# Are Fi users prone to obsessions?



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

I'm trying to type someone, I think she's ESFJ or ESTJ. I get thrown off on the T/F because she can be really emotional and dramatic but also frigid and brutal at times. Anyway, one of her longstanding characteristics is that she gets really emotionally attached to and obsessed with certain music artists. She'll cover her room with posters of them, listen to their music 60-70% of the time and make other people listen (whether they want to or not), and gets irrationally angry and defensive whenever anyone says anything negative about them. She's been this way since elementary school. Also, she doesn't give a f what anybody thinks about her obsession (most people find it at least slightly silly or strange) even though she's extremely image-conscious. It's like the one thing she'll never compromise on.

Is this Fi behavior or something else?


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

No not necessarily at all


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

She's ESFJ.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

neither of them are "Fi" users

and yea she sounds FJ


----------



## Silwin (Aug 16, 2017)

> she gets really emotionally attached to and obsessed with certain music artists. She'll cover her room with posters of them, listen to their music 60-70% of the time and make other people listen (whether they want to or not)


This sounds like one of my best friends and I think she's an Esfj. She really needs to share what she loves, she usually asks me to listen to her favourite singers and she would speak and rewatch so many times the same tv series she loves. And she doesn't care if you don't like that singer or that tv series: she talks about them no matter what. It's rather stressing sometimes, now that I think about it lol.


> Is this Fi behavior or something else?


I can be obsessive with what I like, but usually I'm very private about it. I hate bothering other people, so if I see that they don't care about what I love, I stop talking about it and enjoy it on my own.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Either she has inferior Fi, or her Fe is strong but just poorly utilized. I think it helps to think of her T/F in terms of how they operate on their axes (i.e., does she mainly use Te-Fi, or Fe-Ti). Since the Thinking and Feeling functions are about judging decisions, the Extraverted functions judging decision outcomes and the Introverted functions judging personal responses to decisions:

Thinking= prefers assessing decision methods; judges "what makes sense"
*Te *= ensuring methods for decision outcomes are effective 
*Ti *= understanding personal reasons for choosing decision methods

Feeling= prefers assessing decision value; judges "what is meaningful"
*Fe *= ensuring decision outcomes are valued by others 
*Fi *= understanding the personal value in a decision 

So if she gets very emotionally attached to something and wants to make other people like what she likes, that sounds like a poor use of Fe with shadow Fi influencing the use of Fe: she wants others to value her decision outcomes (Fe) and she has personal reasons for adopting methods (Ti) to make them like what she likes, and her reasons for utilizing her Fe are based on poor influence of Fi since her reasons are simply, "I like this and I want others to like what I like, regardless of how weird they may think this is." You also say she's extremely image-conscious, which is another characteristic of Fe, ensuring social value for a decision outcome. 

However, another way to look at it is that she may be operating on the Fi-Te axis, since she finds strong personal value with something (Fi), and wants to ensure the methods she uses to make others like what she likes works out effectively (Te). In this case, her utilization of Te could be due to her Fi being influenced by shadow Fe, wanting everyone to value what she values, so that she uses Te to effectively carry out methods that get others to like what she likes. 


So to distinguish, it might help to think about which way she prefers to operate AS A WHOLE: does she prefer to ensure an effective outcome for her decision methods (Te) because she understands her strong personal value in a decision (Fi); or does she prefer to ensure the outcome of her decisions are valued by others (Fe) because she understands her own personal reasons for choosing the decision methods she chooses (Ti) in order to ensure such an outcome. Based on your description, it sounds like she uses the former, so she may be more ESTJ, but you also have to think about her behaviors and thought-processes in other situations besides the one you describe, and see if she also utilizes Fe-Ti often enough to be ESFJ.


----------



## Princess and the INFP (Jul 24, 2018)

I get obsessed with things but I'm not usually overt with it, unless it's the initial stage of discovering that obsession and I feel compelled to talk to people about it or if I just really need to let it out because I'm suddenly gripped by its sheer awesomeness. The funny thing is, although most of my obsessions stay with me, I might gravitate to a new one next month. For example, right now I'm really into Hamilton(late freight, I know) but tomorrow I might put it on a shelf and find a brilliant netflix series to obsessively binge and learn everything about(speaking of which, y'all check out Killing Eve pronto). I've found that most people do not care to engage me in my obsessions so I've learned to tone it down. But I used to not and I think my Fi was the reason. Most people are pretty good at reading the room and I honestly don't think they get as passionately obsessed with things like I do. When I like something, I like it with all my heart, and it never stops it just kind of sits there in the recesses of my mind until I'm ready to revisit it again, like an old book or a distant friend.


----------



## morgandollar (Feb 21, 2018)

Princess and the INFP said:


> I get obsessed with things but I'm not usually overt with it, unless it's the initial stage of discovering that obsession and I feel compelled to talk to people about it or if I just really need to let it out because I'm suddenly gripped by its sheer awesomeness. The funny thing is, although most of my obsessions stay with me, I might gravitate to a new one next month. For example, right now I'm really into Hamilton(late freight, I know) but tomorrow I might put it on a shelf and find a brilliant netflix series to obsessively binge and learn everything about(speaking of which, y'all check out Killing Eve pronto). I've found that most people do not care to engage me in my obsessions so I've learned to tone it down. But I used to not and I think my Fi was the reason. Most people are pretty good at reading the room and I honestly don't think they get as passionately obsessed with things like I do. When I like something, I like it with all my heart, and it never stops it just kind of sits there in the recesses of my mind until I'm ready to revisit it again, like an old book or a distant friend.


ENFP here. I think the reason for obsession has more to do with Ne than Fi actually.


----------



## Just Peachy (Jan 2, 2018)

Si can lead to obsessive behavior in a person. It's my understand that Ne and Se bring interest in new things, but doesn't cause them to retain interest. Fi will determine whether or not we enjoyed the new experience. An INFP in a Fi-Si loop can be obsessive, because we're closing ourselves off to new experiences. Fi and Si together are just saying give me more of what I like.


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

MD_analyst said:


> Either she has inferior Fi, or her Fe is strong but just poorly utilized. I think it helps to think of her T/F in terms of how they operate on their axes (i.e., does she mainly use Te-Fi, or Fe-Ti). Since the Thinking and Feeling functions are about judging decisions, the Extraverted functions judging decision outcomes and the Introverted functions judging personal responses to decisions:
> 
> Thinking= prefers assessing decision methods; judges "what makes sense"
> *Te *= ensuring methods for decision outcomes are effective
> ...


This is making my head hurt a bit. lol

I think she has inferior Ti because she can be overly insecure about logic and being smart. But honestly, I feel like I don't understand her all that well, so this is a bit of a conundrum still. >_<


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

If it's "doesn't give a f what anybody thinks about her obsession" and wanting others to like it; that isn't FJ (Fe, or even Fe shadowed by Fi). Fe "merges with the object/environment", rather than trying to conform the object to the subject (which a lot of people seem to assume is Fe, just because it's "expressive" of feeling/values). 
That would be Fi (perhaps shadowed by Fe), which says "if I (i) were them, I would want (F) this" and a less mature Fi will say "And they should want it and have it too", and then perhaps try to push it on them.

So this, plus the "frigid and brutal at times" sounds like a "Choleric" type, and the most Choleric types are the Te doms. So Te dom, Fi inferior, and perhaps Fe "Demonic" (depending on how unhealthy she is, or activated the complex is) would make sense.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> If it's "doesn't give a f what anybody thinks about her obsession" and wanting others to like it; that isn't FJ (Fe, or even Fe shadowed by Fi). Fe "merges with the object/environment", rather than trying to conform the object to the subject (which a lot of people seem to assume is Fe, just because it's "expressive" of feeling/values).
> That would be Fi (perhaps shadowed by Fe), which says "if I (i) were them, I would want (F) this" and a less mature Fi will say "And they should want it and have it too", and then perhaps try to push it on them.
> 
> So this, plus the "frigid and brutal at times" sounds like a "Choleric" type, and the most Choleric types are the Te doms. So Te dom, Fi inferior, and perhaps Fe "Demonic" (depending on how unhealthy she is, or activated the complex is) would make sense.


Except that FJs are the ones who try to conform the object to the subject. FPs in general are very reluctant to affect their environment.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

It depends on what you mean by "object" there. If you mean just the environment in general, then as J's, yes. But for F, the "objects" are going to be more specifically, people themselves, and their values, or other objects inasmuch as they affect people.

"Conform the object to the subject" is Jung's definition of an introverted functional perspective. It basically takes in all the data, and filters it, abstracting what's "relevant" (according to the subjective "blueprint"). Extraversion 
merges with the object, which ends up taking the values of the object as one's own (and then, _from there_ making changes to the environment).
Mature Fi will be more reluctant, as you said, but less mature Fi (like in the tertiary, inferior, or shadow positions) will be more "primitive", and often come out as pushing your values on others. Especially when it's reflecting a preferred, impersonal Te agenda.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> It depends on what you mean by "object" there. If you mean just the environment in general, then as J's, yes. But for F, the "objects" are going to be more specifically, people themselves, and their values, or other objects inasmuch as they affect people.
> 
> "Conform the object to the subject" is Jung's definition of an introverted functional perspective. It basically takes in all the data, and filters it, abstracting what's "relevant" (according to the subjective "blueprint"). Extraversion
> merges with the object, which ends up taking the values of the object as one's own (and then, _from there_ making changes to the environment).
> Mature Fi will be more reluctant, as you said, but less mature Fi (like in the tertiary, inferior, or shadow positions) will be more "primitive", and often come out as pushing your values on others. Especially when it's reflecting a preferred, impersonal Te agenda.


Yes, objects are people too and FJs innately want to affect them, i.e are very emotionally expressive to spread their mood to others, they are driven to control the general emotional atmosphere etc. FJs typically behave like Jung's introverts especially when strong Js.
I think it's a mistake to attribute Jung's FI to FPs because FPs are adaptable by definition in the mbti.


----------



## AshOrLey (May 28, 2016)

letsrunlikecrazy said:


> music artists. She'll cover her room with posters of them


Slightly unrelated but I've always thought of this as really bizarre if it's not fictional characters. Musicians, celebrities, They're just regular people. I remember going to a friend's house when I was younger, her room was the same and it freaked me out.



letsrunlikecrazy said:


> and gets irrationally angry and defensive whenever anyone says anything negative about them.


Textbook unhealthy Fe dom behavior there. If you don't like what they like, brace yourself. Lack of appreciation for individuality.



Silwin said:


> I can be obsessive with what I like, but usually I'm very private about it. I hate bothering other people, so if I see that they don't care about what I love, I stop talking about it and enjoy it on my own.


Same! I'm extremely private...I don't believe I've ever shared my favorite music with anyone. 

I do have a loud, massive Pokemon jacket, but I wear it because it means something to me, not to get attention.

I don't like sharing much about myself in general, unless it's a situation where my values are crossed, then the person will know how strongly I feel about certain things.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Yes, objects are people too and FJs innately want to affect them, i.e are very emotionally expressive to spread their mood to others, they are driven to control the general emotional atmosphere etc. FJs typically behave like Jung's introverts especially when strong Js.
> I think it's a mistake to attribute Jung's FI to FPs because FPs are adaptable by definition in the mbti.


I think a big pat of the problem is Thinking type theorists and writers projecting their own primitive sense of Fi and irritation toward FJ behavior onto both the function, and the type group, respectively so that's why the descriptions don't always match up, and we get left with poor stereotypes.

So yes, FJ will try to control the "emotional atmosphere", and that's simply their expression of the "J" attitude, as I mentioned, but it's really their own subject merging with the object, than really conforming it to the subject, for the subject has already merged with the object in doing so. (The subject is still there, just less "conscious"). 
With Fi, the subject "empathizes" with other subjects in a "universalistic" sense, and again, filters the objective data through this, often making them adaptable like that.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> I think a big pat of the problem is Thinking type theorists and writers projecting their own primitive sense of Fi and irritation toward FJ behavior onto both the function, and the type group, respectively so that's why the descriptions don't always match up, and we get left with poor stereotypes.
> 
> So yes, FJ will try to control the "emotional atmosphere", and that's simply their expression of the "J" attitude, as I mentioned, but it's really their own subject merging with the object, than really conforming it to the subject, for the subject has already merged with the object in doing so. (The subject is still there, just less "conscious").
> With Fi, the subject "empathizes" with other subjects in a "universalistic" sense, and again, filters the objective data through this, often making them adaptable like that.


That seems like a contrived rationalization of a misunderstanding. If someone truly merges with the object they don't have a need to control it. The extraverts affect the environment and other people by example of their behavior not by a need for control. J types fall in the latter category, they seek validation and an environment that reinforces their habits. Jung didn't describe extraversion well probably because he didnt understand it first hand, he conflated some of the behaviors with S and has some other contradictions I've mentioned elsewhere here (cant type much now).


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I didn't say a “_need_” for control, but if you're “merged” with the object, then whatever you do will affect, or seem to “control” the environment as well, s it's become apart of you.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> I didn't say a “_need_” for control, but if you're “merged” with the object, then whatever you do will affect, or seem to “control” the environment as well, s it's become apart of you.


Merging with the object from an jungian extravert perspective means to change oneself, adapt oneself to it. The subject sees the object positively. I guess merging is a misnomer of sorts. The introverts have a negative relation with the object they are constantly in defense mode against it so they need to control the environment as best they can to fit their needs. FJs typically do the latter which sort of makes it seem as if they are merged with the object but really they've just made it an extension of themselves. Thats how they reinforce and protect themselves from change. For FJs this typically includes leaking their emotions and even drama to make others validate them. FJs who are less strongly J and higher on F might be more adaptive depending on the people they deal with.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

OK, "control" is actually your term, and while I addressed it, I do not define the attitudes of the functions by it. There are different factors that will make types "control" things in situations.
So you say FJ's only "seem" to merge with the object. I take it, you're advocating the "dichotomies only" position and/or showing how the Jungian definitions don't fit, right? Well, the topic is about function-attitude distinctions, so t does no good to get caught up in this argument about whether they are valid to begin with.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> OK, "control" is actually your term, and while I addressed it, I do not define the attitudes of the functions by it. There are different factors that will make types "control" things in situations.
> So you say FJ's only "seem" to merge with the object. I take it, you're advocating the "dichotomies only" position and/or showing how the Jungian definitions don't fit, right? Well, the topic is about function-attitude distinctions, so t does no good to get caught up in this argument about whether they are valid to begin with.


Nope not my term. Jung talked of the controlling/dominating desires of the introvert many times, to be on top of the object and reinforce his position.

No I'm not advocating for dichotomies only I've been talking from a Jungian perspective all along. Problem is he also has inconsistencies and is unclear at certain things so his successors messed things up a lot and now we have adaptive feelers and thinkers being called introverts and the true introverts called Fe.
The Jungian definitions fit but the model that people are trying to fit them in is wrong.
The attitudes of E/I are not a part of the function but a part of the person- the score of their adaptability and relation with the object. Jung's functions are 4 and he just describes how they differ when paired with the attitudes he does not mean that a paired function is an element of its own.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

OK, but then I meant you brought it to the discussion, and are likely understanding it differently that I was using it. I would agree with “introverts controlling/dominating the object”, for that would match them filtering it through the subjective standard and eliminating what's irrelevant accordingly. That's not how I was understanding FJ behavior. As J types, they might be inclined to _organize_ the environment, which might technically be “controlling” it, but this is just enacting their own introjected objective values they had gotten from the environment to begin with, and thus trying to maintain what's deemed best for the environment (st that the object remains supreme).
I also agree that the attitudes of E/I are not a part of the function but a part of the person.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I didn't think that sounded like a cognitive function to me. The link gives a pretty clear idea of what each function dom looks like.

What I notice about a lot of people is they want to ascribe certain behavior patterns to cognitive functions, and I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Our cognitive functions describe how we prefer to interact with the world, not our behavior patterns. If you're interested in what motivates behaviors, you're probably barking up the wrong tree. The enneagram seems more likely a good place for you to go. 

How to spot each MBTI in real life.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> OK, but then I meant you brought it to the discussion, and are likely understanding it differently that I was using it. I would agree with “introverts controlling/dominating the object”, for that would match them filtering it through the subjective standard and eliminating what's irrelevant accordingly. That's not low I was understanding FJ behavior. As J types, they might be inclined to _organize_ the environment, which might technically be “controlling” it, but this is just enacting their own introjected objective values they had gotten from the environment to begin with, and thus trying to maintain what's deemed best for the environment (st that the object remains supreme).
> I also agree that the attitudes of E/I are not a part of the function but a part of the person.


Judging whats deemed best for the environment is not an adaptive behavior- it comes from the inability to adapt to a changing environment. It comes from a subjective drive not objective. Jung said about this, "wanting to impose their will on the world is not adaptability". If they had a good relation with the object they woulndt try to control it when it changes.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

morgandollar said:


> ENFP here. I think the reason for obsession has more to do with Ne than Fi actually.


Since when do we care so much whether others like what we like? I don't think we'd shove it down other peoples' throats (because we wouldn't want others to do that to us). We'd just enjoy it on our own. 

I honestly don't think you can use cognitive functions to describe behavior patterns such as this.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Judging whats deemed best for the environment is not an adaptive behavior- it comes from the inability to adapt to a changing environment. It comes from a subjective drive not objective. Jung said about this, "wanting to impose their will on the world is not adaptability". If they had a good relation with the object they woulndt try to control it when it changes.


My point there was "what's best for the environment", *according to* the environment, not "their will". I was specifically contrasting that to their subjective drive. They've merged their subject with the object, and so the object is what determines their will, essentially.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> My point there was "what's best for the environment", *according to* the environment, not "their will". I was specifically contrasting that to their subjective drive. They've merged their subject with the object, and so the object is what determines their will, essentially.


Yes I know and thats what my answer replies to. There is no "according to the environment". The object wants to change, the subject is not letting it because it cant change as easily. The judgment of whats best comes from the subjective drives of the subject not the object. I've addressed the merging part earlier.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Why no “according to the environment”? Yes, the environment changes, and the extravert adapts to it. His course of action will then be shaped by this. (That's all I've meant regarding the extravert's behavior).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Why no “according to the environment”? Yes, the environment changes, and the extravert adapts to it. His course of action will then be shaped by this. (That's all I've meant regarding the extravert's behavior).


It was for emphasis. The judgment of what's best for the object is subjective and not an adaptive attitude, which I've said already. If they can't adapt and prefer to change the object, habitually, they're not an extravert. And FJs typically prefer to engage in behaviors that bring order and control on the environment/people, which is why they score J to begin with. Such behaviors can be as simple as engaging in flattery to get some back in return, or being indirect/passive-aggressive to make someone feel obligated to do what you want. How strong the effect depends on how strong the drive of course. 
Myers seems like she didn't understand Jung's adaptability theory and her successors Grant and Beebe made things so much worse. Starting at the very basic biological premises of adaptability in people and throughout their lives is the key.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

So back to what you earlier said: "he [Jung] also has inconsistencies and is unclear at certain things so his successors messed things up a lot". But if what they "messed up" was basically, a corrupted source, then the whole idea of it being "messed up" is moot. Perhaps they *fixed* (or at least _*improved*_) what he didn't finish or get quite right.

So I don't think it makes sense to go through all of this trying to measure the attitude of a function (regardless of whether it's even dominant [i.e. the _person_'s ego] or not) by this "original" Jungian "adaptability" definition. (And the same with that related dispute over functions vs dichotomies, as I said then). 
Sometimes, with Jung, you have to take the terms and start over, and with Fe, the "e" part merges with the object, but there's also the "F", which has a "subjective" element, because Feeling (either attitude) deals with "the human factor", where we are all personal "subjects" rather than impersonal "objects". This is perhaps what you are stumbling on. (Notice, "subject/object" have been used for _both_ i/e and T/F). Or, of you say Te has also the adaptability problem, so it's a general "J" thing, then there are possible other reasons for that as well. J indicates that not only is the judgment extraverted, but the *perception* is introverted. So perhaps this "adaptability" issue stems from the data they are taking in to begin with being subjectively filtered.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Sounds like a serial killer to me or smth smth


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> So back to what you earlier said: "he [Jung] also has inconsistencies and is unclear at certain things so his successors messed things up a lot". But if what they "messed up" was basically, a corrupted source, then the whole idea of it being "messed up" is moot. Perhaps they *fixed* (or at least _*improved*_) what he didn't finish or get quite right.
> 
> So I don't think it makes sense to go through all of this trying to measure the attitude of a function (regardless of whether it's even dominant [i.e. the _person_'s ego] or not) by this "original" Jungian "adaptability" definition. (And the same with that related dispute over functions vs dichotomies, as I said then).
> Sometimes, with Jung, you have to take the terms and start over, and with Fe, the "e" part merges with the object, but there's also the "F", which has a "subjective" element, because Feeling (either attitude) deals with "the human factor", where we are all personal "subjects" rather than impersonal "objects". This is perhaps what you are stumbling on. (Notice, "subject/object" have been used for _both_ i/e and T/F). Or, of you say Te has also the adaptability problem, so it's a general "J" thing, then there are possible other reasons for that as well. J indicates that not only is the judgment extraverted, but the *perception* is introverted. So perhaps this "adaptability" issue stems from the data they are taking in to begin with being subjectively filtered.



Adaptability is an observable phenomenon in nature that includes humans, it's not even Jung's definition really, what he did is assign two words for it extra/introversion and incorporate it in his theories.

I don't think they fixed or improved the theory at all, because they don't really take into account the above. Myers didn't go in this with the intent to analyse the theory exactly, but to create a typing system to help people. This is obvious by how the E/I is measured in MBTI which is just sociability, which probably correlates to S and other things, too. The other two just continued down a mystical path instead of a scientific one.

"object" is meant as anything other than one's organism, inanimate or not, it's just a term and under this terminology, people are objects too since they are not part of one's brain, literally

But it isn't about measuring the attitude of a function because functions don't really have attitudes. 
You said earlier you agree that it is a trait of the person and not of the function, but here you seem to not understand what that really entails.. if someone has introverted perception, they necessarily have introverted judgement too, since introversion is their adaptation attitude (self-protection), irrelevantly of the functions they prefer...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

OK, so I see what you're pitching is basically the "anything but the Grant model, —in the name of empirical science" premise (which has become popular on these forums, and started with a dichotomies-only argument; that's why I asked about that earlier, but I see there are different versions of it, which tend to often be ambivalent as to how much of Jung and/or Myers are to be accepted as accurate. But just as long as the final conclusion is anything but that dreaded Grant!)

I see the Grant model in terms of *division* of reality. It's like if I'm looking east and up, then my back is facing west and down. So no, "up/down" is not apart of east/west (nor vice versa), but really lie with the person (i.e. which way they're facing; hence "a trait of the person and not of the [other] direction"), however, the directions do *modify* each other (because our consciousness lies in both dimensions at the same time), creating these "tandems" of opposites, so to speak. And that's the basis of the Grant model. 
So what you're saying is tantamount to "if my front is facing up, then my back must be facing up as well, because 'up' is just my chosen altitude direction". (I know the analogy is not completely exact, as it's using two "space" dimensions, but a dimension of reality is a dimension of reality, and still gives the same idea of how it works). 

But what you're ignoring is COMPLEXES (lesser "ego states" or "senses of 'I'" WITHIN the ego-structure), which I've been emphasizing for some time now due to these questions and misunderstandings. What you're describing regarding a "NECESSARY" "attitude of adaptability" is the DOMINANT ego complex, and assuming that's _it_. But the other functions in the Grant model would be carried by OTHER complexes, which are oriented differently. So if the dominant is introverted, and carries perception, then a [very partially] dissociated auxiliary complex will carry the rejected extraverted orientation, and opposite rationality of function; i.e. judgment.

You'll still have the dominant adaptability trait, but the different functions under this will be in either orientation based on which complex you're looking at.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> OK, so I see what you're pitching is basically the "anything but the Grant model, —in the name of empirical science" premise (which has become popular on these forums, and started with a dichotomies-only argument; that's why I asked about that earlier, but I see there are different versions of it, which tend to often be ambivalent as to how much of Jung and/or Myers are to be accepted as accurate. But just as long as the final conclusion is anything but that dreaded Grant!)
> 
> I see the Grant model in terms of *division* of reality. It's like if I'm looking east and up, then my back is facing west and down. So no, "up/down" is not apart of east/west (nor vice versa), but really lie with the person (i.e. which way they're facing; hence "a trait of the person and not of the [other] direction"), however, the directions do *modify* each other (because our consciousness lies in both dimensions at the same time), creating these "tandems" of opposites, so to speak. And that's the basis of the Grant model.
> So what you're saying is tantamount to "if my front is facing up, then my back must be facing up as well, because 'up' is just my chosen altitude direction". (I know the analogy is not completely exact, as it's using two "space" dimensions, but a dimension of reality is a dimension of reality, and still gives the same idea of how it works).
> ...


How is an extraverted-adaptable judgment supposed to function for an introvert, when the person rejects the extraverted perceptions to begin with, and accepts only the self-reinforcing ones? 
In practice, if you observe people who exhibit introverted perception, their judgements involve those perceptions and therefore in total have an introverted attitude. Perception is where everything begins, from infanthood and builds up reactions and anticipations for reactions to the stimuli of the environment.
If you visit the FJ forums you can see how their introverted judgments manifest, i.e. decide that a person is being rude or attacking them because their perceptions are directed to accept self-reinforcing interpretations of the stimuli they receive. Paranoia and control-freakness (i.e. OCD) are some extreme manifestations of this.

The way to have somewhat in between is if the person values the individual functions a lot and has a low preference for their attitude, so they will sacrifice their introversion in favor of, i.e. F, so they can be more adaptable in the situations that call for it, than others who would score similarly in typing tests. Stuff that the typing tools like MBTI can't express well.


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

No, I cannot imagine a Fi dom or aux to be obsessed with posters and singers. They might be passionate about other things though; however, they can also have a variety of interests. It is just nonsensical to me to obsess about some pop-star.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> How is an *extraverted-adaptable judgment supposed to function for an introvert, when the person rejects the extraverted perceptions to begin with, and accepts only the self-reinforcing ones*?
> In practice, if you observe people who exhibit introverted perception, their judgements involve those perceptions and therefore in total have an introverted attitude. Perception is where everything begins, from infanthood and builds up reactions and anticipations for reactions to the stimuli of the environment.
> If you visit the FJ forums you can see how their introverted judgments manifest, i.e. decide that a person is being rude or attacking them because their perceptions are directed to accept self-reinforcing interpretations of the stimuli they receive. Paranoia and control-freakness (i.e. OCD) are some extreme manifestations of this.
> 
> The way to have somewhat in between is if the person values the individual functions a lot and has a low preference for their attitude, so they will sacrifice their introversion in favor of, i.e. F, so they can be more adaptable in the situations that call for it, than others who would score similarly in typing tests. Stuff that the typing tools like MBTI can't express well.


You're still not looking at the *complexes*. "introvert" in the bolded quote is referring to the dominant ego _complex_ only. It is not the _whole person_ (or the whole psyche). There are other complexes (individual "senses of *'I'*") which _*do*_ accept the opposite orientation! They are "dissociated" from each other (think "multiple personalities", but just not as great as when it becomes a "dissociative disorder". But dissociation is then what maintains the "boundaries" that include the attitude preference. Yet they do allow the opposite attitude to come through when needed).
Yes, the orientation of one preferred function does influence the other, but these are _carried_ by complexes (which communicate with each other); the mistake (as always) is treating the functions as independent standalone "things" or entities in themselves.

For the FJ, the information being gathered is introverted in orientation, and this *informs* the judgment, but that doesn't make the judgment in itself introverted. The example you gave is not showing an introverted judgment; it's just showing the introverted perception. The judgment attitude is based on the standard of what's right or wrong (in this case, good or bad; with "rude" simply being "bad"), and that's not addressed there; only where the information is being taken in from (i.e. "their *perceptions* are directed to accept self-reinforcing interpretations of *the stimuli they receive*"), which is strictly perception. 
Also, if a Je aux.seems to use Ji, you also have to take into consideration the tertiary, carried by another complex that often comes up to maintain the dominant orientation. So for IFJ's, you'll also see Ti surface like that.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> You're still not looking at the *complexes*. "introvert" in the bolded quote is referring to the dominant ego _complex_ only. It is not the _whole person_ (or the whole psyche). There are other complexes (individual "senses of *'I'*") which _*do*_ accept the opposite orientation! They are "dissociated" from each other (think "multiple personalities", but just not as great as when it becomes a "dissociative disorder". But dissociation is then what maintains the "boundaries" that include the attitude preference. Yet they do allow the opposite attitude to come through when needed).
> Yes, the orientation of one preferred function does influence the other, but these are _carried_ by complexes (which communicate with each other); the mistake (as always) is treating the functions as independent standalone "things" or entities in themselves.
> 
> For the FJ, the information being gathered is introverted in orientation, and this *informs* the judgment, but that doesn't make the judgment in itself introverted. The example you gave is not showing an introverted judgment; it's just showing the introverted perception. The judgment attitude is based on the standard of what's right or wrong (in this case, good or bad; with "rude" simply being "bad"), and that's not addressed there; only where the information is being taken in from (i.e. "their *perceptions* are directed to accept self-reinforcing interpretations of *the stimuli they receive*"), which is strictly perception.
> Also, if a Je aux.seems to use Ji, you also have to take into consideration the tertiary, carried by another complex that often comes up to maintain the dominant orientation. So for IFJ's, you'll also see Ti surface like that.


The issue with the complexes is addressed indirectly. Of course the other orientation exists too, since it's all about adaptability and adaptability varies, but a person usually feels the best in one of these attitudes habitually, the other can emerge under specific circumstances or create problems like Jung described. 
Here you contradict yourself from before, when you said you see adaptability as a trait of the person and not of the function.
The judgment will necessarily be self-reinforcing if the person is introverted, habitually. The decision that a person is rude is a value judgment made by the way stimuli was perceived and investigated (or not), it is one that reinforces the position of the person (subject) on the object and puts themselves above it. To change that judgment they'd have to engage in extraverted behavior that allows for more investigation and a change in oneself to adapt to the new information and change the judgment.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

"but a person usually feels the best in one of these attitudes habitually, the other can emerge under specific circumstances or create problems like Jung described"

There's no dispute there. _Of course_, they will feel the best in the perspective of their dominant ego complex. But another function and orientation is connected with another complex. Because of the complexes, and the the function-attitudes being perspectives of these complexes and not standalone entities, as I said, I'm not contradicting myself. By "trait of the _person_", you're still treating the person as a single sense of "I", but the dominant attitude is aligned with the dominant complex (i.e. "trait of the _complex_"), and the dominant function is also aligned with the dominant complex. This is where they get put together into an "Xy" dominant "function-attitude". So it's other complexes that align with the opposite (or same) orientation, and the other functions. 

So the auxiliary extraverted rational complex will receive the self-reinforced perceptions of the dominant complex, and then reference its own external standard to make a decision from it. Just because it references the outer world to make its decisions doesn't mean it can't take data that was internally reinforced. (i.e. by another complex. Or the internally reinforcing dominant can't pass the data along to an externally reinforcing auxiliary complex). One complex did it's job, now the complex does its job, from its own orientation.


----------



## Suntide (Dec 22, 2018)

In my experience it's actually Si that is more prone to obsessions. Once Si discovers something that it likes, it feels compelled to absorb every single fact it can find about it. The subject they find interesting is irrelevant because I don't believe interests are type related beyond loose correlation--the important part is that they will eat it up faster than a vacuum until it's able to regurgitate it right back at you with perfection.

For example, my ISTJ roommate/bff is obsessed with Ayumi Hamasaki. She has over 50 singles and 15 albums and he can list them all in chronological order and give you the release dates of every single one, as well as fun "behind the scenes" facts. And oh my god PLEASE do not get him started about the Titanic. He could go on for HOURS and I can't take it anymore. It's not about being a "storehouse of information" or having a "good memory." Those are lazy descriptions of Si imo. It's just very... well... particular. And specific. It's like they know either everything about a topic or nothing at all.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> "but a person usually feels the best in one of these attitudes habitually, the other can emerge under specific circumstances or create problems like Jung described"
> 
> There's no dispute there. _Of course_, they will feel the best in the perspective of their dominant ego complex. But another function and orientation is connected with another complex. Because of the complexes, and the the function-attitudes being perspectives of these complexes and not standalone entities, as I said, I'm not contradicting myself. By "trait of the _person_", you're still treating the person as a single sense of "I", but the dominant attitude is aligned with the dominant complex (i.e. "trait of the _complex_"), and the dominant function is also aligned with the dominant complex. This is where they get put together into an "Xy" dominant "function-attitude". So it's other complexes that align with the opposite (or same) orientation, and the other functions.
> 
> So the auxiliary extraverted rational complex will receive the self-reinforced perceptions of the dominant complex, and then reference its own external standard to make a decision from it. Just because it references the outer world to make its decisions doesn't mean it can't take data that was internally reinforced. (i.e. by another complex. Or the internally reinforcing dominant can't pass the data along to an externally reinforcing auxiliary complex). One complex did it's job, now the complex does its job, from its own orientation.


alright, I have a question
how are complexes formed?


----------



## lazylin (Mar 13, 2017)

Is this Fi behavior or something else?

Could she be and ENFP (Ne-Fi)? How are her "orginasor skills"? Good on time, etc.


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

lazylin said:


> Is this Fi behavior or something else?
> 
> Could she be and ENFP (Ne-Fi)? How are her "orginasor skills"? Good on time, etc.


She's very Si. Has always been punctual, dutiful, orderly. And she mostly expects others to be the same, although she admires free spirits from afar.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> alright, I have a question
> how are complexes formed?



The examples I like to use, the book _Ego States: Theory and Therapy_, John G. and Helen H. Watkins, W. W., 1997 discuss “The Development of Ego States” [i.e. complexes] (p.28-31):
Normal differentiation permits us to experience one set of behaviors at a party Saturday night and another at the office during the week. When this separating or differentiating process becomes excessive and maladaptive we call it dissociation.” [Others consider the normal process being “differentiation” as a normal, healthy form of “dissociation”].Ego states apparently develop by one or more of the following three processes: normal differentiation, introjection of significant others, and reactions to trauma.
Through normal differentiation the child learns to discriminate foods that taste good and those that do not. He not only makes these simple discriminations, but many others as well, and develops entire patterns of behavior that are appropriate for dealing with parents, teachers, and playmates, and adaptive for adjusting to school, the playground, etc.
These changes are considered quite normal, yet they do represent syndromes of behavior and experience that are clustered and organized under some common principle. As such, they can be considered ego states. The boundaries between these entities and other personality patterns are very flexible and permeable. The child in school is quite aware (or easily capable of becoming aware) of himself in a playground situation. Playground behaviors, however, are not as easily activated when at the school desk (in the presence of the teacher). There is resistance at the boundaries. These less-clearly differentiated ego states are usually adaptive and are economic in providing appropriate behavior patterns when needed.​(So I add, that some of these states are what Beebe has outlined as being associated with the eight functions for each type.)

For another example, from Hartmann and Zimberoff "Ego Surrender", in the section on Ego States (p.17ff), discusses how a child develops, and then learns to build categories, such as dogs and cats, and then put together more complex categories such as "animals". 
From there, many other categories are created, and organized by selected similar behaviors and experiences with a defining common element into the groupings called "ego states", such as “mad at mommy” or “eager to please” given as examples.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> The examples I like to use, the book _Ego States: Theory and Therapy_, John G. and Helen H. Watkins, W. W., 1997 discuss “The Development of Ego States” [i.e. complexes] (p.28-31):
> Normal differentiation permits us to experience one set of behaviors at a party Saturday night and another at the office during the week. When this separating or differentiating process becomes excessive and maladaptive we call it dissociation.” [Others consider the normal process being “differentiation” as a normal, healthy form of “dissociation”].Ego states apparently develop by one or more of the following three processes: normal differentiation, introjection of significant others, and reactions to trauma.
> Through normal differentiation the child learns to discriminate foods that taste good and those that do not. He not only makes these simple discriminations, but many others as well, and develops entire patterns of behavior that are appropriate for dealing with parents, teachers, and playmates, and adaptive for adjusting to school, the playground, etc.
> These changes are considered quite normal, yet they do represent syndromes of behavior and experience that are clustered and organized under some common principle. As such, they can be considered ego states. The boundaries between these entities and other personality patterns are very flexible and permeable. The child in school is quite aware (or easily capable of becoming aware) of himself in a playground situation. Playground behaviors, however, are not as easily activated when at the school desk (in the presence of the teacher). There is resistance at the boundaries. These less-clearly differentiated ego states are usually adaptive and are economic in providing appropriate behavior patterns when needed.​(So I add, that some of these states are what Beebe has outlined as being associated with the eight functions for each type.)
> ...


So, complexes are formed by the combined action of perceiving and judging functions. Calling a function itself a complex is logically false since it wasn't the one used to create the complex in isolation.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Well, I didn't call a function a "complex". Unless, you misunderstood something I, or the quote has said. I've said functions are the _perspectives_ of the complexes, and in the example of complexes forming, we see how they are formed by the actions of perceiving and judging.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Well, I didn't call a function a "complex". Unless, you misunderstood something I, or the quote has said. I've said functions are the _perspectives_ of the complexes, and in the example of complexes forming, we see how they are formed by the actions of perceiving and judging.


But they are not perspectives of complexes, either. The difference between S and N for example, is that someone with S is concerned with the absolute relation between 2 inputs they get, while the N person aggregates more information and switches the perspective to see more possibilities. This isn't a complex, it's a neurological process in and of itself. One can develop a complex and ego around doing the previous, whether S or N and therefore develop it further because now they are habitually attached to their brain working this way, but the function is a potential for specific neurologic activity that exists regardless of that. It is the fundamental where the rest are built on and therefore you can't call it a perspective of it.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

“someone with S is concerned with the absolute relation between 2 inputs they get, while the N person aggregates more information...”.

This is what I meant by “perspective”. It's one person's way of sorting out the data that differs from another. Of course, there are different uses of “perspective”, such as within a function like intuition; hence “and switches the perspective to see more possibilities”, but that was not the specific use of 'perspective' I was referring to; and again, I wasn't calling that the complex; I agree, the complex is what forms 'around' this.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> “someone with S is concerned with the absolute relation between 2 inputs they get, while the N person aggregates more information...”.
> 
> This is what I meant by “perspective”. It's one person's way of sorting out the data that differs from another. Of course, there are different uses of “perspective”, such as within a function like intuition; hence “and switches the perspective to see more possibilities”, but that was not the specific use of 'perspective' I was referring to; and again, I wasn't calling that the complex; I agree, the complex is what forms 'around' this.


Yes and using the complex as a means to differentiate the type is a rather roundabout and maybe downright false way to do it. The theory doesn't stand on the fundamental premises of what a function is and how the adaptive behavior affects it.
I think it's why Jung only attached the ego to the dominant function, because it's more obvious. But it is still not something verifiable, because different people may develop different complexes for their functions and I think there may even exist people who have inferiority complexes about their dom function, like NPs who feel inadequate in a world of SJs, for example. 
And then there are questions on whether "ego" and the other categorizations of the psyche are even a valid thing to consider or is it just the product of the personality of Freud and Jung and how they were driven to perceive the world (both introverts).


----------



## Crowbo (Jul 9, 2017)

Everyone is on occasion


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Yes and using the complex as a means to differentiate the type is a rather roundabout and maybe downright false way to do it. The theory doesn't stand on the fundamental premises of what a function is and how the adaptive behavior affects it.
> I think it's why Jung only attached the ego to the dominant function, because it's more obvious. But it is still not something verifiable, because different people may develop different complexes for their functions and I think there may even exist people who have inferiority complexes about their dom function, like NPs who feel inadequate in a world of SJs, for example.
> And then there are questions on whether "ego" and the other categorizations of the psyche are even a valid thing to consider or is it just the product of the personality of Freud and Jung and how they were driven to perceive the world (both introverts).


The complexes outlined by Beebe would be ones specifically dealing with the development of an ego identity, as someone had once explained it to me. They tell us what happens in the psyche when we borrow instinctual energy from the unconscious to further our ego-based choices. 

“Inferior complex” may have been paired with the anima as far as the inferior function, but that complex is really more broad that just the functional context in itself (as in the example you gave). That's why Beebe associates the functional position with the anima/animus complex, more than “the inferiority complex”. (Though from my own experience, it will still be a good bet the inferior fuction may still come up in that situation in some way. Like in your example, if an ENP feels “inferior” in a heavy SJ environment, then it wilh still be attributed to a negative, unconscious form of Si on their part).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> The complexes outlined by Beebe would be ones specifically dealing with the development of an ego identity, as someone had once explained it to me. They tell us what happens in the psyche when we borrow instinctual energy from the unconscious to further our ego-based choices.
> 
> “Inferior complex” may have been paired with the anima as far as the inferior function, but that complex is really more broad that just the functional context in itself (as in the example you gave). That's why Beebe associates the functional position with the anima/animus complex, more than “the inferiority complex”. (Though from my own experience, it will still be a good bet the inferior fuction may still come up in that situation in some way. Like in your example, if an ENP feels “inferior” in a heavy SJ environment, then it wilh still be attributed to a negative, unconscious form of Si on their part).


It makes sense because of the dom-inf dynamic, an EF will have IT as the worst function-attitude, but things get messy when it comes to a stack of the other functions. Jung's theory doesn't support the switch in attitude because he pairs one with the conscious and the other with the unconscious regardless of functions. I can consider that his 'relatively unconscious' (so both conscious and unconscious?? hmm) auxiliary function can actually take on *both* attitudes, depending on the needs, but the other two are considered inferiors and therefore in the unconscious. So my problem with these stacks is that there is no reasoning I've seen for switching them, and putting them in am 8 function sequence that also can be true across all people of this type. The only way I see so far, that this reasoning is possible is if you stray away from the definitions of adaptability and such, and treat them as puzzle pieces that must necessarily exist in that specific order to form a whole, which is a backwards - confirmationbiasy way to build a theory. And that's even after treating them as complexes because now you add an extra subjective factor that is not controlled or even understood well by a person themselves, and can't be verified to be generalized in the population.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

What I think, is that it is a TiNe way to build a theory (where things are presented as viable "ideas" if they make an internally logical sense), which doesn't sit well with TePi, which demands "verification" or fidelity to specific concepts like "adaptability" for something to even be plausible. You acknowledge that Jung could be off or uncertain in ways, and so Grant and Beebe (along with Myers, of course) simply expanded upon his theory, and thus will deviate from it in places.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> What I think, is that it is a TiNe way to build a theory (where things are presented as viable "ideas" if they make an internally logical sense), which doesn't sit well with TePi, which demands "verification" or fidelity to specific concepts like "adaptability" for something to even be plausible. You acknowledge that Jung could be off or uncertain in ways, and so Grant and Beebe (along with Myers, of course) simply expanded upon his theory, and thus will deviate from it in places.


Let's see if I get this right..you avoid most of my reasoning, grab on a word, then attempt to type me in an effort to reason against why I don't "get" Beebe? 
Reminds me of how Nardi thinks "active listening" is a "Fi" trait because he found it dominant in IFPs, when it's so obviously an extraverted behavior.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I actually did not type you, nor did I say that you didn't “get” something. I'm just pointing out the reasoning that NTP's such as Beebe and myself use, which you're sort of denigrating as “confirmation bias” (that's your ultimate reasoning), in favor of a more empirical approach (observable phenomenon, standardized concepts such as 'adaptability', etc.), and I'm pointing out that this is a Te vs TiNe difference in handling the data. 
There are many reasons any type can take any apparent functional perspective. Ti can grab onto Te principles and make them one's own. I don't know where you are coming from, and why you see it that way. So while yes, I may get a sense of what type someone might be from thi, I have not expressed that; I'm only pointing out this is a difference in perspective, and not one side being total nonsense as you seem to be arguing.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> I actually did not type you, nor did I say that you didn't “get” something. I'm just pointing out the reasoning that NTP's such as Beebe and myself use, which you're sort of denigrating as “confirmation bias” (that's your ultimate reasoning), in favor of a more empirical approach (observable phenomenon, standardized concepts such as 'adaptability', etc.), and I'm pointing out that this is a Te vs TiNe difference in handling the data.
> There are many reasons any type can take any apparent functional perspective. Ti can grab onto Te principles and make them one's own. I don't know where you are coming from, and why you see it that way. So while yes, I may get a sense of what type someone might be from thi, I have not expressed that; I'm only pointing out this is a difference in perspective, and not one side being total nonsense as you seem to be arguing.


It doesn't matter if you are trying to type me or a perspective I take, the point is you do it defensively, because you wanna avoid engaging the actual things I say that may disrupt your understanding. Seeking observable phenomena such as adaptability isn't a TE thing, it's first and foremost PE. I don't have conclusions, I am investigating and challenging the theories from their bases. Seeking objectivity is extraversion, as per their definitions. You are exhibiting Pi behaviors (protecting your perceptions).


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

The act of observing phenomena might be Pe, but the PRINCIPLE that this is what detarmines TRUTH (i.e. logical correctness, by which you seek to just sweep in and “disrupt my understanding” to begin with) is Te. (And very UN-Pe-like. If I seem defensive, then that's just how I react when obstructed with my “Opposing Personality” functional perspective; i.e. what I'm saying is just wrong because it doesn't line up with these logical standards that are external to me).
So you might be “investigating” things, but the way you're going about it (your way of “challenging“) IS making a conclusion (which way of theorizing is RIGHT or WRONG, which is the element of judgment. And you seem to be for some reason in denial of making a judgment).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> The act of observing phenomena might be Pe, but the PRINCIPLE that this is what detarmines TRUTH (i.e. logical correctness, by which you seek to just sweep in and “disrupt my understanding” to begin with) is Te. (And very UN-Pe-like. If I seem defensive, then that's just how I react when obstructed with my “Opposing Personality” functional perspective; i.e. what I'm saying is just wrong because it doesn't line up with these logical standards that are external to me).
> So you might be “investigating” things, but the way you're going about it (your way of “challenging“) IS making a conclusion (which way of theorizing is RIGHT or WRONG, which is the element of judgment. And you seem to be for some reason in denial of making a judgment).


It's only un-PE-like, if you believe TE-P must alternate out of some need for balance that must necessarily come from the auxiliary, and build your understanding of people based on this, seeing everything through that lens. 

If you think I'm making a judgment by seeking consistency of observations, premises and the whole structure of a theory then yes I am. But I haven't concluded that Beebe's/Jung's etc theories are total nonsense, that was a projection of your own need for conclusions. Do you think we shouldn't strive for theories to not contradict themselves?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Yes, but we must realize that our view that one theory contradicts itself and another is more “consistent”, etc. might be still skewed by our own perspective of things. You're being rather authoritative, but to Ne, this is one idea; that's another, and it believes things should be kept more “open”.

And I guess I should have said un-*Ne*-like; but it had nothing to do with any “balance”, because the stack theory allows that if people are in the so-called tertiary “loop”, then they will be using two functions of the same attitude. Still, if what's coming to the forefront is judging based on objective criteria, then that is definitely “un-Pe-like”.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Yes, but we must realize that our view that one theory contradicts itself and another is more “consistent”, etc. might be still skewed by our own perspective of things. You're being rather authoritative, but to Ne, this is one idea; that's another, and it believes things should be kept more “open”.
> 
> And I guess I should have said un-*Ne*-like; but it had nothing to do with any “balance”, because the stack theory allows that if people are in the so-called tertiary “loop”, then they will be using two functions of the same attitude. Still, if what's coming to the forefront is judging based on objective criteria, then that is definitely “un-Pe-like”.


Why are you so defensive of Beebe's theory?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Why are you so trying to discredit it (prove it to be "self-contradictory" or whatever)? We have a difference of opinion, yet you seem to be trying to get me to see it your way. If you make a point against it, I have the right to defend it.


----------

