# An illustration of Fi



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

This is how I view it.

YouTube - RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilisation


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

Great clip. Absolutely no idea if it is Fi, but great clip.


----------



## SuperunknownVortex (Dec 4, 2009)

This is an excellent video, but this doesn't sound like Fi at all. If anything, this sounds more like Ni or Ne more than anything.

But, boy, this is all exciting! I don't know if it'll work, but I'll pray it does. In the mean, I'll think about what this video suggested.


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

Fantastic video.


----------



## Thinker96 (Feb 24, 2010)

dont see much Fi but very awesome video!


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I saw this video somewhere else. As soon as I saw it, I said, "That's a really good example of developed Fe in our sociology." Fi is demonstrated primarily as a deciding factor between two or more variables. In other words, Fi is used to decide which path we should take. (keep in mind that Ti does this as well, but on a more analytic scale) Fe, on the other hand, is used in taking action. It's used more in instances where the choice is action or inaction, involvement or ignorance. If Fi is what helps us decide which path to take, then Fe is what helps us get our feet moving.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Is an interesting video. That is how I think of Fe actually. Too much dealing with other people to be an introverted function.


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

I just liked it because of the number of ideas it sparked, and the path of reasoning it took.

I don't think you can necessarily encapsulate any function in terms of ideas and personal values.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Yeah, I see a lot of this connecting to what Feeling is (both Fe & Fi), but also Fi specifically. I think what people see as Ne or Ni in the video is _how_ it is explained, _how_ the connections are made for the speaker to arrive at his conclusions. However, what he is articulating is something that I'd argue most Fi-doms have a natural connection to, without any need to break it down to grasp it. It's a feeling that arises as a whole, a base for smaller ideas to branch out from.

Watching this was like hearing the obvious - "this is a _discovery_ to people?!". I don't agree with every idea here, but some of it is very basic to my grasp of people, especially from an emotional standpoint. Everyone uses Feeling, but arguably, Fi-doms are most in touch with this part of their mind.

My rough understanding of Jungian theory is that Fi ideals come out of "primordial images", or something like innate, basic concepts of what is good or bad. These significant ideas are often interpreted to the Fi-dom's own individual needs, but this self-awareness also lends an insight into other people. It's like, the more we know ourselves, the better we grasp the underlying motivations of all people, and they are good or bad.

Jung says these underlying images come from the "collective unconscious", which to me sounds like an inborn conscience of sorts. Basically, it's like an inherited sense of morality, which every human shares as we all stem from the same first pair. It allows us to relate to every human by turning inward and accessing these basic, innate concepts of what it means to be human and what humans need; even what it means to be alive & what all living creatures need. You could put an evolutionary or theological slant on this, depending on your personal beliefs. This is entirely philosophical of course. 

What I also notice among Fi-doms is a tendency to value what the video ascribes to the empathic viewpoint as opposed to the utilitarian one. I definitely see Fe promoting these shared values also, but Fe seems so much more adaptable to the external, so that it will try and work with what is there. Fe is important for implementing Fi ideals in reality, just as Te is important for making Ti logic viable. But I see the basic concepts of ideal originating with Fi, as it looks inward to judge and Fe uses more objective criteria.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Yeah, this was pretty much like "duh" to me. It was all Fi up until I was empathizing with animals. I really think that affection for animals has more to do with Fe.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

Interesting vid; however, the message is just a little too trite for my taste: come together and love one another, yeah, that would be nice. Furthermore, if one shares in someone's emotional tumult, ie, when the spider crawls up someone we feel creepy too, and in helping that person get the spider off of them we are merely trying to avoid feeling creepy ourselves, which is inherently selfish. :tongue:


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Interesting, but idealistic. He says something about treating everyone as you'd treat your family meanwhile there are a lot of problems in many families or even if you treat everyone as you treat yourself, some people don't treat themselves very well.

Actually he says if you increase selfhood, you increase empathy but how would you do that when everyone likes to define who you are or tell you what you should do or be or have.

And he said something about how schools and business practices are based on the idea that people are generally selfish and greedy and you should drive the innate selfishness out of your child. So I guess the idea is to assume that people have good intentions? But I tend to think they do anyway.


----------



## Jerick (Mar 19, 2010)

pc3000 said:


> Interesting, but idealistic.


Maybe that's why Troisi considered this video to illustrate Fi.

But the examples in the video fail. Germans and Jews didn't get along during a certain point in time, despite Jews having been considered part of the German nation. That also means the time line of humans moving on from blood to religion to nations is wrong, since they all existed together at the same time. That would mean, that if that continued to a worldwide group, we would still have the same splits.

I would guess humans grouped together into these organizations because of Si, not Fe. SJs make up nearly 50% of the population, and they're the ones that love to create and follow these external structures. The main reason is that the structures give them stability.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

^ You guys are focusing on details instead of grasping the concept. Yet, you use complicated situations to criticize the concepts, basically ignoring the details of those situations.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm such an aspie.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> ^ You guys are focusing on details instead of grasping the concept. Yet, you use complicated situations to criticize the concepts, basically ignoring the details of those situations.


You use sweeping broad-strokes to accuse people of not understanding one man's warmed over pining for utopia. "Let's all just love one another, we're hard wired for it." What have I missed?

Explain how I have overlooked the concept. I took an example he used as part of his proof that humans are hard-wired for empathy and not for selfishness, and I used it to posit a counter argument that empathy is selfish. All human action is done to derive utility, ergo, is utilitarian. If I won the lottery and gave it all away I'd feel damn good about it, and to me that feeling would be worth the millions of dollars, I have done nothing more than made a purchase. Tell me how that differs from feeling good by spending that money on a bunch of stupid shit? It's still utilitarian, and if I buy a bunch of bullshit that money goes to people with jobs.

I hope your rejoinder actually attempts to refute my argument rather than insult my intelligence because I'm not on board for a bunch of feel good BS that stands zero chance of working.


Ooooh! Good chance for type analysis here: INTPs tend to get caustic and defensive when they feel their intelligence is being insulted. < We need a narrator with an accent, "The elusive INTP has emerged from his shell to defend his territory, and he looks angry." :wink:


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

I can see the Fi


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

No, I don't think so.

I always just viewed Fi like looking within for ethics, instead of to the outer world to more accepted ethics. It's the proof that morality is subjective_ in some _ and objective in others. I think Fi users do tend to be more empathetic though for this reason, they empathize with everyone and try to understand the people that aren't socially acceptable to understand, therefore putting themselves in more people's shoes.

I think when it comes to making decisions based on people, morality, no matter what type you are, you'll use either one or the other. I use Fi, though I'm mostly uncomfortable using it, I still use it on a daily basis. But I'm not an empathetic person, so I can't say for sure if this is how Fi should be viewed.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Trainwreck said:


> You use sweeping broad-strokes to accuse people of not understanding one man's warmed over pining for utopia. "Let's all just love one another, we're hard wired for it." What have I missed?
> 
> Explain how I have overlooked the concept. I took an example he used as part of his proof that humans are hard-wired for empathy and not for selfishness, and I used it to posit a counter argument that empathy is selfish. All human action is done to derive utility, ergo, is utilitarian. If I won the lottery and gave it all away I'd feel damn good about it, and to me that feeling would be worth the millions of dollars, I have done nothing more than made a purchase. Tell me how that differs from feeling good by spending that money on a bunch of stupid shit? It's still utilitarian, and if I buy a bunch of bullshit that money goes to people with jobs.
> 
> ...


Oh honey, I hope to do both :tongue:.

There is a distinction so obvious to me, and the fact that Ti-doms often struggle to understand it is amusing.... roud:

Motive is a factor....do you give the money away to feel good or to make others feel good, because you know what it is to feel good? It's only selfish if your only concern is how the result affects YOU.

In the spider example - do you act to remove the spider to avoid your own creepy feeling or because you know what the creepy feeling is like and you want to help someone else avoid it also? Is the motivation for your own well-being ONLY? Win-win situations are not selfish, as they concern the welfare of both parties. 

It becomes more complicated when you realize that people feel _differently_...maybe some people _like_ their pet tarantula to crawl up their arm, and in taking action to remove it, you would not be helpful. You now must put aside your own feeling & make an effort to grasp theirs by comparing it to something you do understand, such as petting your dog & the pleasure it gives you. Then you can respond in ways which truly help people in their goals & they can do the same for you; and now you have people interacting productively. 

Yes, there is more to it all than that, because there are always more variables, but the simplicity of the scenario illustrates a concept.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> Oh honey, I hope to do both :tongue:.
> 
> There is a distinction so obvious to me, and the fact that Ti-doms often struggle to understand it is amusing.... roud:
> 
> ...


Making others feel good makes me feel good, therefore via the transitive property helping others is masturbatory, about making myself feel good. Extending it to your paragraph regarding the pet tarantula: our intentions, whether good or bad, don't always meet with reality, and that usually makes me feel bad, and I try and avoid this at all costs. Avoiding negatives is utilitarian.

Human behavior happens on a subconscious level, ultimately the brain chemistry wants to be a certain way because that ensures survival. What I mean by this is that high calorie food releases endorphines, and makes us feel good because those foods, in the baser era of our development, were good for survival; furthermore, being socialized, which requires empathy, makes us feel good too because it helps us survive. A human alone in the wild -excluding Bear Gryles- is dead. All human behavior is utilitarian. We do things that feel good because while evolving they helped us survive; however, as I said before, intention doesn't always meet with reality. Drugs make us feel good, and etc., yet they don't necessarily ensure survival because they can ruin people's lives, just like squirrel at a bird feeder gorging on seed may often times find itself at the wrong end of a pellet gun. Point is, those actions are all ultimately selfish, preservation oriented, and ultimately whether or not they preserve us is up to factors beyond our control.


----------



## Jerick (Mar 19, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> There is a distinction so obvious to me, and the fact that Ti-doms often struggle to understand it is amusing....


I understand the basic idea of the video just fine, but the extrapolation they took from that idea is wrong.

I also remember thinking, that if they had studied MBTI before writing the script for that video, that they would've referred to the feeling functions when talking about empathy. They tried to lump all of humanity into one group, as if we all have the same personality type, and work in exactly the same way. People aren't clones and they respond differently in certain situations. I don't even want to consider myself as part of the same group as all of humanity, and I think it's impossible for that to ever occur on a large scale.


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

You know, I struggle to understand how anyone could not think this is both achievable and preferable. It's the natural conclusion, essentially anyway, I come to. I hope I don't come off as condescending, because it is genuine curiosity of an alien viewpoint. 

Humans are powerful creatures. We tinker with the foundations of matter and send objects to observe the depths of space. We can preserve the minds of generations through language. We orchestrate sounds into heartfelt emotion. We do all kinds of crazy shit for seemingly no better reason than 'for the lulz.' We can't work together to break down imaginary walls and create a society with a foundation of empathy and support for your fellow man? A situation where everyone is on mostly even ground and everyone wins?

Carl Sagan said something to the effect of "Those in support of nuclear war will dismiss world peace as impractical, as if nuclear war were practical itself." 

I'm not even speaking about a commutopia collective human effort where everyone has to be constantly and consistently working to better the race. I'm speaking about a fundamental consciousness shift in which the base mindset is to... not be a dick to each other. An understanding that we are one species living on one planet, and should respect each other. A world where we can support our youngest generation so no one is born into either wealth or poverty to which they deserve neither, but truly gets the opportunity to shape their own future. Where no one is too poor to receive adequate healthcare and nutritious food (the ramen diet just doesn't cut it). There is no good reason not to, which is reason enough for me why we should. 

Idealistic? I dislike that term because of it's dismissive subtext. It's good to have goals. I want a goal where everyone wins.


----------



## Filigeedreamer (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't think it is purely Fi, but it had many elements of that. 

Are humans hard wired for empathy? ummmm...we are social mamals . In order to exist in a comunity or society you need a degree of empathy. It is simply that degree varies between individuals. 

If we lacked empathy we could not form social bonds and would not be able to work together, or understand each other. We would essentually not be human and it has been key to our sucess as a species.

I belive all humans are essentually selfish, as ultimatly we are all a self, and make decisions based on the self. Yet there are degrees of selfishness also.

When did we all become lone preditors?

.....

Ok, back to Fi....it came in when it was discussing how understanding of self can translate to understanding of others, and eventually doing things to help others. 

I use Fi, I understand myself very well and due to that I can understand other people. I can also take into acount their different life expirences and say, if this happened then I would feel, so they feel...and then often I feel for them, as that feeling gets mirrored within me. Often that means I try and help if I feel I can, as I don't like the idea of a person feeling bad or unhappy. It wont do that for everybody or in all situations (lead directly to helping others), so it can seem selfish, but that's Fi in my terms. 

Bit of Ne in there too, and Fe. 

Also, the film did piont out empathy being seen as more importaint doesn't = utopia, without suffering there is no empathy, was the premis. It just meant extending our empathy to improve things a bit, and so we didn't just all say "what do I care about this starving child in another country?" or "what do I care about the envirment, I'll be dead soon anyway." Cos behaving like that goes against the team work that helped establish our species as a key player in evolution, and could help kill us off under the right cercomstances. We do not live in small contained societies any more, we are all connected, and a finacial crash in one country impacts another...we are part of a global comunity, if we like it or not. 

It was saying, guys, lets think about the whole planet, and not kill everything on it because you don't care about it, only yourself and those imediatly around you. That's not utopia, if you think it's utopia, then you are probably one of those people who is helping make the world a worse place than it needs to be for others, just by your own apathy. 

Empathy is itself a selfish evolutionary motive, which puts the group before the individual, and so ensures survival of the group, and the individuals within that group. I disagree in that I feel this is balenced with less pleasent motivations, which ensure the servial of the individual...after all, the group needs individuals to keep going. 

My 5 cents.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

Psilo said:


> You know,* I struggle to understand how anyone could not think this is both achievable and preferable.* It's the natural conclusion, essentially anyway, I come to. I hope I don't come off as condescending, because it is genuine curiosity of an alien viewpoint.


Addressing the latter: Obviously it's preferable. Who wouldn't want that? 

What I was going after was the idea that empathy isn't selfish, because he was attempting to say that people aren't selfish by nature. There is a staggering body of evidence to say that the man who created this video is wrong. So, the physical facts and evidence says people are selfish (see every war ever), and even when you play into his empathy game, it comes out as selfish under logical scrutiny with the simple proof I provided before.

People seek out what makes them happy. Different things make different people happy. Some people like to kill others, and some like to help others. So excuse me if I'm not about to let the killing type into my house because a guy with a cartoon on youtube told me he wants to empathize with me and be my friend.

People are far too easy to abandon their empathy:

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not saying you shouldn't cling to hope. I'm just saying don't be too surprised when your proven horribly wrong. All the kindness in the world can be undone by one atrocity, and that's the truth.


----------



## Filigeedreamer (Sep 4, 2010)

Trainwreck said:


> All the kindness in the world can be undone by one atrocity, and that's the truth.
> 
> YouTube - Dr. Strangelove Final Scene


In which case, why are we all still alive as a species after all this time, and why does kindness continue to exist?

There are degrees of selfishness buy traditional standards (not just sense of self selfish) but it is coupled with self presuration. I see each as balencing the other, and both as needed and useful evolutionary wise.

I did not think one was being advocated to the _exclusion_ of the other, more a rebalencing between the two and their over all value to society.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

Filigeedreamer said:


> In which case, why are we all still alive as a species after all this time, and why does kindness continue to exist?
> 
> There are degrees of selfishness buy traditional standards (not just sense of self selfish) but it is coupled with self presuration. I see each as balencing the other, and both as needed and useful evolutionary wise.
> 
> I did not think one was being advocated to the _exclusion_ of the other, more a rebalencing between the two and their over all value to society.


We're alive because we're selfish.


----------



## Filigeedreamer (Sep 4, 2010)

Trainwreck said:


> We're alive because we're selfish.


Either you are missing the piont, or you aren't explain yourself very well.

Selfish _ in which sense_ as in all desires and drives are of the self, OR the normal meaning, self benifiting, not benifiting of others. One is not the same as the other. 

Does empathy have no value to humans or in evolutionary terms? If we were purely selfish in the normal sense we would surely not be social creatures...and even introvents are social creatures_ to an extent_, I'm talking social as in pack animals or part of a social heirachy...if we were purly selfish in the normal sense surely we would not be this sort of creature?

We would all be preditory creatures, spurning others, living alone, and *ALL* raping and killing each other. 

*ALL *comiting atrocities.

We do not, so I do not understand your logic.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Trainwreck said:


> Making others feel good makes me feel good, therefore via the transitive property helping others is masturbatory, about making myself feel good. Extending it to your paragraph regarding the pet tarantula: our intentions, whether good or bad, don't always meet with reality, and that usually makes me feel bad, and I try and avoid this at all costs. Avoiding negatives is utilitarian.
> 
> Human behavior happens on a subconscious level, ultimately the brain chemistry wants to be a certain way because that ensures survival. What I mean by this is that high calorie food releases endorphines, and makes us feel good because those foods, in the baser era of our development, were good for survival; furthermore, being socialized, which requires empathy, makes us feel good too because it helps us survive. A human alone in the wild -excluding Bear Gryles- is dead. All human behavior is utilitarian. We do things that feel good because while evolving they helped us survive; however, as I said before, intention doesn't always meet with reality. Drugs make us feel good, and etc., yet they don't necessarily ensure survival because they can ruin people's lives, just like squirrel at a bird feeder gorging on seed may often times find itself at the wrong end of a pellet gun. Point is, those actions are all ultimately selfish, preservation oriented, and ultimately whether or not they preserve us is up to factors beyond our control.


The point is to seek preservation or survival, not of only yourself, but of _all people_ because we are interconnected. The idea is that a dog eat dog attitude does not make sense for survival, but that an attitude where we look out for each other's interests will move humans forward. Again, you missed the point: just because YOU benefit, does not make a motive inherently selfish. Win-win is NOT selfish, as it it involves the welfare of other people. It's only selfish if you only think of how it affects you as an individual. (From the dictionary - Selfish: devoted to or caring *only for oneself*; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., *regardless of others*. - bolded added by me)

Empathy allows us to understand the needs of others so we can move towards a win-win. That is why people are "hard-wired" for empathy - to promote our collective welfare as living creatures. Empathy IS utilitarian, in the sense it has a greater purpose than an every man for himself instinct.

In the big picture, to not win in the short term on an individual level can mean winning in the long run as an individual and a group. This is where a self-sacrificing attitude comes into play, and where many choose a dog eat dog path as they have poor foresight. We recognize some of these dog eat dog attitudes as immoral for the very reason that they violate our inner instincts; ie. murder is wrong, unless you can justify it as a defense for your own life. Murder may bring an individual some advantage in the short term (ie. money), but the long term implications on human survival & progress in general are negative. In protecting other people, yes, we protect ourselves, but empathy allows us to understand how to protect other people's interests. It enlightens us to their needs and their situations, trends emerge, and then we begin to see the core concepts behind human welfare.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

Filigeedreamer said:


> Either you are missing the piont, or you aren't explain yourself very well.
> 
> Selfish _ in which sense_ as in all desires and drives are of the self, OR the normal meaning, self benifiting, not benifiting of others. One is not the same as the other.
> 
> ...



Selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

According to the video people are wired for empathy. So a normally wired person is therefore not capable of selfishness because of the clause "regardless of others." However, if you look at the first part of the definition: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc. And think about the fact that banding together BENEFITS the individual as well as the group. People band together for individual gain. If I'm alone in the woods I'm going to DIE. When we punish prisoners we remove them from other prisoners, that's how dependent we are on each other to make it, so that we (in the individual sense) don't die. Furthermore, prisoners band together in prison for their (the individual's) survival. Self preservation is inherently selfish. And being social ensures survival of the individual; it's about individual gain, what the individual gains from joining the group.

Have you seen _A Beautiful Mind_? If so refer to the bar scene where they're trying to pick up the women. Nash realizes that if they only flirt with the hot woman and compete over her, only one of them potentially gets laid because her less attractive friends will be bitter about not being flirted with; however, if they form a pact to flirt with her less attractive friends as well the hot one won't think of them as shallow and they improve all of their chances of potentially getting laid. They band together for GAIN for themselves. They are being selfish. They want more pussy. Simple as that. That is all I am trying to say. It's a simple model of, "This brings me happiness," and as I said in earlier posts, things that make you happy are often good for survival, and empathy makes people happy.

I don't think I can explain it any more clearly. I understand what you guys are saying perfectly. I'm just trying to explain what I'm saying because I think it's a worthwhile piece of insight.


----------

