# Introverted feelers are not gauranteef selfish



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Turi said:


> The second 'selfish' reference is absolutely under the Extroverted Thinking type description in the copy I have, what copy do you have, @*WickerDeer*?
> 
> You're actually correct with regards to the other one, it is indeed in reference to the unconscious introversion of the Extroverted type in general.
> 
> Which proves my point even harder re: selfishness applying to all introverted types.


I thought I said that. But I am often thoughtless, so I apologize if I did not, or if I did not emphasize it enough.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

There is a weird parallel being drawn here that reminds me of people that think intuition equals sensation plus more.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Here is a brief summary of Fi.


Introverted Feeling types are innately more concerned with personal harmony than social harmony on a wider spectrum. People engaging introverted feeling appraise actions based on their own individual core values, to make sure that they don’t create internal discord. 

Introverted Feeling types are far less dependent upon agreement and harmony in the outer world around them, as long as the external situation doesn’t impact their own personal, internal balance. Introverted Feeling types do not tend to try to win others people over to their own point of view besides apparently, any time Fi is suggested as sharing characteristics associated with introversion. 

Introverted Feeling types may go along with what they _assume _to be other peoples deeply held convictions - so long as their own deeply held convictions are not violated. When they do lead the way, so to speak, it tends to be quietly and subtly by example or through body language. 

As introverted Feeling types are sustained by their own inner harmony, they may appear serene, they prefer to connect with other people mostly in one-on-one situations and prefer those interactions to be based on high levels of personal trust and authenticity.



Anyone disagree?


----------



## Librarian (Jun 14, 2016)

Turi said:


> Here is a brief summary of Fi.
> 
> 
> Introverted Feeling types are innately more concerned with personal harmony than social harmony on a wider spectrum. People engaging introverted feeling appraise actions based on their own individual core values, to make sure that they don’t create internal discord.


Personal harmony is a term I don't see used often, or I forget. Obviously, social harmony is a common Fe term, one I think works well for Fe users and I can probably assume you do as well. 

But, and this may be just me, I wouldn't describe my Fi as something that resembles "harmony." Sometimes, sure, but definitely not a consistent constant as that of Fe version of harmony. Fi never struck me as harmonious in nature, nor does it seem its users constantly seek it.

Fi works with, and also against, Te. Ex: The most practical thing to do in a situation, the most efficient (Te), is not always the "right" thing to do, not the thing that matches my "moral code" (Fi). This is not harmony by any stretch, and this dilemma happens more often than you might think, life being the complicated thing that it is.

Fi in itself doesn't seem to seek harmony. It will constantly be questioning many different aspects of its moral code and how to live by it. Silly though it is, it often wonders how many aspects of life can be connected to its identity. Fi tends to overanalyze as Ti does. It doesn't look for harmony in itself, probably because it knows how impossible that is. 


> Introverted Feeling types are far less dependent upon agreement and harmony in the outer world around them, as long as the external situation doesn’t impact their own personal, internal balance. Introverted Feeling types do not tend to try to win others people over to their own point of view besides apparently, any time Fi is suggested as sharing characteristics associated with introversion.


Agreed. But again, I don't think that trying to win others over, by seeking agreement with others, makes Fe more selfless. But then, there's my pesky Fi that believes we understand that people are individuals, not a group, and maybe that's the whole point you're making.

And yet, I still think Fe can be just as "bad" when it comes to self interest: I think trying to get everyone to agree in some extreme sense is the same level of selfishness Fi is certainly capable of. What's the word for that again? 

Oh yeah, brainwashing! Or manipulation. Or passive aggressive. Or perhaps conformity.

I mean, are these less selfish? Can you still be considered selfless as long as your focus is on people, no matter how screwed up your treatment of said people is? 



> Introverted Feeling types may go along with what they assume to be other peoples deeply held convictions - so long as their own deeply held convictions are not violated. When they do lead the way, so to speak, it tends to be quietly and subtly by example or through body language.


Agreed. 



> Anyone disagree?


I pretty much agree with the description. Well, excluding the "harmony" part, but I could easily be the odd Fi user out, so who knows if I'm the only Fi with no inner harmony as a mainstay! 

My biggest question goes back to our topic of Introverted Feelers being more selfish than their extroverted counterparts. Look at it this way if you're wondering why I'm still doubtful:

_If Fi moral compass is "Put others first as often as possible", then is it really more selfish then Fe? If your deepest held conviction is to put others before yourself, its hard to call it more selfish simply because they made that choice internally and by themselves._


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Librarian said:


> This isn't an attempt to defend Fi (I am currently unoffended by your posts and see no need to defend it), but I do wish to understand what you are saying. I appreciate you for having a little integrity and explaining why you believe something, as opposed to doing the annoying thing many will do by saying "I'm right, you're just too stupid to get it and I owe no explanation," and haughtily ditch the thread.
> 
> Btw, I'm writing this before bed so please ask for any and all clarification, I am very tired and probably should've waited till morning, but here I am and here we go.


There's not much to understand, I just believe introverted functions are all selfish in their own ways.
For some reason, everyone is trying to fight against this idea, attempting to have their cake and eat it too.
Which leads me to not believe I am incorrect, but to believe a lot of people don't understand introversion and are likely mistyped as preferring introversion.

Any person with a true preference for introversion will understand entirely what I mean and not fight against it, due to it simply being true.
'refer to self' 'self above others' etc etc - selfish, obviously.




> Not... exactly. (I'm a detail obsessed Si, sue me.)
> 
> Fi doesn't always do its own bidding; rather, its own bidding can often come from external sources (Te.) Of course, we could easily say when Fi uses external sources, such as doing something selfless for a beloved family, its still selfish because it benefits your love for them, spurring your deep Fi wishes. But if such is the case, then this definition of selfish is still inaccurate because the selfishness involves thinking about other people.


You're attributing every selfless aspect of an Fi type, to their extroverted judging function.
I'm unsure how this rebuts my position, you are saying the introverted function is selfish ie about themselves, but this is balanced by the selfless extroverted function.




> That certainly depends, doesn't it? Suppose you or another high Fe user does any of these things. Are they less selfless for doing so?
> 
> And isn't it actually selfless to keep your likes/dislikes/values to yourself? A very rude and self centered person does the opposite much of the time. "How dare you disagree?! Let me shove my personal values on you!"
> 
> I mean, I'm connected to Fi profoundly, but that doesn't mean I keep it to myself out of selfishness. Fi isn't some resource, like food or wood, that I keep to myself like a western movie villain.


I wouldn't have a clue what other high Fe users do, I'm not an Fe type, I'm an Fi type, hence the IxFx.

Bit of a stretch to morph keeping your own likes, dislikes and personal values to yourself ie hiding them away from others into something pertaining to being 'selfless'.

In certain, very specific situations people might encounter a couple of times a year, sure - actually, what you've mentioned here, clean exposes a lot of the supposed Fi types as not being Fi types - have a look at what I'm being met with, an absolute barnload of people trying to shove their own personal opinions on to me - want to know what type is explicitly stated as _not _doing that across numerous sources?
Fi. lol.

I believe you're incorrect with regards to Fi not being a resource, like food or wood - that is exactly how the function-attitudes should be viewed, as energy - a transfer of libido from either object to subject (I) or subject to object (E).
When you prefer to be more 'western movie villain' then you are preferring introversion, keeping your psychic energy to yourself - conservation.



> Fi often relies on Te to examine the external world to make the best choice, even if it is for selfish reasons, so I respectfully disagree that it has no regard to others. NOT because I'm trying to defend Fi, I just wish to state that I, as a Te fi user in my darkest and most selfish moments, will always pay regard to others to make the best choice. For myself. Thus this description doesn't really apply, I imagine any "evil" or selfish Fi user would do this as well; consider others so as to benefit yourself.


This is again, attributing the selfless 'external' aspects of Fi, to Te - of course, "self" _anything_ doesn't apply when you're warping introversion into extroversion.

Introversion is self above others, refer to self first - when this occurs, how much regard is given for others?
Zip. Zilch. Nada. That's why the person prefers introversion. Because _the subject comes first_ and with regards to Feeling, specifically, this means the persons own inner motivations, personal likes, dislikes and values come first - above others - ergo, no regard for others right off the bat.

First port of call - _themselves_.
Introverted. Internal. Inner world. Preferred over Extroversion. External. Outer world.




> Selfish is, without a doubt, a negative word with a negative meaning that most definitely paints others in a negative light.
> 
> I think parts of myself are selfish, yes, and maybe far more than I could ever know or accept. My biggest issue isn't that you're saying this, but rather, that it may be implying that anyone has a reason or excuse for selfish behavior, even on a small level.
> (I don't think that's what you mean, but I have to be honest with you as to why I feel a need to discuss this.)
> ...


Like I said, if people want to attribute negative connotations to 'selfish', they can feel free to do so - I don't intend them, and I maintain that the term itself is an apt descriptor for the introverted attitude.
Of which, introverted Feeling just so happens to be.

You type yourself as an ISTJ, I presume using that warped IEIE stack that has literally no credibility nor research to support its validity (oh, it was also pointed out as having no real credibility in the book it came from, fwiw) - so I suppose you're viewing this from the perspective of.. an extroverted judging function being in a superior position to the introverted one.

Cool, but you're coming from the position of someone that prefers an _extroverted judging function over an introverted one_.
Of _course _you're going to say this, and it makes so much sense considering the amount of extroverted attributes you seem to apply to introverted Feeling.



> Perhaps its the word introversion where we truly disagree or misunderstand. Introverts don't put their flavor above all else, they are exhausted by being with people without some alone time. There must be both for an introvert to be happy. I still don't see why this is a selfish thing in itself. Why is it less selfish to constantly want to be around people if they don't wish to be with you constantly? Or some other extraverted tendency?


Introverts do put themselves above all else, that's what introversion is, a preference for a transfer of libido towards the person. 
This is literally introversion.

Yes, a balance would be ideal - but we're not talking about the parts of a person that require development to maintain balance, are we? We're talking about introversion first and foremost, here, Fi specifically isn't really a concern because the problem here is everybody is slapping a whole host of extroverted characteristics onto introversion, having their cake and eating it too.

I don't see a need to engage in the irrelevant hypothetical aspects of the last section of this quote, way too many variables to take into account.




> Wait, so we are talking about unhealthy Fi being selfish? This I can 100% get behind. Again, my main issue is simply not giving selfish actions or people an excuse. Unhealthy Fi can get way too wound up in itself, agreed. Its worth noting that a Fe user, the INFJ, will often cut emotion out entirely when unhealthy. Seems like a common "insert type here" state of unhealthiness.


Kind of, but not exclusively.
The fact still remains that everybody is trying to turn the introverted characteristics of introverted Feeling, into _extroversion _via some magic trick of sorts that I'm clearly never going to fall for.



> Introverts are capable of cutting off their need for alone time/ self reflection, often to their great suffering. Which to me is the ultimate act of selflessness.


I don't feel comfortable attributing the ability to tolerate less preferred situations for limited amounts of time to being the 'ultimate act of selflessness' - I would view this perspective as one that might be held by somebody with a true preference for extroversion, amplifying their inferior unconscious introverted preference ie falsification of type.


----------



## Librarian (Jun 14, 2016)

Thank you for such a direct response, and don't worry, I'll try not to keep writing these lengthy responses on the topic to hopefully spare you and others the annoyance.



Turi said:


> There's not much to understand, I just believe introverted functions are all selfish in their own ways.
> For some reason, everyone is trying to fight against this idea, attempting to have their cake and eat it too.
> Which leads me to not believe I am incorrect, but to believe a lot of people don't understand introversion and are likely mistyped as preferring introversion.
> 
> ...


You're right, that point was foolish on my end, I tend to bring up extra details that don't add to the debate or are related, so you are correct in calling me out on this. The last paragraph of my last post here (in italics) is my real question here, focusing on Fi and not Te.



> I wouldn't have a clue what other high Fe users do, I'm not an Fe type, I'm an Fi type, hence the IxFx.


Ok, I just saw your INFJ typing under your name so I assumed that's what your type was. Your avatar btype and statement of having Fi are opposite things. 



> Bit of a stretch to morph keeping your own likes, dislikes and personal values to yourself ie hiding them away from others into something pertaining to being 'selfless'.


What I was going for is that holding something back wasn't in itself automatically selfish, not that this trait is selfless in itself in some sacred way or something extremist like that.



> In certain, very specific situations people might encounter a couple of times a year, sure - actually, what you've mentioned here, clean exposes a lot of the supposed Fi types as not being Fi types - have a look at what I'm being met with, an absolute barnload of people trying to shove their own personal opinions on to me - want to know what type is explicitly stated as not doing that across numerous sources?
> Fi. lol.


That's a good point. For me, I was ("was" because I think now you have made yourself pretty clear in most respects, thanks for that) genuinely interested in what you were saying. I can agree on multiple points and hope that you know that my disagreement in certain areas isn't meant to tear your whole argument down. Really, my disagreement is 2, and 1 (or perhaps both) isn't even disagreeing with you, not quite. But more on that later.



> I believe you're incorrect with regards to Fi not being a resource, like food or wood - that is exactly how the function-attitudes should be viewed, as energy - a transfer of libido from either object to subject (I) or subject to object (E).
> When you prefer to be more 'western movie villain' then you are preferring introversion, keeping your psychic energy to yourself - conservation.


Lol, I know that there is a lot of disagreement in tis thread, and yes I may be apart of that, but I really hope we all take note of this: Turi just called Fi a potential resource, something capable of being useful, whist I previously stated Fi wasn't any of these things. If you perceive his view on Fi negative, then I guess I am negative about it in certain ways as well.



> This is again, attributing the selfless 'external' aspects of Fi, to Te - of course, "self" anything doesn't apply when you're warping introversion into extroversion.
> 
> Introversion is self above others, refer to self first - when this occurs, how much regard is given for others?
> Zip. Zilch. Nada. That's why the person prefers introversion. Because the subject comes first and with regards to Feeling, specifically, this means the persons own inner motivations, personal likes, dislikes and values come first - above others - ergo, no regard for others right off the bat.
> ...


And again, it was stupid of me to bring up Te in such a Fi specific thread, I now know my Te Aux was coming out when it shouldn't have been. 



> Like I said, if people want to attribute negative connotations to 'selfish', they can feel free to do so - I don't intend them, and I maintain that the term itself is an apt descriptor for the introverted attitude.
> Of which, introverted Feeling just so happens to be.


I was referring to the word and how most people see it. For better or worse, language is mainly what the vast majority makes it out to be. But I'm honestly a little tired debating a word, no offense, so moving on.


> You type yourself as an ISTJ, I presume using that warped IEIE stack that has literally no credibility nor research to support its validity (oh, it was also pointed out as having no real credibility in the book it came from, fwiw) - so I suppose you're viewing this from the perspective of.. an extroverted judging function being in a superior position to the introverted one.
> 
> Cool, but you're coming from the position of someone that prefers an extroverted judging function over an introverted one.
> Of course you're going to say this, and it makes so much sense considering the amount of extroverted attributes you seem to apply to introverted Feeling.


Woah, what? Pardon my ignorance, but where exactly are you saying I got my type from? You mean like Si Te Fi Ne stack? Isn't that what you've been using, the "stack", I mean? Not to mention that post on your sig. blog uses the functions (which was a nice read, and appropriately enough, it was partly due to research reading many articles similar to that that I came to a conclusion of ISTJ.)

Disagreeing with you on certain (and really, much smaller) points (keep in mind, I agree with the whole introvert focuses on the self, which can be a bad thing, can be selfish which isn't necessarily bad, so on), doesn't mean I'm a Te user that sees introversion as inferior. It simply means I disagree with certain points. 


> Introverts do put themselves above all else, that's what introversion is, a preference for a transfer of libido towards the person.
> This is literally introversion.
> 
> Yes, a balance would be ideal - but we're not talking about the parts of a person that require development to maintain balance, are we? We're talking about introversion first and foremost, here, Fi specifically isn't really a concern because the problem here is everybody is slapping a whole host of extroverted characteristics onto introversion, having their cake and eating it too.
> ...


That last sentence is probably why I hold skepticism on the Fi=more selfish idea. Too many variables.



> Kind of, but not exclusively.
> The fact still remains that everybody is trying to turn the introverted characteristics of introverted Feeling, into extroversion via some magic trick of sorts that I'm clearly never going to fall for.


Oh, I agree its not exclusive. Also, I hope it wasn't my silly comments that make you think everybody is turning Fi into an extroverted trait. I take full responsibility for my stupid remarks on that. If not, fine, but just to be sure, I definitely don't represent the majority in this thread.


> I don't feel comfortable attributing the ability to tolerate less preferred situations for limited amounts of time to being the 'ultimate act of selflessness' - I would view this perspective as one that might be held by somebody with a true preference for extroversion, amplifying their inferior unconscious introverted preference ie falsification of type.


That's certainly, a, um, deep theory. Maybe I'm being an overly direct sensor, but I think this is a leap. My comment wasn't meant to be that deep, so I guess I'm doing something right but yeah, the only "meaning" I intended was giving up your happiness and preferences is an ultimate (or very large) act of selflessness. Because as you yourself keep saying, Fi is selfish, therefore putting such a function on the backburner would be pretty selfless. 

To put my skepticism simply, my disagreements (if that's the right term), are these 2 points.

*It is fine if introverts have "selfish" traits or referring to self above others, whatever. My issue comes only if we use the term selfish in a sense where an individual causes harm to others by being selfish, not caring and using it as an excuse to be a jerk. There is no excuse for such behavior in my book, and is a deplorable character trait*. Note: I do not believe you (Turi) ever implied this in your descriptions, but as something that comes to mind because believing it so strongly, I mention it. Too many people excuse themselves for stupid reasons, and I think we can all agree that no one is allowed this excuse to treat others poorly.

*If Fi moral compass is "Put others first as often as possible", then is it really more selfish then Fe? If your deepest held conviction is to put others before yourself, its hard to call it more selfish simply because they made that choice internally and by themselves, a desire to help people even to their personal suffering.*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Librarian said:


> Ok, I just saw your INFJ typing under your name so I assumed that's what your type was. Your avatar btype and statement of having Fi are opposite things.


INFJ is my 'type'.



> Lol, I know that there is a lot of disagreement in tis thread, and yes I may be apart of that, but I really hope we all take note of this: Turi just called Fi a potential resource, something capable of being useful, whist I previously stated Fi wasn't any of these things. If you perceive his view on Fi negative, then I guess I am negative about it in certain ways as well.


I realize you're trying to be positive here lol, but I have to clarify, what I said wasn't really Fi specific, it was more related to the introverted attitude in general.
I don't think any functions, in any orientation, are inherently positive or negative, I don't attribute 'good' or 'bad' to any of them.
Except Si. I think Jungs introverted Sensation type sounds cool af.



> I was referring to the word and how most people see it. For better or worse, language is mainly what the vast majority makes it out to be. But I'm honestly a little tired debating a word, no offense, so moving on.


Same. lol.



> Woah, what? Pardon my ignorance, but where exactly are you saying I got my type from? You mean like Si Te Fi Ne stack? Isn't that what you've been using, the "stack", I mean? Not to mention that post on your sig. blog uses the functions (which was a nice read, and appropriately enough, it was partly due to research reading many articles similar to that that I came to a conclusion of ISTJ.)


I don't believe in a rigid 'stack' - and absolutely not the Harold Grant one (which differs from Myers one, which was actually IEEE or EIII, fwiw, so you'd actually be tertiary Fe, as an ISTJ under that system) - Grants IEIE/EIEI 'stack' has the least amount of credibility of all possible stacks.

The true stack, from my observations, is actually Jungs - IIEE or EEII - though, I'm not locked into this when typing and don't force specific orientations onto people.



> Disagreeing with you on certain (and really, much smaller) points (keep in mind, I agree with the whole introvert focuses on the self, which can be a bad thing, can be selfish which isn't necessarily bad, so on), doesn't mean I'm a Te user that sees introversion as inferior. It simply means I disagree with certain points.


Eh. I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'superior' - I meant, 'of a higher position'.. basically, you are coming from a position of Te is preferred more than Fi, yeah?
So Te is in a 'superior' position to Fi. 
I didn't intend it to be that you think Te is 'better' than Fi, only that you're coming from the perspective of someone that 'prefers' Te _over _Fi - no value judgments involved.



> That's certainly, a, um, deep theory. Maybe I'm being an overly direct sensor, but I think this is a leap. My comment wasn't meant to be that deep, so I guess I'm doing something right but yeah, the only "meaning" I intended was giving up your happiness and preferences is an ultimate (or very large) act of selflessness. Because as you yourself keep saying, Fi is selfish, therefore putting such a function on the backburner would be pretty selfless.


I don't keep saying "Fi is selfish".
The introverted attitude is selfish.



> To put my skepticism simply, my disagreements (if that's the right term), are these 2 points.
> 
> *It is fine if introverts have "selfish" traits or referring to self above others, whatever. My issue comes only if we use the term selfish in a sense where an individual causes harm to others by being selfish, not caring and using it as an excuse to be a jerk. There is no excuse for such behavior in my book, and is a deplorable character trait*. Note: I do not believe you (Turi) ever implied this in your descriptions, but as something that comes to mind because believing it so strongly, I mention it. Too many people excuse themselves for stupid reasons, and I think we can all agree that no one is allowed this excuse to treat others poorly.


I would only attribute those _kinds _of negative connotations to an unhealthy extroverted type and this would be purely because of the unhealthy, negative, 'selfishness' of the less-preferred unconscious introverted attitude.

I don't believe we should use any function, or personality type, or dichotomy etc etc to excuse poor behaviour, if you're a dick, you're a dick, not related to any functions or function-attitude, imo.




> *If Fi moral compass is "Put others first as often as possible", then is it really more selfish then Fe? If your deepest held conviction is to put others before yourself, its hard to call it more selfish simply because they made that choice internally and by themselves, a desire to help people even to their personal suffering.*


...if someone is oriented towards putting other people first as often as possible - they are absolutely preferring the _extroverted _attitude.

If your deepest held conviction, is to essentially prefer a transference of libido from yourself to others, then this _ain't _introversion.

This is like saying.. I'm an N dominant but I had a dream that I loved laying concrete and touching sandpaper, and now I prefer the sensory world of facts, data and observable information over anything intuitive. But, I'm still Ni! Still N haha. Can't take that away from me! I just am saying I literally prefer Sensation while claiming to be an intuitive.


----------



## Librarian (Jun 14, 2016)

Turi said:


> INFJ is my 'type'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Come ON, Jung! How are we going to be unbiased if you're biased?! (;

(Joke aside, yes, functions are what we make of them when it comes to "good/bad")



> I don't believe in a rigid 'stack' - and absolutely not the Harold Grant one (which differs from Myers one, which was actually IEEE or EIII, fwiw, so you'd actually be tertiary Fe, as an ISTJ under that system) - Grants IEIE/EIEI 'stack' has the least amount of credibility of all possible stacks.
> 
> The true stack, from my observations, is actually Jungs - IIEE or EEII - though, I'm not locked into this when typing and don't force specific orientations onto people.


That explains a lot- thanks for enlightening me.



> Eh. I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'superior' - I meant, 'of a higher position'.. basically, you are coming from a position of Te is preferred more than Fi, yeah?
> So Te is in a 'superior' position to Fi.
> I didn't intend it to be that you think Te is 'better' than Fi, only that you're coming from the perspective of someone that 'prefers' Te over Fi - no value judgments involved.


Ah, I misrepresented you in that case. My Te, as I think I un-ironically stated towards the start, does seem to be "invading" my posts too much. Perhaps this is why my response to your posts seem a bit different from the other, stronger Fi users?



> I would only attribute those kinds of negative connotations to an unhealthy extroverted type and this would be purely because of the unhealthy, negative, 'selfishness' of the less-preferred unconscious introverted attitude.
> 
> I don't believe we should use any function, or personality type, or dichotomy etc etc to excuse poor behaviour, if you're a dick, you're a dick, not related to any functions or function-attitude, imo.


That was all I was trying to say, that there is a "type" of negativity shouldn't be excused.



> ...if someone is oriented towards putting other people first as often as possible - they are absolutely preferring the extroverted attitude.
> 
> If your deepest held conviction, is to essentially prefer a transference of libido from yourself to others, then this ain't introversion.
> 
> This is like saying.. I'm an N dominant but I had a dream that I loved laying concrete and touching sandpaper, and now I prefer the sensory world of facts, data and observable information over anything intuitive. But, I'm still Ni! Still N haha. Can't take that away from me! I just am saying I literally prefer Sensation while claiming to be an intuitive.


Lol. 

I'm not talking about transference, just a moral code, to be cliché. In my mind, a certain brand of 'putting others first' still fits the 'selfish' meaning of Fi/Introversion you've been describing. I guess, to use an analogy with a character most people know of, would be Batman. 

Now, I know little about this character outside an old cartoon, but even I know a few things. Like how he's a jerk. Not exactly the kind of jerk I say is inexcusable, but come on, I think even his fans call him a jerk. Now, yes, we know that he is a hero who helps people, he make sacrifices I guess. But he's also a loner. And not a nice one. So on one hand, he has a moral code to protect his city, on the other, he ignores his allies and puts his way of security above all else. The irony of the character is he's a famed loner, while probably having more known friends than other characters of the super genre. Not that I'd know for sure, but that does seem to be a staple.

Anyway, I think that's like Fi/ introverted functions. Maybe you do things out of a "selfless" heroic motto, but you also are quick to put said motto ahead of even people you claim your motto helps. Or your motto sucks to start with. Often, it goes from "My way is definitely the best way and I'm helping others so I'm right" to "Wait, is this REALLY helping them or is it really just helping myself? Is it security for them, or just for me?" 

I confess to this level of blindness in many choices I make. It definitely sucks to realize it, but yeah, I've done it more times than I care to admit. 

It seems that we mostly agree, and of course you can respond to what I just wrote, but I probably don't have too much more to add. I may later post ways I've personally experienced my Fi in selfish ways, because it happens in more ways than anyone has yet stated, but otherwise, thanks for responding so directly and in spite of a few misinterpretations on my part.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Librarian - Batman is a good example, very much Fi driven - swore an oath to wipe out all the criminals in Gotham after seeing his parents lose their lives, and so is motivated internally very much so - does many great things, fights a lot of crime, but who for?
Himself.

It's not an external motivation, he's not ridding crime for other people, at heart, he's not doing anything for anyone else, it's all coming from within, which is very much how I see my own IxFx characteristics - I'm simply not dumb enough, or gullible enough, to believe that when I do good things for others, there isn't a self-above-others aspect to it.


* *





An example might be getting a call to go and play a gig somewhere with my band, or solo - if I accept it, it's because _I _want to do it - there is a little 'helping out a local small-business owner' part here, sure, but my underlying motivation comes from _within _- _I _want to do it, _I _want to play music and more than this, _I _want this town to realize there is actually somebody here that will play music, straight from the heart - no some robots wanking off I IV V progressions on repeat, not some jackasses playing the same old classic rock everybody else does - but a real, honest musician that will bleed himself dry even if there's no one there to listen - real, honest, emotion-fueled music.

So in saying 'yes' to help out a local business-owner, and in wanting to provide something to others - I'm _actually _being motivated by this internal, selfish, high ideal I value, that thinks this town deserves better.
I basically see myself as being on a crusade against a corruption of authenticity within my local music scene, and _that's _what drives me.

I understand on a surface level, people might think this is selfless, how is this Fi, but I know myself, I know where it's coming from, and I know damn well, that even in providing much-needed services to the region, there are selfish reasons at play.


Look at the above example from this perspective - who says my music is the best? Who says people want to listen to it?
Did I ask anybody? Do I ask bar-managers/owners if they're comfortable catering for my own personal vendetta?

Really, I'm _not _taking other people into account in this crusade. I'm telling them, what you've got is complete _trash _and needs to be eradicated and cleansed, and I'm telling them, I'm here to show 'em how it's supposed to be done.
I'm essentially subjecting everybody to my own personal evaluations, and getting paid for it - people tell me they love what we do, love new music, love honest music, love actually physically feeling things within themselves when we play - and I'm grateful for this, it's what I live for - but, it's coming from a very personal, selfish and introverted drive.

I haven't gone around seeking what other people want, like or dislike, I haven't looked outside of myself for what kind of music will appeal best to this region, what do people want to listen to, what's 'current', what they might value the most etc - no extroversion involved, lol. Complete F, but more relevant, complete *I*.

This example gets at that 'selfish' aspect of introversion I'm hinting at, touches on some F, but really Fi is just caught in the cross-fire because the discussion is really just about introversion and my belief that it is selfish, refers to self before others, prefers own decisions or own perceptions as opposed to anything externally sourced, etc etc.


----------



## OliveBranch (Aug 30, 2017)

Oh no... another debate with Turi on how to define introverted feeling.

Now everything that could have been learned and any fruitful outcome that could have occurred has gone out the window.

The theories stand as they are, attempting to make them more than what they are is only going to result in more theories. This post was no theory, but a simple statement that reigns true, as we know, we use all eight functions, and our types are only a piece of the framework of our complex personalities.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

OliveBranch said:


> Oh no... another debate with Turi on how to define introverted feeling.
> 
> Now everything that could have been learned and any fruitful outcome that could have occurred has gone out the window.


You say this, as if the entire thread wasn't intended as a rebuttal to previous discussions I've been involved in with regards to introverted Feeling, whereby I am apparently one of the only people with the opinion that functions in an introverted attitude, are indeed introverted.



> The theories stand as they are, attempting to make them more than what they are is only going to result in more theories. This post was no theory, but a simple statement that reigns true, as we know, we use all eight functions, and our types are only a piece of the framework of our complex personalities.


So it was intended as a statement - if it's not up for discussion or debate, why not just keep it in a notepad file, or a blog without a comments section?
Also, you can select your own opinions and theories - what you can't pick and choose, is facts and the simple fact remains, that any and all functions in the introverted attitude, refer to self above others, and are therefore inherently 'of the self' ie 'selfish'.


----------

