fi-value would be "I will follow love wherever it takes me." In this case, one is not as worried about messing up, and more worried about missing opportunities. One with such a value, and holding other consistent values, would still feel bad about messing up, but always retain the hope that the next time will be better. It's a good value for gaining experience, while the "don't mess up" INTJ version is more risk-averse.

Then things can be adjusted and nuanced even more, taking a bit of both: e.g., "don't take steps that unnecessarily eliminate opportunities for love" combined with "don't take steps that will obviously result in catastrophic failure with respect to love." As things become more nuanced and precise and personalized, it becomes much more difficult to describe.

As a final example, one of my other Fi rules is, "always express warmth and kindness when it is genuinely felt, don't hide it." After having seen how other INTJs interact with me, I've felt their tentativeness as rather icily cold: I hadn't realized that's how it came across. It was like seeing myself from the outside, and I didn't like what I saw. I resolved that I wouldn't do that anymore. The only thing holding me back was my natural shyness: I didn't want to offend by being "too affectionate" or "too forward." I realized that, as an INTJ, I really needed to err in the other direction: I'm in absolutely no danger of being perceived as too affectionate or too forward.

All of these Fi-rules are very fundamental. They don't get very specific, e.g., "always take out the trash without being asked to do it." That might be a "rule" that is implied by one of the core axioms, but it would never be a core axiom/value itself. The Fi rules address fundamental attitudes toward life. It's all about who you are, what kind of person you are, what kind of choices do you make. What is it that makes you you? The rules get changed when you realize that you don't like something about yourself, and you want to change yourself. I decided to be more warm. It was an act of will. A choice. I saw that it would make me become more like I want to be.

Upon adopting the axiom and living with it and believing it, you learn whether it is right for you. it's possible to make a wrong choice. It is possible that there are implications that you did not foresee. It is possible that you cause yourself a great deal of pain. The pain, in particular, is why processing Fi requires a degree of resiliency (if not stubbornness, PB ): you need to face the pain to figure out what the heck is going wrong, because it's not obvious. You've chosen a bad axiom, but you don't know which one is wrong! They all work together, and it's slow work figuring out where the wrong choice lies.

And one last reminder: I'm using MBTI terms to express things that I've learned the hard way. I did not use MBTI to derive these conclusions, I'm just using MBTI as a common language to show others "where to look." I wouldn't use MBTI as a starting point for deriving the conclusions I make, but it's rather useful as a shorthand for conveying some very abstract ideas.

 

[William K]

All of these Fi-rules are very fundamental. They don't get very specific, e.g., "always take out the trash without being asked to do it." That might be a "rule" that is implied by one of the core axioms, but it would never be a core axiom/rule itself. The Fi rules address fundamental attitudes toward life. It's all about who you are, what kind of person you are, what kind of choices do you make. What is it that makes you you? The rules get changed when you realize that you don't like something about yourself, and you want to change yourself. I decided to be more warm. It was an act of will. A choice. I saw that it would make me become more like I want to be.

It's sort of like the roots of a hierarchy/tree of values? For example : "Life is valuable" would branch out to "I shall not harm another except in self-defense" and/or "Animals deserve to be treated in a humane way". The further away from the "root", the less firm these implied rules become and the less I would get offended if someone stepped on them?

It's quite funny but at my work cubicle I have "What I feel is convenient is the key" written on the whiteboard in answer to a question one of my colleagues asked. Upon further reflection, it does seem like that is one of my fundamentals.

 

[uumlau]

It's sort of like the roots of a hierarchy/tree of values? For example : "Life is valuable" would branch out to "I shall not harm another except in self-defense" and/or "Animals deserve to be treated in a humane way". The further away from the "root", the less firm these implied rules become and the less I would get offended if someone stepped on them?

It's quite funny but at my work cubicle I have "What I feel is convenient is the key" written on the whiteboard in answer to a question one of my colleagues asked. Upon further reflection, it does seem like that is one of my fundamentals.

Yes. The "branches" would be various "nuances" upon which you decide. In some cases, the there are branches that are simply never explored: you never have to decide whether you like gasoline-flavored ice cream, for example. (You might intuitively be sure that you wouldn't, but that's a different matter: my point is that the decision never comes into play.)

And yes, your whiteboard quote is a core value that you put into practice in various ways. And now that you know that it's a core value, you may end up deciding to modify it in various ways, especially if issues seem to come up with you put it into practice.

 

[Amargith]

I very much concur and like your explanation of the Unicorn fetish and the Fi axioms

Very helpful thoughts, which inspire a slightly different idea ...

Perhaps the whole "unicorns and bunnies and kittehs and hearts and flowers" stereotype of Fi users is a similar "faux Fi value?" That the difficult part is actually coming up with real Fi values?



I think it's still rather strong for INTJs, as well. The difference is that rather than using faux values or toning it down, we just shut it off (more or less, with predictably bad results). All different defenses for the same Fi issues.

Hadn't thought of that yet, but yes, very much so! Fi is more than aware that there's two sides to a coin. So projecting a sense of happiness and light emotions when you're not feeling it, can be done to self-soothe, to soothe others around you, to try and light at least a spark of inspiration in the room, but it often feels false and empty inside. Though it has its perks...just as the dark, gloomy faux values push people away and give you time to brood, this does the reverse: it attracts people and gets you the nurturing you need and often the 'fake it till you make it' principle comes true. In attracting people, you actually start to feel differently and you start to respond naturally in this lighthearted manner because those people lift your spirit. Same for the gloomy stuff: defending yourself isn't a bad thing as it gives you time to lick your wounds. In both cases though the duration of the use of 'faux' values to cope with life should be short. To get stuck in a vicious circle is to fase a life of emotional emptiness which ime translates into misery, which ever way you turn.

These 'faux' values often are also a caricature of our true self. Extremes, in a sense. Much like pendulum swinging too far. To temper that power behind it though isn't always easy (kinda like stopping a runaway horse). You need to ride it out like a wave in the ocean. As in physics, every action gives a reaction. The best thing to do is to stop what you're doing, stop feeding it energy. Stay still. With emotions this means, stop fighting them! Let the kinetic energy run its course and wear itself down, till once more, you find yourself. (holy shit, did I just use physics in a metaphor????? ). Same with the horse, all you can do with a runaway horse is try to stay on and try to somewhat steer it away from harm, but it will stop when it will stop. Nothing you can do about it. At least..that seems to be the case for NFPs. INTJs seem to 'turn it off', though I've found that with INTJs it festers for months if they aren't able to resolve the issue somehow.

 

[Thalassa]

It's nice of you to offer more explanations of Fi--maybe we should have a thread explaining Fe to Fi-ers as well, because it seems you guys are just as confused about Fe as we are about Fi.

Anyway, you say this as if Fe is somehow impure or tainted, or somehow not "real" because it comes from the outside. There's no "forcing" of anything; Fe users feel genuinely connected to and validated by sharing and relating to others via community-based feelings and ethics with people in the groups they feel part of. We're not all just lying to ourselves because we're in denial about Fi--we just derive ethics differently.

"What Fe will try to do for you"? This sounds like you think Fe is some sort of insidious plot to attack and destroy your true sense of self, but that's really not how it is for Fe users. Fi-ers often seem to think Fe is totally insincere and exists purely for strategic gain, but that's really not the case. (I suspect that many Fi-ers see it that way because that is the only way they know how to "use" Fe, as they rarely experience it genuinely.)

I actually think Fe is very warm and caring. There's something about it - particularly in IxFJs for some reason - that can really pull me in. I can be a little more bothered by ExFJs, because they're less subtle and more likely to be giving overt instructions (one of my best friends and one of my sisters are both ENFJ, another of my closest friends is ESFJ, so I'm not saying I don't like them). I think the sense of it being "fake" may actually be a sense of...jealousy?...on the part of Fi...not being jealous of the Fe user, but perhaps feeling betrayed by the Fe-ers need to please everyone, because Fi tends to be so focused? I think *healthy* Fe genuinely does care in a warm, nurturing, equalizing way and I don't think it's fake, I really don't. I've given this a lot of thought lately.

I'm really glad there are threads like this. More and more I'm becoming sick of the polarizing between the types in the functions, whether it's Fe vs. Fi or Ti vs. Te or S vs. N (certainly including my own part in it, which I seem to be growing past) CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

 

[sculpting]

So projecting a sense of happiness and light emotions when you're not feeling it, can be done to self-soothe, to soothe others around you, to try and light at least a spark of inspiration in the room, but it often feels false and empty inside.

Are you actually faking emo or are you making yourself happy based upon remembering earlier happy events?

Same with the horse, all you can do with a runaway horse is try to stay on and try to somewhat steer it away from harm, but it will stop when it will stop. Nothing you can do about it. At least..that seems to be the case for NFPs. INTJs seem to 'turn it off', though I've found that with INTJs it festers for months if they aren't able to resolve the issue somehow.

I always found that if you take the left rein, hold it low (although I have also heard run it under your left foot), then apply gentle but consistent pressure, you force the horses head to turn to the left. The horse must follow its head, thus will turn and begin to slow.

Yeah, i do that with emotions.

 

[Amargith]

Are you actually faking emo or are you making yourself happy based upon remembering earlier happy events?



I always found that if you take the left rein, hold it low (although I have also heard run it under your left foot), then apply gentle but consistent pressure, you force the horses head to turn to the left. The horse must follow its head, thus will turn and begin to slow.

Yeah, i do that with emotions.

Not so much faking emo, but providing it for the wrong reasons. In my case, because I feel people expect it from me, vibe out the urge, the expectation to be that way, or for that matter, because I need to feel that way myself, I like feeling that way and I'm somehow trying to jumpstart it. Though those motivations are understandable, they're not the product of you being your natural self at that point. The best 'emo' comes forth from embracing who you are and following your gut. In other words..you may do the right thing, but if it is done for the wrong reasons, the work becomes corrupted. Sometimes, you're able to rerail..other times, you just are left feeling empty, sick and don't know how it came about.

You're right, you can ease the horse into making smaller and smaller circles and stop like that. Personally, I only do that if I'm in a confined area (such as many people around) and I am not able to get away. Stress is something that demands a response from our body, and to be that extreme in your emo = stress. And nothing is worse for the body than to restrain stress, as it becomes lodged in your body. Our body was created to, if it stresses coz it sees a lion, run! Use that adrenaline that is released. However, these days we're often stressed in a way that doesn't get a way to express it (I'm thinking SPs rebel even more against this probably). Same is true in strong emotions. I prefer letting my horse galop freely, where it can do no harm so it can get rid of those feelings properly, instead of risking chronic festering.

 

[gromit]

Not so much faking emo, but providing it for the wrong reasons. In my case, because I feel people expect it from me, vibe out the urge, the expectation to be that way, or for that matter, because I need to feel that way myself, I like feeling that way and I'm somehow trying to jumpstart it. Though those motivations are understandable, they're not the product of you being your natural self at that point. The best 'emo' comes forth from embracing who you are and following your gut. In other words..you may do the right thing, but if it is done for the wrong reasons, the work becomes corrupted. Sometimes, you're able to rerail..other times, you just are left feeling empty, sick and don't know how it came about.

= gromit

I have tried to explain it to a couple people and they just cant seem to understand it. Why is it bad to want to make people happy? they ask...

What is to be done here?

 

[uumlau]

= gromit

I have tried to explain it to a couple people and they just cant seem to understand it. Why is it bad to want to make people happy? they ask...

What is to be done here?

Read my rather long post above, in particular my Fi-value choice to be "warm".

Figure out how that differs from "want to make people happy."

I'm not explaining it in detail, here, because it works best for you if you figure it out. It isn't complicated, but if I explain it, you'll say, "Oh, OK," and think you understand, when you really don't.

 

[gromit]

Do you mean how "being warm" differs from "making others happy" or do you mean how the process you went through differs from the process I am going through? Probably the answer will be both.

 

[Amargith]

Uumlau, I know what you're getting at, and that is the natural state we're in when we're in balance, but I think you underestimate the magnetic pull some of us have to please others, especially when we're feeling less than secure.

 

[uumlau]

Uumlau, I know what you're getting at, and that is the natural state we're in when we're in balance, but I think you underestimate the magnetic pull some of us have to please others, especially when we're feeling less than secure.

I understand. I've this impenetrable armor of "no Fe". I don't give a damn about "pleasing others" as a goal in and of itself. I've a more objective goal of "figure out something that works, and people will generally not object, and might even be rather pleased."

When the primary goal is to please others, it inadvertently subsumes one's own will to do anything else.

 

[Amargith]

And in that respect, we could stand to gain substantially with an INTJ as a rolemodel

 

[miss fortune]

<-- has been described as a "people pleaser"

the hardest thing for those of us who are Ti people with TRYING to develop Fi is that the two functions actually work in a somewhat similar manner- how are you supposed to develop one when the function that, in a way, takes it's place is quite strong?

You can't turn off Ti to focus on another interior analytical function really... it is, unfortunatly, not like a light switch.

It's like asking a right handed batter to switch to using his/her left hand in a way- switching away from what we're good at, understand and are strong at to something odd and weird that might mess things up in a way

 

[Amargith]

I have the same problem with Ti. I *hate* using it, I feel like I'm flying blind and nothing feels alive to me. I admire it greatly though in Ti-doms..in their hands it just seems so easy and clear *sigh*

 

[sculpting]

= gromit

I have tried to explain it to a couple people and they just cant seem to understand it. Why is it bad to want to make people happy? they ask...

What is to be done here?

Hmmm... I kinda understand this.

I used to wait tables for several years. I would turn into a spastic glow worm of love. I would shine at my customers and they would shine back. Since it was short term-no emotional commitment or debt, it was okay and felt very nice. Making them happy made me happy. I emotionally mirrored their response, and it amplified my own. happy people=happy me. I actually feel others happiness much more strongly than my own. Making other people feel joy is like getting a hit of speed for me-it is energizing and fills me with happiness and pleasure-I did something of value.

(On the converse making other people sad-oh so horrible nightmarish)

(Ne-Monster still processing)

But sometimes-I see this in my coworker more than me-I see her NeFi pulling her very strongly to please others. I think the reverse mirror works as well. If they are unhappy-we feel unhappy and somewhat angstful. So we seek to "please" them to make them happy again.

This becomes a problem at work as we are given the choice of doing what is best for the group (one Fi value) -ie bringing a severe problem to light and pushing for resolution, vs not bringing the problem to light, but letting everyone remain happy (a second Fi value).

If we let them stay happy-we feel dark inside-like satine said-we just violated our own value??? I dunno, this may make no sense at all.

 

[uumlau]

This becomes a problem at work as we are given the choice of doing what is best for the group (one Fi value) -ie bringing a severe problem to light and pushing for resolution, vs not bringing the problem to light, but letting everyone remain happy (a second Fi value).

If we let them stay happy-we feel dark inside-like satine said-we just violated our own value??? I dunno, this may make no sense at all.

This is where the real Fi work begins, as I mentioned before.

The Fi values conflict. Otherwise known as a moral dilemma.

It isn't easy to resolve. The resolution rests upon altering one or both values such that they work together, or possibly dropping a value (which is extreme, but sometimes absolutely necessary).

This next bit will partly resolve gromit's question ...

Recall the "sun in your hands" image that I used to describe Fi so long ago? I take that and start from there: I want there to be no darkness, neither in myself nor others. Then I apply something of an "action principle": this is a high-end physics math device, where you have an equation that describes how everything "works" based on core principles of physics, and give it some boundary conditions. When the action is minimized, that gives the set of equations that determine how everything works. In quantum electrodynamics (QED), this is used, for example, to determine the observed path of a photon. When more than one path is possible, all possible paths are taken. Yes, by the same photon, which, yes, can "interfere with itself". Usually, though, the action principle and the wave nature of the photon makes all but the "single straight line" the path to take.

So, I figure out the start and end points, and then I work backwards and forwards from those to figure out how to get from one to the other in a way that is in accord with my core principle(s). It's possible that there is no way, but usually, it's just the straight line path, and still fairly often, there are multiple ways that maximize the amount of goodness (difficult to observe/determine, but still a useful criterion) for everyone involved.

In the particular dilemma mentioned, I would figure out how to get the problem out in the open for everyone to solve it, AND figure out how to get everyone motivated to solve it in a positive way, rather than dwell on how awful it is that a problem exists. I would find the path that resolves both Fi values in the long term, and I wouldn't let short term "minor violations" themselves cause a long term major violation.

 

[Poki]

<-- has been described as a "people pleaser"

the hardest thing for those of us who are Ti people with TRYING to develop Fi is that the two functions actually work in a somewhat similar manner- how are you supposed to develop one when the function that, in a way, takes it's place is quite strong?

You can't turn off Ti to focus on another interior analytical function really... it is, unfortunatly, not like a light switch.

It's like asking a right handed batter to switch to using his/her left hand in a way- switching away from what we're good at, understand and are strong at to something odd and weird that might mess things up in a way

Use Ti to logically run down paths that "are not wrong". In certain instances you will run across Fi. The hardest part is that you must be able to keep yourself in the dark, to be able to hide certain things. This opens up the possibilities for Ti to explore in an Fi manner. You have to know your logic and know what causes what and be able to hide, to convince yourself. Basically take control of the logical path. You know how some people will turn the TV off when previews come on or refuse to hear how a game turns out. You must take that approach with logic. Its really hard to do for a Ti dom as I have to play heavily with Se and Ni and find things that are "not wrong". This is scary because of the paths it leads down and the possible truths that get revealed. What you need to reach this is security and comfort. Basically the security and comfort that puts Se and Ni back in place from the path it went down. A truth that Se can sense that removes all doubt that you reach going down those other paths.

 

[sculpting]

Use Ti to logically run down paths that "are not wrong". In certain instances you will run across Fi. The hardest part is that you must be able to keep yourself in the dark, to be able to hide certain things. This opens up the possibilities for Ti to explore in an Fi manner. You have to know your logic and know what causes what and be able to hide, to convince yourself. Basically take control of the logical path. You know how some people will turn the TV off when previews come on or refuse to hear how a game turns out. You must take that approach with logic. Its really hard to do for a Ti dom as I have to play heavily with Se and Ni and find things that are "not wrong". This is scary because of the paths it leads down and the possible truths that get revealed. What you need to reach this is security and comfort. Basically the security and comfort that puts Se and Ni back in place from the path it went down. A truth that Se can sense that removes all doubt that you reach going down those other paths.

So you establish a boundary condition on the "problem" at hand-that you must not cross an Fi path? Thus all logical solutions are valid, all Ti paths can be followed-except those which cross an Fi path? And you use Se and Ni to try and feel out where those Fi paths are? And you use security and comfort as guides to where the Fi path is? (have an Fe-ish Fi hug, cause Ijust made all that stuff up I dunno... but your SeNi is like a puzzle!)

 

[miss fortune]

Use Ti to logically run down paths that "are not wrong". In certain instances you will run across Fi. The hardest part is that you must be able to keep yourself in the dark, to be able to hide certain things. This opens up the possibilities for Ti to explore in an Fi manner. You have to know your logic and know what causes what and be able to hide, to convince yourself. Basically take control of the logical path. You know how some people will turn the TV off when previews come on or refuse to hear how a game turns out. You must take that approach with logic. Its really hard to do for a Ti dom as I have to play heavily with Se and Ni and find things that are "not wrong". This is scary because of the paths it leads down and the possible truths that get revealed. What you need to reach this is security and comfort. Basically the security and comfort that puts Se and Ni back in place from the path it went down. A truth that Se can sense that removes all doubt that you reach going down those other paths.

My Ni isn't so hot either I suppose there's no external functions that would be helpful there either? I have a good grasp on almost all of them! (well, Se, Ne and Fe anyways)

but the basic message here is, when internally exploring and running into something that feels uncomfortably prickly to keep on pushing that way and examine that? I suppose treat my inner self the same way that I treat the park nearby- explore every path, even if it involves a lot of stairs and loose gravel might be an approach...

*feels inept- and is woman enough to admit it*