# Fi dom is mostly useless -- but that's okay



## malachi.holden.3

Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.

Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.

But that's okay.

People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.

If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?

Better to be poor and happy.


----------



## YellowDaffodil

Interesting. 

Is it generally considered that Te is the most useful function? I mean, is that what most people believe? (Te does seem very useful, so I'm not disputing that. And I don't even have it cos I'm ISFJ).


----------



## Jewl

Feeling isn't a function that cares about how _useful _a thing is in the first place. It's all about what is meaningful. Important. Beautiful. And for Fi, that is how meaningful something as to me. How significant. How much it weighs on me...

(For example. Why even talk about how "useful" Feeling is? That's silly. Why not talk about how it is important? And there's some Feeling for you. ^_^ ) 

I'm well aware that things are not simply what they are. There is more to a thing than its components or its functionality or its consistency. There is always more to something than just what it is and where it falls in a list of categories. 

Hm. If we did not pay attention to how meaningful something was, how would we be able to make decisions at all? We'd still make decisions, but would they be wise?


----------



## Peter

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


The world needs artists too. Just look at this forum you´re using. It has been designed by someone. Artists do many more things than just sing, dance or write. The internet would be a disaster if the visual aspects of websites would be designed by Te doms. :happy:


----------



## Tetsuo Shima

I'm not allowed to be happy.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

Within the context you're talking, I agree. There was a survey some time ago that showed the average income of the types, and Fi-dom appears to be the worst off and Te the best








It's likely because INFPs are such dreamers who believe that money isn't something to strive for, while ETJs believe it most certainly is. Other types are more on the middle ground about it. 

Of course _utility_ is dependent on what you measure. You can always find some perspective from which some function is best and another the worst. ETJs might be the types that create the most stress in a company which leads to illness and poorer performance. Taken from that point of view Te is the worst and Fi among the best, so it's all about how you spin it.


----------



## Kynx

Te is efficient. Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters. It takes care of the job, but it doesn't take care of the people. Without ideals and values, working conditions would never have improved, for a start. Just because something doesn't turn a profit it doesn't mean it's useless


----------



## Blue Soul

Neverontime said:


> Te is efficient. Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters. It takes care of the job, but it doesn't take care of the people. Without ideals and values, working conditions would never have improved, for a start. Just because something doesn't turn a profit it doesn't mean it's useless


I agree. Usefulness is a question of what you're looking for.


----------



## NiDBiLD

Peter said:


> The world needs artists too. Just look at this forum you´re using. It has been designed by someone. Artists do many more things than just sing, dance or write. The internet would be a disaster if the visual aspects of websites would be designed by Te doms. :happy:


As an ENTJ web designer, this really made me chuckle.


----------



## the401

malachi.holden.3 said:


> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


This is exactly what thought when i first became 100% sure i am ISFP, the first thoughts were.........

“well this pretty much explains why i always have a hard time being logicall”

“ so this is why a lot of people are better than me at “ a lot of things” ( non ISFP related of course)
( aside from these thoughts i was really happy because it describes me very well and the descriptions were flattering lol.)

BUT then i asked myself “ would i really want to be another type?” and then the answer was “no” and my reason for that is similar to what you said.

“if you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
( i value my feelings and loyalty and the ability to live in a very colorful world and being able to fall in love ( MUCH easier, some thinkers almost never really fall in love lol)


BUT overall i have to say that it’s kinda impossible to assume others would want “inner harmony” . I’ll never know what another person truly wants deep down inside, but i believe that if given a choice most people would prefer their own functions that they have now, most would be happy.

so just because I’m an ISFP i value “inner harmony” doesn’t mean other types value it too, or their interpretation of “inner harmony” is different than us. ( at least that’s what i think, we’ll never really know what another person truly thinks)


----------



## Angina Jolie

It probably is in a material sense, but it's worth thinking of whether the world would be the same way it is if it wasn't for art that transfers culture and ideas through time. If I look at my own country, the times when we actually came together and survived together through wars and crisis was mainly thanx to the litterature, the poetry and music that touched everyone collectively. It is our strength... maybe our only strength as a small country.
Not to say that Fi is the master of art. 

I'm starting to accept not being very useful to the world though. Shopping in thrift stores instead of Posh places is more fun and emotionally satisfying anyway....


----------



## ObservantFool

The first thing I thought of when I read this was a quote from Vision in Age of Ultron after Ultron says humanity is doomed, and the Vision says, "Yes, but a thing isn't beautiful because it lasts." This struck a chord with me when I heard it because I've always felt that my primary goal as an animal was to live a happy, satisfying existence without being too dependent on external circumstances, rather than to be a tool for someone else's agenda, but hopefully I'm not entirely useless and can affect people's outlooks by sharing my own perspective, and benefit them that way, or give individuals who might share my perspective reassurance that there is someone who understands them. Some of the people who have impacted my life the most and allowed me to be happy have been Fi-doms.


----------



## the401

Shameless Nation said:


> It probably is in a material sense, but it's worth thinking of whether the world would be the same way it is if it wasn't for art that transfers culture and ideas through time. If I look at my own country, the times when we actually came together and survived together through wars and crisis was mainly thanx to the litterature, the poetry and music that touched everyone collectively. It is our strength... maybe our own strength as a small country.
> Not to say that Fi is the master of art.
> 
> I'm starting to accept not being very useful to the world though. Shopping in thrift stores instead of Posh places is more fun and emotionally satisfying anyway....


tbh INFP is actually way more useful when it comes to jobs and making money. You’d have a way higher chance of being academically successful and having an “blue collar job” and probably very good “people person”. It is said that the INFP’s are very good with words and are pretty witty too.

The ISFP however is specialized purely in the “arts”. Stuff like singing, writing song lyrics, visual arts, fashion designer etc....... which are things that require an exceptional talent to do. 

So in theory most ISFP’s probably wouldn’t be making a lot of money unless they have an exceptional talent in the arts like Michael Jackson.

an INFP in theory would most likely prosper in some parts of business and any abstract studies that interest them, that require spending time in their heads. ( medical school, computer science, philosophy, writer..........)

@UnicornRainbowLove

TBH you can’t really take the charts seriously, do you really believe that everyone in the US has taken the MBTI test and confirmed their type?

a lot of people don’t even know what the MBTI is.


----------



## Word Dispenser

What system are you using to measure the worth of functions?

Why do you think that functions prevent/allow people from doing things? 

People can achieve anything. It's just the functions that play a role in their worldview/motivation.

It isn't 'behaviour type'. It's 'personality type', right?


----------



## VoodooDolls

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ns-when-you-give-weed-isfps.html#post19839466

imo


----------



## Amy

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


Nope. Fi it's about the meaning of things, and is useful to everybody. Fi it's like the way that IxFPs take action. Action is useful.



YellowDaffodil said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Is it generally considered that Te is the most useful function? I mean, is that what most people believe? (Te does seem very useful, so I'm not disputing that. And I don't even have it cos I'm ISFJ).


Everybody uses every function, but in different levels.



Tetsuo Shima said:


> I'm not allowed to be happy.


I don't know if you're saying a sentence or just being ironic.
If you're saying a sentence, you need to know that it isn't true.
If you're just being ironic, THAT WAS FUNNY!


----------



## Aelthwyn

What is useful depends on your value system. In the second half of your post you go on to explain the Usefullness of "values, ideals and dreams." What makes money isn't the only useful thing there is. That is an idea that really bugs me, as it totally takes for granted a LOT of things that we appreciate in life and would be upset about if we lost. I hate this idea that if you're not making enough money to live on you're not 'pulling your weight' as if there aren't a Whole Lot of useful and important things people do voluntarily for no money at all which people freely benefit from in ways they probably aren't even aware of. 

Strict survival without quality of life makes people wonder why we're even trying to survive, so I don't think just putting food on the table and shelter over our heads are the only 'useful' things. Being able to appreciate beauty - and have beautiful things to appreciate - gives people reason to want to survive. Sharing laughter, smiles, hugs, camaraderie, love with others - gives people reason to want to survive. These are useful things, not merely embellishments, they give purpose and meaning to existence. Emotional Health is a very important aspect of life; right alongside physical nourishment we need emotional nourishment - and that comes from kindness, from beauty, from seeking understanding of people and the world, from art and philosophy, etc. 

A mother getting up in the night to comfort her child after a nightmare doesn't give her any money, but it's still useful because it helps form a good relationship with her family, it helps the child psychologically become a stable and giving person who will pass on their mother's kindness throughout their life. This is useful. 

Taking beautiful photos of wildlife is useful because it reminds people of the value of the bigger picture of the world beyond their office building and favorite starbucks, it informs them of places in the world they may not have a chance to see in person broadening their perspective of the world, it encourages them to protect nature not just use it all up. A beautiful scene can boost their mood and inspire them, causing them to have a better impact on those around them. That is useful even if the photos are not sold for money to put food on the photographer's table. 

Listening to a friend talk through their problems and plans is useful. It can help them think more clearly or feel more confident about their course of action. It gives them a sense of companionship which can boost their confidence and their sense of emotional stability which will help them in general to interact with others in a more sensible and helpful way. Being a good listener or a shoulder to cry on is Useful even though nobody's paying you money to be a good friend.

Introspection, analyzing your inner emotions and learning to cultivate positive attitudes in yourself will affect your own effectiveness in other things that you do and will provide a positive influence on the others around you. Gaining an understanding of how people's emotions work will give you the ability to help others work through emotional difficulties, help them understand each-other, and help them work together better so that they too can be more helpful, more creative, more focused, more insightful, more energetic, more productive, more 'useful' in the grand scheme of things. 

Stopping to really think about what's important and not just take how things are for granted is useful. It can help us realize where we are going wrong before we get hit with severe consequences. It can give us inspiration and drive for improvements and discoveries that would never have happened if we were just focused on maintaining the current system or just surviving. Developing well thought out values gives people direction and saves us heart-ache.  To some, contemplating philosophical concepts may seem useless, but that is very naive, as it is the philosophies and values that people hold which drive what happens in society and in their individual lives - "Values" are not a hobby or luxury, they affect everything. Spending some time sorting them out is certainly useful.


----------



## Orelli

@Tetsuo


----------



## the401

Word Dispenser said:


> Why do you think that functions prevent/allow people from doing things?
> 
> People can achieve anything. It's just the functions that play a role in their worldview/motivation.
> 
> It isn't 'behaviour type'. It's 'personality type', right?


in theory yes, everyone can achieve anything if given the right amount of time.

but type/function based aptitude difference is so big that it would take an insane amount of time for a certain function to achieve the same results as another function.

to the point where it would wouldn’t be worth doing, but naturally a certain type probably wouldn’t want to do something contradicts what their functions prefers so that is a good thing. ( you wouldn’t want spend your life chasing something you will never be able to get right?)


----------



## Kito

How are you defining useful? Ability to climb the corporate ladder, earn money and retire happily after a lifetime of work? Because that's pretty bullshit and I doubt you're going to find many Fi-doms that actually care. 

Maybe we're useless to some objective, goal-oriented Te perspective, but you said it... we're gonna do what we want regardless, and we're probably not gonna give a shit whether it was economically useful or not.


----------



## ferroequinologist

AlanMonTap said:


> With that logic everything can have a 'purpose'. That's why you're mistaken.
> 
> It's like saying that 'god' has an objective purpose because of the impact it has in the same areas (economy, health and wellbeing, society, and education), and I can assure you it has a much greater impact than art does.
> 
> And that is bullshit.
> 
> It's not 'god' that serves this 'purpose'. The objective purpose is that of which our idiot minds create _based on our interpretation_ of the matter, not the matter itself.
> 
> The same happens with art. Art does have an impact and an influence on us. But it's not art that serves the 'purpose', it's our actions based on the interpretation of art that serve it. Our thoughts and ideas about it. That's where these benefits and results you talked about come from. Not because of art itself.
> 
> That's why art is subjective. The objective 'purpose' of science is not based on interpretation. It's based on proof, evidence, facts, etc... Not thoughts, ideas, or interpretations. So I feel pretty confident saying that art as a whole *does not* have an objective purpose, even if you find that baffling.


So, what you really mean by "objective" is "quantifiable", i.e. measurable and analyzable. or, to put it in blunt Jungian terms, extraverted thinking-related.


----------



## AlanMonTap

ferroequinologist said:


> So, what you really mean by "objective" is "quantifiable", i.e. measurable and analyzable. or, to put it in blunt Jungian terms, extraverted thinking-related.


It's know what I mean, it's the official definition. Something that is not open to interpretation. Impartial, fair, impersonal, etc... It is what it is. No more, no less. Whatever we say about it is of secondary importance.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

AlanMonTap said:


> I agree. But... You're talking about abstract things. You talk about wondering, pondering, encouraging, ideas, hope, etc... The fact that art has had an amazing impact on humanity is worthy of recognition, yes... But let's clarify that it doesn't serve an objective purpose.


Art is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Art in the bigger picture serves no purpose in life, only to the one creating it. Abstract art is something I Identify with, I can often feel the emotions behind the painting. That said It wouldn't entice me enough to purchase, because those emotions are not mine. Now If we're talking about music/movies, then yes, personally I think music/movies brings value, and educational, art in form of drawing/painting doesn't touch me the same way. I appreciate it, however it doesn't add any real value to my life. I'd prefer to take photos in nature and have them blown up and framed, this way I connect with something personal rather than what someone else has experienced. Creativity is nice, however it is usually a reflection of the Individual and doesn't have a huge Impact on a universal level.


----------



## Angina Jolie

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Art is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Art in the bigger picture serves no purpose in life, only to the one creating it. Abstract art is something I Identify with, I can often feel the emotions behind the painting. That said It wouldn't entice me enough to purchase, because those emotions are not mine. Now If we're talking about music/movies, then yes, personally I think music/movies brings value, and educational, art in form of drawing/painting doesn't touch me the same way. I appreciate it, however it doesn't add any real value to my life. I'd prefer to take photos in nature and have them blown up and framed, this way I connect with something personal rather than what someone else has experienced. Creativity is nice, however it is usually a reflection of the Individual and doesn't have a huge Impact on a universal level.


While you talk about your subjective feeligs and experiences on the matter, it's cool. I have a heard time reading an emotion from a visual peace of art too. I oldy get my own subjective interpretation of it.
But saying creativity or art doesn't have a huge impact on a universal level is just a not very thought - through opinion. You have a whole thread to explore that should make you reconsider. Unless you are again talking about "objectively useful" in it's official definition.
If your statement was true, graphic designers, creative directors, add agencies wouldn't be as nig of a part of our society as they are. Not to mention any other form of creative or artistic expression. If anything, I would even argue that creativity and art has shaped us to be who we are right now. Maybe not physically advanced our lives, but the way we relate to the world, the aesthetical and emotional experience.
Sorry... I'm somewhat in the creative business, and knowing how my work and ideas can affect, almost manipulate everything and everyone that crosses it... It's just bullocks.

I doubt many of the technological or scientific advances humans have made would have happend if it wasn't for creativity involved. 

Also.... Einstein, for instance, used to play violin, and those were usually the times when he figured some serious shit out amd came up with the greatest theories.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Shameless Nation said:


> While you talk about your subjective feeligs and experiences on the matter, it's cool. I have a heard time reading an emotion from a visual peace of art too. I oldy get my own subjective interpretation of it.
> But saying creativity or art doesn't have a huge impact on a universal level is just a not very thought - through opinion. You have a whole thread to explore that should make you reconsider. Unless you are again talking about "objectively useful" in it's official definition.
> If your statement was true, graphic designers, creative directors, add agencies wouldn't be as nig of a part of our society as they are. Not to mention any other form of creative or artistic expression. If anything, I would even argue that creativity and art has shaped us to be who we are right now. Maybe not physically advanced our lives, but the way we relate to the world, the aesthetical and emotional experience.
> Sorry... I'm somewhat in the creative business, and knowing how my work and ideas can affect, almost manipulate everything and everyone that crosses it... It's just bullocks.
> 
> I doubt many of the technological or scientific advances humans have made would have happend if it wasn't for creativity involved.
> 
> Also.... Einstein, for instance, used to play violin, and those were usually the times when he figured some serious shit out amd came up with the greatest theories.


I specifically was speaking about art as in drawing and paintings when I spoke about it not being useful on a universal level, and I stand by what I said. I specifically mentioned music/movies and how It is educational and brings value to my life. My post had nothing to do with any other form of art including graphic designers, add agencies etc. My thoughts were only on topics mentioned and didn't go beyond. And yes I was speaking from an objective point of view and how in the bigger picture art in terms of painting and drawing is useless to everyone but the one creating it. The universe has and can survive without these people in the world, it serves no purpose and has no real value except for the person creating it, or the person who who buys it. Yes this is my subjective opinion, however not to be confused with unreasonable.


----------



## Angina Jolie

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I specifically was speaking about art as in drawing and paintings when I spoke about it not being useful on a universal level, and I stand by what I said. I specifically mentioned music/movies and how It is educational and brings value to my life. My post had nothing to do with any other form of art including graphic designers, add agencies etc. My thoughts were only on topics mentioned and didn't go beyond. And yes I was speaking from an objective point of view and how in the bigger picture art in terms of painting and drawing is useless to everyone but the one creating it. The universe has and can survive without these people in the world, it serves no purpose and has no real value except for the person creating it, or the person who who buys it. Yes this is my subjective opinion, however not to be confused with unreasonable.


And I spoke about your mention of ''creativity'' which is a way larger concept than just ''specifically drawings and paintings''. Don't take it in a defence. Sorry for misunderstanding... part of it....


----------



## Lelu

AlanMonTap said:


> With that logic everything can have a 'purpose'. That's why you're mistaken.
> 
> It's like saying that 'god' has an objective purpose because of the impact it has in the same areas (economy, health and wellbeing, society, and education), and I can assure you it has a much greater impact than art does.
> 
> And that is bullshit.
> 
> It's not 'god' that serves this 'purpose'. The objective purpose is that of which our idiot minds create _based on our interpretation_ of the matter, not the matter itself.
> 
> The same happens with art. Art does have an impact and an influence on us. But it's not art that serves the 'purpose', it's our actions based on the interpretation of art that serve it. Our thoughts and ideas about it. That's where these benefits and results you talked about come from. Not because of art itself.
> 
> That's why art is subjective. The objective 'purpose' of science is not based on interpretation. It's based on proof, evidence, facts, etc... Not thoughts, ideas, or interpretations. So I feel pretty confident saying that art as a whole *does not* have an objective purpose, even if you find that baffling.


Well we disagree highly then on the basis we're arguing. But yes, many things with subjective properties can have an objective purpose, because of how our minds operate and how it can affect systems.

To the point of objective purpose of God: Originally created to instill confidence (appeasement, etc), later used to form pluralities, later used to enforce rule without question, later used to persecute, for revolution, and so on so forth. All of it with clear purpose that produced objective and predictable results.

I'm curious as to what your opinion is on the more psychological sciences are, including behavioral economics, psychology, and political science. They are designed specifically for us to predict and affect objective results in areas that are more difficult to perfectly analyze.

Finally, I think by your definition, you need to find a new word other than objective purpose. Are you trying to say that everything needs to be judged by an inherent usefulness, regardless to context? 

This is what baffles me, but what you're saying would not be inaccurate through this change, however, it would be impractical, unrealistic, and useless to ignore everything with subjective qualities in organized society.


----------



## Matt The Martian

How can Go be useful when this is the reality of the world we live in:






It's ALL about money making skills, ya dig? People ain't got time for our feelings and morals.


----------



## Deadly Decorum

Determined mind said:


> I find this graph to be a well packed distorter of truth. When you take a look at the actual scale to the left that is made in such a fashion that nobody notices it then you quickly realize that the differences are really not that big as someone is trying to show.
> 
> 
> 
> INFP 60k
> ENTJ 83K
> 
> 
> This is not the ratio upon which you can call someone useless.
> 
> 
> Plus there is the problem with the word "household".
> What is actaully a household per type ? Only single people ?


I agree. 

Not only that, but what was the sample size? What were the ages of these people? How was this information determined? 

Why does money determine the worth of a person? 

---

Typology should not be a hierarchy. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Typology should be about understanding one another, not shutting out people you don't understand.


----------



## angelfish

Mostly useless, maybe. But I'm pretty good at decorating for holidays, and remembering songs and poems, and writing heartfelt notes, and drawing whimsical things to make people laugh, and making wax seals, and cheering people up, and choosing atmospheric music, and doing small data collection and analysis projects, and helping people find good makeup and clothes, and surprisingly I'm actually pretty decent at delegating tasks in a way that makes everyone feel included and appreciated. 

I guess none of that will ever make me a million dollars but I think a lot of it can help make people's lives happier, and I think that's important, too.


----------



## giraffegator

@AlanMonTap I see your point of view but I disagree with your view of science as a whole. There is a much finer line between science and art than you might imagine sometimes. Science is fuelled just as much by subjectivism and creativity as it is by objectivity.
There's no such thing as pure objectivity anyway. How can there be when we all have subjective experiences? (And just the same there's no such thing as something being purely subjective - there's always something real that it's based on, even if its brain chemistry inside someone's head).

I do understand the distinction you are making about the art itself versus the actions we take in response to the art - but I don't understand how a catalyst to a useful action can be considered useless. It's like saying that platinum is useless because it's just the catalyst in a useful reaction.


----------



## AlanMonTap

sassafrassthelioness said:


> @AlanMonTap I see your point of view but I disagree with your view of science as a whole. There is a much finer line between science and art than you might imagine sometimes. Science is fuelled just as much by subjectivism and creativity as it is by objectivity.


I'm not talking about what 'fuels' science, I agree with that you said about that. I'm talking about the purpose of science, which is a purely objective one. 



sassafrassthelioness said:


> I do understand the distinction you are making about the art itself versus the actions we take in response to the art - but I don't understand how a catalyst to a useful action can be considered useless. It's like saying that platinum is useless because it's just the catalyst in a useful reaction.


A carpenter sees a piece of furniture which inspires him to make a better one. Does that mean the piece of furniture he saw is useful?


----------



## 1yesman9

Julia Bell said:


> Feeling isn't a function that cares about how _useful _a thing is in the first place. It's all about what is meaningful. Important. Beautiful. And for Fi, that is how meaningful something as to me. How significant. How much it weighs on me...
> 
> (For example. Why even talk about how "useful" Feeling is? That's silly. Why not talk about how it is important? And there's some Feeling for you. ^_^ )
> 
> I'm well aware that things are not simply what they are. There is more to a thing than its components or its functionality or its consistency. There is always more to something than just what it is and where it falls in a list of categories.
> 
> Hm. If we did not pay attention to how meaningful something was, how would we be able to make decisions at all? We'd still make decisions, but would they be wise?


In the truest sense, all judgment functions care about how useful something is.

In the sense that we're using for this discussion, where "useful" seems to imply useful to reality/or the external world, then Fe definitely values that kind of usefulness. It's introverted judgment ( Ti/Fi ) that doesn't value the kind of usefulness we're talking about. It's a matter of being orientation.


----------



## 1yesman9

Neverontime said:


> Te is efficient. Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters. It takes care of the job, but it doesn't take care of the people. Without ideals and values, working conditions would never have improved, for a start. Just because something doesn't turn a profit it doesn't mean it's useless


When Te realizes (which is has many times before) that it needs improvements in working conditions in order to make effective use of workers, then working conditions improve.


----------



## Lunaena

All I know is that being an Fi-dom is both painful and wonderful at the same time. Of course focusing on your emotions all the time, constantly living in them, unable to avoid them, is useless to society. But can you imagine a society with no feelings, no soul, no art?


----------



## 1yesman9

Revolver Ocelot said:


> I would say progress and innovation would grind to a halt. Everybody would be happy conforming to the group. There would be no one to step away from the pack to comment on what's wrong or what could be better.


I'd say you're absssolutely wrong.


----------



## Kynx

1yesman9 said:


> When Te realizes (which is has many times before) that it needs improvements in working conditions in order to make effective use of workers, then working conditions improve.


How does Te realize this, exactly?


----------



## 1yesman9

Neverontime said:


> How does Te realize this, exactly?


By judging true/false, as a T function. It through objective measures comprehends that "happy", "calm" motivated workers are more effective in their efforts than "unhappy", "anxious" motivated workers.


----------



## Matt The Martian

1yesman9 said:


> By judging true/false, as a T function. It through objective measures comprehends that "happy", "calm" motivated workers are more effective in their efforts than "unhappy", "anxious" motivated workers.


I'd figure a Te response would be more along the lines of firing unmotivated employees and replacing them with fresh ones so as to remind the employees there that they are replaceable, and they need to do their jobs well. That way efficiency is maintained with minimal effort or policy changes from overhead.


----------



## Kynx

1yesman9 said:


> By judging true/false, as a T function. It through objective measures comprehends that "happy", "calm" motivated workers are more effective in their efforts than "unhappy", "anxious" motivated workers.


So how do they turn 'unhappy' into 'happy' and 'anxious' into 'calm'? 

Do they logically assess emotional states or do they use the skills associated with their weakest and least developed function?


----------



## Revolver Ocelot

1yesman9 said:


> I'd say you're absssolutely wrong.


Well, then. It's settled! :laughing:


----------



## 1yesman9

Neverontime said:


> So how do they turn 'unhappy' into 'happy' and 'anxious' into 'calm'?
> 
> Do they logically assess emotional states or do they use the skills associated with their weakest and least developed function?


They, with use of the true/false dichotomy, determine what makes a person happy/calm.

You're relating "emotional states" which are states of emotional sensation, with "feeling judgments". Feeling judgments are determining the like/dislike, or want/not want of the ego orientated to either the subject or the object. The question of "what will make a person happy/calm" is a true/false assertion made with the T function. It doesn't require mature use of an F function. The F function may make a decision to focus on ( EDIT: ) what makes humans happy/calm and thus be better at dealing with it than the T type. But the T type may also make a decision to analyze what humans like/dislike for a T goal, and thus become better at figuring that out.

In reality, the Te - Fi combo comes together, dependent on each other, so neither are making decisions independent of the other's influence. But as my post indicated, Te could most definitely make those changes with the Te motivation being solely conscious.


----------



## 1yesman9

Matt The Martian said:


> I'd figure a Te response would be more along the lines of firing unmotivated employees and replacing them with fresh ones so as to remind the employees there that they are replaceable, and they need to do their jobs well. That way efficiency is maintained with minimal effort or policy changes from overhead.


My reasoning is made on the basis that all the employees are motivated. The difference is unhappy/happy or calm/anxious, which are things that are significantly affected by the working conditions. While Te can come to the conclusion you're saying, Te can also comprehend that it's the working conditions that are creating unhappy/anxious/unmotivated employees, and then change the working conditions to fit that. There is no one manifestation of a cognitive function(thinking process), it can come to many conclusions. My point is that Te can come to the conclusion that improving working conditions will be more efficient without accessing F functions.


----------



## 1yesman9

Revolver Ocelot said:


> Well, then. It's settled! :laughing:


Damn, I wanted to discuss it. What are you doing!?!


----------



## Inveniet

Well ideally it doesn't matter if a Fi dom is poor.
They are destined to marry a Te dom to achieve cognitive balance. 
Besides the one who dies with the most toys is still dead.


----------



## TwistedMuses

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


Given how you process how Fi works, do you realise Ti and Fi have the same standpoint? 
It is 'Personal' logic and values, Fi and Ti.
So you render both of them useless then, because it's personal and purely an internal construction? 
I think all of the functions have the same value, and it changes in how much attention and weight you put onto it. Function, just like anything in life, has as much value as much you put on it.
Just because I function Fi I do not devalue Fe or Ti. It just makes it harder to see the said function's standpoint.
A healthy individual of any type has its own niche in the world and will be useful, until a person comes in and slaps the 'useless' brand on the face of mentioned type individual 'rendering' them useless in personal logic terms. 
You should just chill, OP. If you're not merely a troll, which I assume is most likely.


----------



## Matt The Martian

1yesman9 said:


> My reasoning is made on the basis that all the employees are motivated. The difference is unhappy/happy or calm/anxious, which are things that are significantly affected by the working conditions. While Te can come to the conclusion you're saying, Te can also comprehend that it's the working conditions that are creating unhappy/anxious/unmotivated employees, and then change the working conditions to fit that. There is no one manifestation of a cognitive function(thinking process), it can come to many conclusions. My point is that Te can come to the conclusion that improving working conditions will be more efficient without accessing F functions.



Fair enough. I can see where you're coming from there. I suppose I'm just a bit defensive because if emotional harmony can be generated without the feels, then we *really* dont have distinguishable skills from our primary function alone. It's like being a kitten in a world of wolves.


----------



## Wednesday Mermaid

I'm pretty sure Fi users aren't concerned with how "useful" they are. It's quite overrated to be useful. This world needs romantics, idealists, and artists too.


----------



## Matt The Martian

Wednesday Mermaid said:


> I'm pretty sure Fi users aren't concerned with how "useful" they are. It's quite overrated to be useful. This world needs romantics, idealists, and artists too.


It just bothers me that it feels like art and creative writing dont serve a tangible purpose, and I want to make a difference in the world.


----------



## Matt The Martian

Double post


----------



## giraffegator

AlanMonTap said:


> A carpenter sees a piece of furniture which inspires him to make a better one. Does that mean the piece of furniture he saw is useful?


In my opinion, essentially, yes - I guess that's just a difference of opinion


----------



## Dante Scioli

Of course the relative utility of the functions depends upon what it is you're trying to accomplish. That said, yes Fi doesn't seem very useful for most things one would be inclined to try to accomplish.

A broadly applicable list I would throw together would be: Ni>Te>Ti>Fe>Si>Ne>Se>Fi

But again, this is only relevant for the sorts of things I would think to do.


----------



## AlanMonTap

sassafrassthelioness said:


> In my opinion, essentially, yes - I guess that's just a difference of opinion


I guess we very respectfully disagree.


----------



## Wednesday Mermaid

Matt The Martian said:


> It just bothers me that it feels like art and creative writing dont serve a tangible purpose, and I want to make a difference in the world.


Understandable, but take it from me; I would not be here today without art and creative writing. And I think there are tons of people like me out there.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Note: since I think MBTI is bullshit I will be evaluating this from a Socionics perspective.

*>D you guys are wrong and here is why:* the most useful skill to have is the ability to accurately assess people and how one relates to them, what they are good at and how to deal with them. Simply put cooperation, people skills and latent potential evaluation. Why? Because of specialization. In order to do anything effectively one needs to specialize. This means that if you want to accomplish anything you need a couple of other people who are good at what you aren't. They sort of complete you.

This means that the most useful functions to have a re SE & NE coupled with Fi and just enough Te to be pragmatic...and no, climbing the corporate ladder is not the road to success & riches. Only normal "educated" people think that & they end up doing what the majority is doing, which is why they will never have more neither internally nor externally then what the majority has.

There are other factors which determine one's success and these are: determination, the ability to learn from failing, the ability to stand up again and again, creativity, self confidence and just having fucking GUTTS.

In short you need to be like Kirk ENFP:










or new Kirk (ESFP)










 so yeah, idealize the STJs all you want, they certainly seem to be built for the corporate ladder, intelligent, hard working, awesomely organized and they do their job, but they lack interpersonal skills and alienate most other people through simply being themselves. I see this all the time in the corporate world.

*Socionics IEE:* http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/IEE-ENFp/

*Socionics SEE:* http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/SEE-ESFp/


----------



## raskoolz

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


Interesting.

I have also thought and pondered about this for some time now, and after much deliberating I've come to the same conclusion (sort of).

In a way that is consistent with normative societal procedures and how much of the modern world is constructed, I guess that Fi *is useless* considered from that point of reference.

As you say, people who live their lives trying to be "useful" based on those terms could potentially find themselves unhappy because of the disconnect between themselves and the external values put upon them by society.

However, perhaps it would also be interesting to look at the qualities that make something "useful". 
Truth is truth, however- the value we put in it can be very subjective.

Robin Hood is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. To rich men, he's a scoundrel, to the poor he's a hero. The fact that he's stealing is truth; how he's seen by each side is value.

In the same way, perhaps the utility of Fi is in it's silent fortitude against the dangers of basing your value from external causes.

To extremes, it can be self-absorbed, self-pitying, narcissism. (ie: victim playing/woe is me etc.) On the other end, it can be internal stability and harmony despite turbulent external circumstances- taken further, _maybe a little too much_ (ie: staying cool under fire, to the point you became apathetic to it and do nothing to change the heat for others.)

As with many things, perhaps it is all part of a gradient continuum rather than a fixed concept, and perhaps the key is balance. 
The same can be said with all cog. functions


----------



## Matt The Martian

Wednesday Mermaid said:


> Understandable, but take it from me; I would not be here today without art and creative writing. And I think there are tons of people like me out there.


Yeah, I do know quite a bit of people who share the same sentiment. Honestly I spend most of my time listening to music. Sometimes I doubt how "truly" important it is, but it does mean a lot to me personally.


----------



## Kynx

1yesman9 said:


> They, with use of the true/false dichotomy, determine what makes a person happy/calm.
> 
> You're relating "emotional states" which are states of emotional sensation, with "feeling judgments". Feeling judgments are determining the like/dislike, or want/not want of the ego orientated to either the subject or the object. The question of "what will make a person happy/calm" is a true/false assertion made with the T function. It doesn't require mature use of an F function. The F function may make a decision to focus on ( EDIT: ) what makes humans happy/calm and thus be better at dealing with it than the T type. But the T type may also make a decision to analyze what humans like/dislike for a T goal, and thus become better at figuring that out.
> 
> In reality, the Te - Fi combo comes together, dependent on each other, so neither are making decisions independent of the other's influence. But as my post indicated, Te could most definitely make those changes with the Te motivation being solely conscious.


Fi and Te do not depend on each other, they oppose each other. For one to develop, it must suppress the development of the other. 

The Feeling function is related to emotional states. Most emotional states do not reach a high enough level of intensity to become sensation. They are still emotional states. 
Feeling relies heavily on empathy skills to operate effectively. You can't empathise well if you don't understand and recognise emotions. 

The Thinking function can only get a very basic understanding of Feeling content and judgements. It can't deal with Feeling judgements skillfully, it aims to ignore Feeling content, not analyse it. 

How can it analyse something it doesn't pay attention to, doesn't place importance on and actually disturbs the process of evaluation which it employs? 

Thinkers who have any experience of life, by their own admission, find understanding emotions, empathy, sympathy, appropriateness and personal relationships difficult and confusing. Thinking isn't a super-function, it only deals with it's own content and I would expect only an inexperienced Thinking type to believe that it can navigate it's way through Feeling content with any significant level of success. More experienced T types are well aware that doing so is not a realistic option. They've usually been there, tried that and failed.


----------



## mushr00m

It depends on your interpretation of usefulness.


----------



## 1yesman9

Neverontime said:


> Fi and Te do not depend on each other, they oppose each other. For one to develop, it must suppress the development of the other.


The basis of jungian typology is the duality of mind concept, where the conscious function is contradictory to the unconscious function. Yes, for one to develop, it must suppress the development of the other function, but all "development" means is how conscious a function is. The more dominant a function is in your conscious, the more dominant it becomes in your unconscious. Every manifestation of the conscious function becomes heavily intertwined with the goal of the unconscious function. All consciousness or "development" implies is awareness. For example, the Te user that has for this entire time been analyzing and taking external action ( Te ) in order to benefit and procure a place for himself in reality ( Fi ). The Te-dom may prescribe to empiricism because he realizes that it's assumptions provide the most effective way create tangible results ( Te ) that benefit the individual ( Fi ). They're just not conscious of the second part. Just like the Fi dom's unconscious system, or sense of value is based in a Te that he's unaware of.

Which is why when we separate things like Te and Fi, which are inherently dependent on eachother, we must highlight that we mean: a person who is solely conscious of Te, and a person who is solely conscious of Fi.



Neverontime said:


> The Feeling function is related to emotional states. Most emotional states do not reach a high enough level of intensity to become sensation. They are still emotional states.
> Feeling relies heavily on empathy skills to operate effectively. You can't empathise well if you don't understand and recognise emotions.
> 
> The Thinking function can only get a very basic understanding of Feeling content and judgements. It can't deal with Feeling judgements skillfully, it aims to ignore Feeling content, not analyse it.
> 
> How can it analyse something it doesn't pay attention to, doesn't place importance on and actually disturbs the process of evaluation which it employs?


You're going to have to enlighten me on your definition of "emotional states" then, because it literally means a state of emotion. Emotion being a physical sensation that is unrelated to jungian typology.

Again, Feeling is a "Judgment" process which judges perceived information based on the ego's like/dislike or want/not-want. It is not directly related with someone's capacity to recognize "emotions". It might come with, or procure an emotion, but like/dislike is a judgment, while happy/sad is an emotion. Though, it by nature involves a personal factor (like/dislike) ( want/not-want), and thus centers itself around the personal. In that case, you can expect the F type to always find a way to divulge himself in people, thus becoming more experienced with dealing with people's emotions. F types do not naturally "understand emotions" better than other types, F types value the personal more than other types, and thus are automatically predisposed to put more attention, focus and value into emotions.

Again, your logic is based on a failure to separate "feeling" in the jungian sense, and "emotion" in the english sense. Thinking does not make judgments based on the ego's like/dislike or want/not-want, orientated to either the object ( i like harmony ) or the subject ( i like individuality ). It's conscious actions or philosophies are thus not based on this. It's conscious action's or philosophies are instead based on a true/false dichotomy. This true/false dichotomy expands to *everything* that can be true/false. Wether or not a person becomes upset when they're placed in a gloomy and dangerous location is a true/false statement. Things concerning the nature of humanity can be quantified to a true/false statement. The questions that would involve personal things to an F type to me is no different than 1 + 1 = 2. This is the nature of true/false, de-personalization. T types do not ignore things that involve people, they de-personalize it by relegating it to true/false factors, while F types personalize it, by relegating it to the "meaningful" factors. Maybe you're inability to de-personalize is why you're having difficulty with the concept that a Te user can understand these things from a true/false statement void of feeling judgements.

When it becomes a true/false statement; when for the Te type, it becomes a true/false statement that is relevant to his goals, is when the T type becomes interested in it and wants to understand it. 




Neverontime said:


> Thinkers who have any experience of life, by their own admission, find understanding emotions, empathy, sympathy, appropriateness and personal relationships difficult and confusing. Thinking isn't a super-function, it only deals with it's own content and I would expect only an inexperienced Thinking type to believe that it can navigate it's way through Feeling content with any significant level of success. More experienced T types are well aware that doing so is not a realistic option. They've usually been there, tried that and failed.


Oh my. Today I learned I don't get emotions, empathy, sympathy, and appropriateness. I guess this means f types don't get thoughts, logic, theory... 

No, T types understand these things. The reality is that they usually don't find it relevant because they're not personalizing things, and instead are de-personalizing things. We might get confused when during a debate you want to consider the emotional affects of something, because to what relevance is that to whether or not something is true/false. We may not expect someone to have an emotional reaction when we say something, because to what relevance were your potential feelings when we're making a true/false statement?

Yes, the thinking function alone deals only with it's own content. You know, true/false. Does this make you happy? True/False. Does working in dangerous conditions make people anxious? True/False. Are my workers unhappy and gloomy because of they're working in extremely dangerous conditions? True/False. Is it more efficient to have my workers un-anxious while working at the expense of these dangerous conditions? True/False.

F types are going to become invested in, and figure out these things for different reasons ( that i've already highlighted ). But T types will also become invested in, and figure out these things for different reasons. You know, like all the T types on a certain personality forum right now making True/False judgments about PEOPLE with their T function.


----------



## slothpop

I dislike threads like these because they serve only to a) frustrate Fi users, or b) set the stage for some half-baked, poetic assertion of the rainbows and cupcakes and unicorn droppings that Fi is often (mistakenly) associated with. On forums like these, where 'cognitive functions' are perceived as named structures living in the brain that any one person can only access half of during the course of his or her lifetime (um, what?), it is inevitable that people become confused. However, this confusion is, quite frankly, annoying and contributes nothing of value to the world.

To imply that a 'function' is useless is a strange assertion to make. Is your insular cortex less valuable than your prefrontal cortex? In the end, what we think of as two-letter 'functions' in the brain are simply byproducts of neurochemical makeup, no? Or do you believe that we are born with four floating, abstract 'functions' that are completely outside the realm of physicality?

On that end, could it even be /possible/ that one way of thinking doesn't have some value in some way? Our culture is shaped by these very functions that you are describing. My background is in neuroscience, so I can tell you that the neural basis behind what we describe as 'Fi' is very important to the understanding of the mind sets of others. It boils down to this: the more attuned you are to your own inner workings and emotional states, the more concerned you are with the 'balance' of your internal environment. For this reason, it is harder to be uncomfortable internally, and it may be hard to move on / compartmentalize your feelings if you are feeling particularly emotional. However, this also means that you are sensitive to the regulation of the environment, and those within your environment. This allows you to understand others, empathize with them, and understand what someone needs to do to change their perspective on a situation in order to move forward. This is highly beneficial in therapeutic / self-help occupations, and is equally beneficial in areas where you can write, speak, or perform for a larger audience using these highly novel insights.

Furthermore, the idea that 'Te' is the most useful function is simply untrue. To assert that one function is better than another function is an absolutely meaningless assertion -- it simply represents what /you/ value, not what is objectively /valuable/. The three or so pages I've read in this thread have consisted of people offering their own opinions on what the most 'useless' functions are. The fact that there is no consensus further supports my argument that cognitive functions -- much like *anything else* in this world -- are valuable insofar as you yourself find them valuable. In other words, Te is the most important function because it is the most important function to you. Personally, I've gotten along pretty well without it, and I've seen people get along equally well with it.

While I'm here and ranting, I might as well address Ti. The single most impactful person I've met thus far in college has been a Ti user. His internal understanding of logical frameworks and principles allows him to develop computer programs of a highly advanced nature. He has completely reformed the computer science curriculum in my area. Ti is also useful in debate, argument construction, etc. We need to have defined our principles before we can reason on top of them and form new 'true' ideas. If you were to take away Ti, what would we know to be 'true'? By the same token, if you were to take away Fi, what would you 'feel' to be true?


----------



## uncertain

slothpop said:


> I dislike threads like these because they serve only to a) frustrate Fi users, or b) set the stage for some half-baked, poetic assertion of the rainbows and cupcakes and unicorn droppings that Fi is often (mistakenly) associated with.


Sometimes I feel like I am the only one to be blah blah blah and feel hard to find like-minded people in the real world, but other times I feel like completely "normal" or the same as every one else on the street. I know there are no two same individuals but you know what I mean?

Or both at the same time


----------



## TwistedMuses

Matt The Martian said:


> It just bothers me that it feels like art and creative writing dont serve a tangible purpose, and I want to make a difference in the world.


Art does serve a purpose. Art helps those who feel distressed, unhappy, cornered or just empty. 
It can carry a message or just simply make someone feel certain way.

I do not understand by what you mean 'tangible purpose'. If you mean art like Architecture or Gardening, it's tangible, isn't it? 
Sorry, I might be missing the point of yours out.


----------



## Matt The Martian

TwistedMuses said:


> Art does serve a purpose. Art helps those who feel distressed, unhappy, cornered or just empty.
> It can carry a message or just simply make someone feel certain way.
> 
> I do not understand by what you mean 'tangible purpose'. If you mean art like Architecture or Gardening, it's tangible, isn't it?
> Sorry, I might be missing the point of yours out.


I mean in the sense of...hmm its kind of hard to explain. Economists keep the economy running that keeps the systems in place that allow us to have a system that generally keeps things in order, and generally keeps us comfortable. Scientists create new medicines, practices and understandings that improve our way of life, and allow us to live longer. Engineers improve the technology around us, which expands the possibilities around us and make our life better. Knowledge and action like that can be objectively looked at and be given a value. There is a tangible impact on the world, and improvements to those types of systems have a defined way of making people's lives better.

I do not feel that art serves the same level of function that the other types of things that I mentioned do. All art has a subjective value. There can be bands that got you through high school that you consider corny now. There can be shows you liked that you eventually stop liking. The use and measureability of it is less defined, or less tangible to me. Don't get me wrong, I love music. I want to make good music some day, but as a product it doesn't serve the same tangible use as other products such as food or a car do, and the music industry has less utility to me as a system as a bank has for me. 

That's all I really mean.


----------



## slothpop

Matt The Martian said:


> I mean in the sense of...hmm its kind of hard to explain. Economists keep the economy running that keeps the systems in place that allow us to have a system that generally keeps things in order, and generally keeps us comfortable. Scientists create new medicines, practices and understandings that improve our way of life, and allow us to live longer. Engineers improve the technology around us, which expands the possibilities around us and make our life better. Knowledge and action like that can be objectively looked at and be given a value. There is a tangible impact on the world, and improvements to those types of systems have a defined way of making people's lives better.
> 
> I do not feel that art serves the same level of function that the other types of things that I mentioned do. All art has a subjective value. There can be bands that got you through high school that you consider corny now. There can be shows you liked that you eventually stop liking. The use and measureability of it is less defined, or less tangible to me. Don't get me wrong, I love music. I want to make good music some day, but as a product it doesn't serve the same tangible use as other products such as food or a car do, and the music industry has less utility to me as a system as a bank has for me.
> 
> That's all I really mean.


To be fair:

a) A world that consists of only 'systems' would be a fairly boring world. Things are 'subjective' insofar as they relate to the emotional underpinnings of others, as well. If art was entirely 'subjective', we wouldn't have famous artists, authors, etc. In fact, William Shakespeare is profoundly famous for his ability to tap into the subjective mindsets of others, thus inspiring millions of other writers, poets, and playwrights.

b) Creative writing is simply an indirect way of transcribing truths about the human condition. In this way, creative writing may be a more helpful form of therapy than, say, taking medication.

c) All new 'systems' need to be 'shaped'. A system that is devoid of emotion and/or morality is far too close to a purely economic one. The economic mindset (as I'm sure you know, as you seem to be so familiar with it) bases its weight on averages. Thus anyone who isn't average wouldn't have a place in the system to begin with. Gay marriage wouldn't happen, women engineers wouldn't exist, etc. 

d) Surely you can enjoy your new technology now, without considering the sum of its roots. Technological progression occurs only insofar as the 'system' allows it to, and Fi shapes the system more than is often understood. For example, Steve Jobs (who was adopted) wouldn't have released the iPhone had formalized adoption still been illegal. Any and all technological advancements made by women, black men/women, etc. would not exist today -- or, if they did, they'd be delayed. It takes a moral-thinking critic to understand when a system needs to be changed to accommodate the needs of its people, and this critic (or, rather, this criticism) usually stems from Fi.

Honestly, it's ridiculous how important every 'function' is. Ironically, citing any way of thinking as 'useless' says more about how little someone has thought something through than anyone else.


----------



## SalvinaZerelda

Wow.. this thread is one big troll and people are responding. xD


----------



## Plumedoux

I prefer Fi to be underated than overated (oh hi Ni). :tongue:


----------



## mushr00m




----------



## ESFP100

I read a post somewhere, it mentioned the only function animals sharing similar DNA with us do not have is Fi. It is about human value. I thought it makes sense.

Btw, no offense to Ti dominants, I am happily married to a hardcore INTP, dated an ESTP and found ISTPs equally attractive . I guess I am doomed with Ti users.


----------



## ESFP100

Plumedoux said:


> I prefer Fi to be underated than overated (oh hi Ni). :tongue:


Totally agree! I am so proud of being an Fi user and keep it low profile.


----------



## Satan Claus

I don't think any function is useless because they all work together to help create the person.


----------



## The Dude

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


It depends on the which viewpoint you are taking...from a workplace perspective it is worthless. From a quality of life perspective (like how you spend your time, your career decisions) it is one of the best.


----------



## SparklingWaves

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Better to be poor and happy.


I don't think poverty & happiness go together


----------



## malachi.holden.3

SparklingWaves said:


> I don't think poverty & happiness go together


Neither does wealth and happiness. It has more to do with your character than your monetary status.


----------



## starvingautist

Capitalism: The Thread.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Neither does wealth and happiness. It has more to do with your character than your monetary status.


Powerty can easily create untold misery.


----------



## NiDBiLD

Peter said:


> I was talking about design, not organization. These 2 are not the same thing... [...]
> 
> So design and structure,... not the same thing. If you don't understand the difference (yet),........ don't have an opinion!


The remains of Steve Jobs just approached 12000 revolutions per minute. Just attach a generator and we'll all have free energy. Fuck the sun, right?

Design is not "making it look pretty". It's "making it usable by an actual human being".

This means structure is the most crucial part of design. Like, when do you present your user with the information? What choices do you give them at any given moment? Is there a way to reduce the number of steps in this or that process? Can the interaction be simpler, clearer and more to the point?

Doesn't matter how well the colors match, or how rounded the corners are. If you've got an inconsistent menu structure or your customers can't find the buy button, it's shitty design.

People following your line of reasoning will be bad designers pretty much by definition. Design is problem solving, and you can't solve most business problems without altering structure.

Of course stuff will still need to be made pretty, but that by itself isn't design. It's just art. Really simple art at that. A webpage is a series of rectangles, and complex visuals are horribly out of style. It's not exactly Caravaggio-level stuff most of the time.



> The mistake of thinking that designers also build websites is common. It's the same thing as thinking that webmasters design websites. They don't.


To me, this sounds like a restaurant having a "food designer" who paints pictures of complete, cooked meals, and a separate "foodmaster" who attempts to cook stuff that looks exactly like that.

Parodic, yes, but seriously? Shaping an experience for a system you don't know is a recipe for bad design. If you have no idea of how to build a web page, you can't know what's possible (or impossible) to do within a web browser. Your understanding of the medium will only be surface level, and as a result of this, the user experience will be bad.



> Well, there are designers that also build websites and there are webmasters that also design. But if you want a good looking site that is easy to use,... you need to separate these jobs and let different people work different parts.


I'm not familiar with webmasters. They're nowhere to be found in my line of business, and I mostly work with IT companies. Maybe there are still some lurking around in businesses that are not more or less completely internet-based.

Usually, in the context I work in, you have dev teams (front- and back-end developers, respectively) and marketing. Changes to a company's webpage is most often ordered by marketing (working with ads, the sales funnel, campaign pages, SEO and analytics) and built-to-order by the devs.

A consultant (like my company) is brought in when the marketing team needs an outside expert to take an unbiased look and suggest improvements. We can deliver either a list of proposed changes, or we'll make the changes ourselves, if the in-house devs are otherwise occupied.


----------



## Serpent

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.


You know, this is pretty pathetic to read if you don't know shit about typology.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

ah, another forum user who is envious of Fi. If Fi is so useless why is it the most talked about function on PerC ? So I can assume people from all walks of life LOVE to get to the bottom of a useless function right ? LOL I suppose you are right , Fi is useless for those who can't understand it, doesn't use it, can't process through it, can't develop it. Fi is what lead me to know for a fact you are an asshole, oh, also lead me to know you are so jealous of Fi you have to put a negative label to it. Poor fool, the subjectiveness from your post is blinding.

Dreams ? Hum, Fi is not about dreams, it's about smelling BS from people like you from a County away. Carry on, I said my peace :wink:


----------



## stargazing grasshopper

Determined mind said:


> Plus there is the problem with the word "household".
> What is actually a household per type ?


I'm kinda thinking that the majority of STJ households are very likely going to be of the dual income married persuasion & that the estimate of $75k is actually horribly low even for a single income ESTJ household.


----------



## bruh

One of the most greatest artists are Fi.


----------



## notfunny

Fi and Ti deal with abstract ideas so they probably have the least concrete advantages. 

The challenge of Fi user is to learn to express and execute those abstract ideas. No matter how good an idea is, if you can't express it well others wont care about it. Ti at least is more about logic so it's a bit easier to express, while Fi is so subjective and intangible that it can seem impossible to explain. 

Fi is associated with arts but I think that's more because Fi users are _drawn to_ arts as means of expressing abstract ideas and feelings, rather than Fi users necessarily being more talented in arts. 

ISFP has a good combination of Fi + Se that means that they can connect their Fi ideas with the sensory data Se gives them - making it easier to express their Fi. They have both strong aesthetic sense and powerful ideas, which is why they are stereotyped as making good artists. 

INFP on the other hand is probably the worst of all types when it comes to actually using our functions to do something concrete. Si means we are not attuned to our senses like ISFP and don't have same appreciation of aesthetics. Si also worsens the navel-gazing tendency of Fi, meaning INFPs get easily stuck inside their own little world with no idea of how to share it with others. 
And finally Ne makes us unorganized and indecisive - not good for getting stuff done. 

Out of all types of arts, INFP usually are most strongly associated with writing, because it's the easiest way to express abstract ideas. 
But learning to write well takes practice like every type of expression, and I think often INFPs make the mistake of assuming that since _they _value the ideas inside their brain, the rest of the world should too. Too often INFPs are satisfied with just having their ideals, instead of going out and trying to change the world with those ideals. We want to be seen as creative and unique but don't necessarily do anything to prove it. 
Some INFPs are okay with not achieving success in traditional sense - and even not being understood by others/society. But if an INFP wants those things, they need to learn to make use of their Fi. 

A well executed bad/unoriginal idea is easier to sell than badly executed brilliant/original one.


----------



## thealchemist

notfunny said:


> Fi and Ti deal with abstract ideas so they probably have the least concrete advantages.
> 
> The challenge of Fi user is to learn to express and execute those abstract ideas. No matter how good an idea is, if you can't express it well others wont care about it. Ti at least is more about logic so it's a bit easier to express, while Fi is so subjective and intangible that it can seem impossible to explain.
> 
> Fi is associated with arts but I think that's more because Fi users are _drawn to_ arts as means of expressing abstract ideas and feelings, rather than Fi users necessarily being more talented in arts.
> 
> ISFP has a good combination of Fi + Se that means that they can connect their Fi ideas with the sensory data Se gives them - making it easier to express their Fi. They have both strong aesthetic sense and powerful ideas, which is why they are stereotyped as making good artists.
> 
> INFP on the other hand is probably the worst of all types when it comes to actually using our functions to do something concrete. Si means we are not attuned to our senses like ISFP and don't have same appreciation of aesthetics. Si also worsens the navel-gazing tendency of Fi, meaning INFPs get easily stuck inside their own little world with no idea of how to share it with others.
> And finally Ne makes us unorganized and indecisive - not good for getting stuff done.
> 
> Out of all types of arts, INFP usually are most strongly associated with writing, because it's the easiest way to express abstract ideas.
> But learning to write well takes practice like every type of expression, and I think often INFPs make the mistake of assuming that since _they _value the ideas inside their brain, the rest of the world should too. Too often INFPs are satisfied with just having their ideals, instead of going out and trying to change the world with those ideals. We want to be seen as creative and unique but don't necessarily do anything to prove it.
> Some INFPs are okay with not achieving success in traditional sense - and even not being understood by others/society. But if an INFP wants those things, they need to learn to make use of their Fi.
> 
> A well executed bad/unoriginal idea is easier to sell than badly executed brilliant/original one.


This. 

You have an incredibly good grasp of cognitive functions and this was a good explanation for this type. I also agree that ISFP's tend to have an advantage over INFP's since their second function is more applicable to the real world. The ideas are just much more tangible. Dominant Fi in general is very consuming thought wise. 

I resonated with what you said. Its a little bit different for ENFP's especially me with being on a Ne-Te loop and having high extraversion. ENFP's have the same issues as INFP's to a lesser extent with ADD and scatter brained traits thrown in there.

I think some INFP's especially early on really can't feel like they can express themselves and share their souls to others except through their art work. 

This is a bit sad to me. To go through life without ever feeling accepted, understood. and that you can't fully share yourself and every facet of your personality is absolutely awful. 

This was an issue for me earlier on but I've learned to adapt and enjoy reality for what it is.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## notfunny

thealchemist said:


> This.
> 
> You have an incredibly good grasp of cognitive functions and this was a good explanation for this type. I also agree that ISFP's tend to have an advantage over INFP's since their second function is more applicable to the real world. The ideas are just much more tangible. Dominant Fi in general is very consuming thought wise.
> 
> I resonated with what you said. Its a little bit different for ENFP's especially me with being on a Ne-Te loop and having high extraversion. ENFP's have the same issues as INFP's to a lesser extent with ADD and scatter brained traits thrown in there.
> 
> I think some INFP's especially early on really can't feel like they can express themselves and share their souls to others except through their art work.
> 
> This is a bit sad to me. To go through life without ever feeling accepted, understood. and that you can't fully share yourself and every facet of your personality is absolutely awful.
> 
> This was an issue for me earlier on but I've learned to adapt and enjoy reality for what it is.


I think learning to express the Fi side in meaningful way is a key factor when it comes to living happily as INFP. If that fails, it leads to us feeling isolated from both people close to us and the society as whole. 

However I don't think INFP need or even want to share _every _facet of their personality to others. I think INFPs often _think _they want that, because they are attracted to the idealized concept of achieving perfect understanding and harmony with another person. 
Problem is that at the same time INFPs need to feel unique and the sense of individualism is important to us. When INFPs complain about how the world doesn't get them, you can often see some pride mixed with the frustration. Because if nobody can get you, it must mean that the inner world you value so much really is unique. 
So if you can share everything about yourself with someone else, and that person understands and relates to all of it - then that implies a kind of loss of individuality. 

Fi in general seems to cause this kind of need to keep some distance between yourself and the world. I think it has a lot to do with perceiving external influence as a threat to the authenticity of the internal values. Fi needs to feel like it's values are it's own and not someone else's. 

For INFP the best situation might be a combination of being able to form deep connections with others while also maintaining a clear sense of still being a special snowflake .


----------



## twistedblade056

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Well, if Te is the most useful function, probably followed by Si or Ti, then Fi would be the least useful function. It's about inner values, dreams, and ideals, all of which is practically useless in the real world.
> 
> Not to say that it's completely useless, but mostly so. It seems that the career suggestions for Fi types are always some art forms, either literature or visual or performance. So unless the Fi dom's dreams and ideals are so enthralling that people pay money for it (J.K. Rowling, Michael Jackson) they will find their dominant function to be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> But that's okay.
> 
> People who live their lives trying to be useful, striving for success, will be unhappy in the end without inner development. In fact, Fi could very well be the BEST function because of this: it strives for the most human goal of all, inner harmony.
> 
> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?
> 
> Better to be poor and happy.



Hmmm....I'd say career-orientedness is more Se, than Te. Te strives to organize things according to the practical world, or lives in sync with that organization but doesn't really care much about the status. It is the Se that is vain and ambitious in regards to that.

Te can organize things or can live with the practical world but sooner or later the Fi nags them with things like, "I don't really like what I'm doing".

so it is not so much about the Fi being "better to be poor and happy"...It is more about, "I don't really care what the outside world thinks, as long as I'm happy."

it is the Ni that becomes "poor and happy" as long as he is self-indulgent when it comes to his Ni visions.


----------



## ReverieInSight

Well, from my experience - it doesn't really matter what kind of type you are when it comes to applying a certain idea, because everyone has their problems, just in different ways. I had a friend who was an INTP and she had enormous problems to formulate what her character felt. I was correcting her chapters everytime before she uploaded it, she really had a problem with putting herself in her characters shoes, which created a lot of problems, because her characters behaved in a way that just came off as senseless or unrealistic. Also, she would sometimes get tangled up in factual details in stories and explained them elendlessly. Because a lot of readers pointed that out, she came to me and asked for advice, as I was uploading my stories on the same site as her. 
I definitely see what the OP means and I do agree to a certain degree, as I can only give my experience when it comes to writing. But from what I have seen, when it comes to the practical aspect of applying an idea, *everyone* stumbles over problems and how bad it is often depends more on other aspects, like how often you practice or if you read enough, if you can apply your ideas appropriately.


----------



## General Lee Awesome

you cant say useless. all they are is less productive in the Te centric world.


----------



## twitine

Fi dom is useless when you don't understand what it is to feel yourself. When you cannot explore your own internal feelings, they inevitably get in the way. Now you can have a life without feeling anything, but inside, you will start to think that you have no value.


----------



## Cesspool

malachi.holden.3 said:


> If you gain the world but lose your soul, what have you gained?


The world. Duh.


----------



## Peter

NiDBiLD said:


> The remains of Steve Jobs just approached 12000 revolutions per minute. Just attach a generator and we'll all have free energy. Fuck the sun, right?
> 
> Design is not "making it look pretty". It's "making it usable by an actual human being".
> 
> This means structure is the most crucial part of design. Like, when do you present your user with the information? What choices do you give them at any given moment? Is there a way to reduce the number of steps in this or that process? Can the interaction be simpler, clearer and more to the point?
> 
> Doesn't matter how well the colors match, or how rounded the corners are. If you've got an inconsistent menu structure or your customers can't find the buy button, it's shitty design.
> 
> People following your line of reasoning will be bad designers pretty much by definition. Design is problem solving, and you can't solve most business problems without altering structure.
> 
> Of course stuff will still need to be made pretty, but that by itself isn't design. It's just art. Really simple art at that. A webpage is a series of rectangles, and complex visuals are horribly out of style. It's not exactly Caravaggio-level stuff most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, this sounds like a restaurant having a "food designer" who paints pictures of complete, cooked meals, and a separate "foodmaster" who attempts to cook stuff that looks exactly like that.
> 
> Parodic, yes, but seriously? Shaping an experience for a system you don't know is a recipe for bad design. If you have no idea of how to build a web page, you can't know what's possible (or impossible) to do within a web browser. Your understanding of the medium will only be surface level, and as a result of this, the user experience will be bad.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with webmasters. They're nowhere to be found in my line of business, and I mostly work with IT companies. Maybe there are still some lurking around in businesses that are not more or less completely internet-based.
> 
> Usually, in the context I work in, you have dev teams (front- and back-end developers, respectively) and marketing. Changes to a company's webpage is most often ordered by marketing (working with ads, the sales funnel, campaign pages, SEO and analytics) and built-to-order by the devs.
> 
> A consultant (like my company) is brought in when the marketing team needs an outside expert to take an unbiased look and suggest improvements. We can deliver either a list of proposed changes, or we'll make the changes ourselves, if the in-house devs are otherwise occupied.


What you´re saying is that the visual aspects and structural aspects shoud be considered equally and work together. That's pretty much what I think too. And you need a group of people to work together to achieve this goal. It is rare to find someone that would be good at all these things.


----------



## JacksonHeights

I always thought the most useful of all would be Fe, just because it helps you read and manipulate people. Te is also really useful obviously. I always wish I could be ENFJ or INFJ for the Fe. Also I think it's the American society that sort of keeps Fi down, just cause it really undervalues social workers and teachers, where Fi is a wonderful tool! America always valued ESTJs, even tho recently I think ENTJs are becoming higher valued


----------



## bruh

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Within the context you're talking, I agree. There was a survey some time ago that showed the average income of the types, and Fi-dom appears to be the worst off and Te the best


This chart hurts me. Why did I have to born as a thinking function retard?


----------



## Vermillion

It's unbelievable how many people fell for this trap thread.


----------



## chaostheory37

Art is useful and economically viable.
1. Can advertising can exist without visuals and photoshop skills?
2. Where do you think fashion comes from without art? Fashion is extremely practical.
3. How about Hollywood (music, movies, entertainment industry)?
4. Product design in the business world?
5. Interior design in people's houses?


----------



## HolyMoony

notfunny said:


> Fi and Ti deal with abstract ideas so they probably have the least concrete advantages.
> 
> The challenge of Fi user is to learn to express and execute those abstract ideas. No matter how good an idea is, if you can't express it well others wont care about it. Ti at least is more about logic so it's a bit easier to express, while Fi is so subjective and intangible that it can seem impossible to explain.
> 
> Fi is associated with arts but I think that's more because Fi users are _drawn to_ arts as means of expressing abstract ideas and feelings, rather than Fi users necessarily being more talented in arts.
> 
> ISFP has a good combination of Fi + Se that means that they can connect their Fi ideas with the sensory data Se gives them - making it easier to express their Fi. They have both strong aesthetic sense and powerful ideas, which is why they are stereotyped as making good artists.
> 
> INFP on the other hand is probably the worst of all types when it comes to actually using our functions to do something concrete. Si means we are not attuned to our senses like ISFP and don't have same appreciation of aesthetics. Si also worsens the navel-gazing tendency of Fi, meaning INFPs get easily stuck inside their own little world with no idea of how to share it with others.
> And finally Ne makes us unorganized and indecisive - not good for getting stuff done.
> 
> Out of all types of arts, INFP usually are most strongly associated with writing, because it's the easiest way to express abstract ideas.
> But learning to write well takes practice like every type of expression, and I think often INFPs make the mistake of assuming that since _they _value the ideas inside their brain, the rest of the world should too. Too often INFPs are satisfied with just having their ideals, instead of going out and trying to change the world with those ideals. We want to be seen as creative and unique but don't necessarily do anything to prove it.
> Some INFPs are okay with not achieving success in traditional sense - and even not being understood by others/society. But if an INFP wants those things, they need to learn to make use of their Fi.
> 
> A well executed bad/unoriginal idea is easier to sell than badly executed brilliant/original one.


"A well executed bad/unoriginal idea is easier to sell than badly executed brilliant/original one." This feels like injustice but true. There are lots of trashy music which sell millions just because right marketing skills which INFPs need support of higher Te higher Se users to gain that skill. Inferior Te and blind Se is the most disadventageous function order for execution and marketing process. Plus, yes we engage with abstract/idea world with creative Ne but also we engage with concrete/physical world with child Si which makes it hard for us to go outside of our comfort zones and show ourselves to the outside world. Also, another issue is that Fi is highly private and when paired with Si the sense of privacy increases which makes INFPs reluctant to share creations with other people because it's too deep and personal to us. INFPs are usually that kind of highly creative people who hide their poems and drawings from their parents. Being INFP feels like we choosed the hardest path in life from birth. A lot of things which come natural to especially sensors and thinkers are harder for us.


----------



## HolyMoony

bruh said:


> This chart hurts me. Why did I have to born as a thinking function retard?


Another reason for this is because Fi doms (especially when paired with Si) are the ones who care least about the amount of money. I know some INFPs who are content with low average salaries. Also, it might be because of the professions Fi doms lean towards. I think that's where "starving artist" stereotype comes from. Fi doms are least likely to stick with a technical job which gives more money. Unfortunately, majority of jobs favour thinking function especially Te.


----------



## HolyMoony

General Lee Awesome said:


> you cant say useless. all they are is less productive in the Te centric world.


Fi is the most personal and probably one of the most abstract function of all which makes it impractical and unapplicable to concrete stuff. That's why lots of INFPs prefer to write poetry instead of more materialistic productivity which Te values. Fi is useless from the perspective of Te because there's no tangible productivity in the sense of getting the job done. There's a tension between the Te dom "do do do" world vs Fi dom wanting to stay authentic and dive into more abstract, poetic, metaphorical, deeply emotional universe and desire to go with it's own pace which frustrates Te because Fi is too slow-paced for it. Fi-Se pair can be more executive and faster but Fi-Ne pair is like the ultimate zoning out to la la land.


----------



## HolyMoony

JacksonHeights said:


> I always thought the most useful of all would be Fe, just because it helps you read and manipulate people. Te is also really useful obviously. I always wish I could be ENFJ or INFJ for the Fe. Also I think it's the American society that sort of keeps Fi down, just cause it really undervalues social workers and teachers, where Fi is a wonderful tool! America always valued ESTJs, even tho recently I think ENTJs are becoming higher valued


I've found a website claiming that Fi doms (IxFP) are the most common among economically lowest part of American society a while ago.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil

I once googled the most common regret people have on their deathbeds. By far the biggest was that they didn't live for themselves.

All those decades climbing the corporate ladder, making tons of money, friends in high places etc.. only to realize in the very end that it was all for nothing because they realized it wasn't aligning with their happiness.

This is why I'm happy that I'm an Fi-Dom. You can think I'm useless, a bum, unlikable, etc. But let it never be said that I'll just stand around and let my own life pass me by.


----------



## Fennel

I'm mostly useless. Not because I'm a Fi dom but the combination of traits.


----------



## HolyMoony

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> I once googled the most common regret people have on their deathbeds. By far the biggest was that they didn't live for themselves.
> 
> All those decades climbing the corporate ladder, making tons of money, friends in high places etc.. only to realize in the very end that it was all for nothing because they realized it wasn't aligning with their happiness.
> 
> This is why I'm happy that I'm an Fi-Dom. You can think I'm useless, a bum, unlikable, etc. But let it never be said that I'll just stand around and let my own life pass me by.


Good point. I think Te dom is too overrated, it's looked up to as the best function in business world but they forget that life is not all about business and money. Yes, Fi dom is the most useless in business world but I'm happy with writing poems and making art rather than working my as* off in order to reach high status. "Starving artist" is a more content lifestyle for me, at least I won't have regret for not paying attention to what I like, I always give some time to things I like and it's more satisfying than being a hardworking citizen.


----------



## dulcinea

cognitive functions are neither useful nor useless. 
They're merely a baseline for making decisions, and determine what kind of information people will give priority to.
If someone makes decisions primarily based on their own subjective valuations or feelings, it doesn't mean such feelings can't contribute to the greater good of the community in some way. 
It's not the type that's important it's the individual disposition.
It's not the function that determines how a person makes decisions that matters. It's the decisions a person makes that matters.
Two people with the same dominant function can come to wildly different conclusions or make completely different choices in any given situation. There is something to be said for intelligence, competence, and personal values.


----------



## Drecon

Honestly, you could argue that Fi is the most important function since it deals with goal-setting and deciding what is important in life. These things tell you why life is worth living. Why would that not be important?


----------

