# Interpret Jungs Fi description



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

It's not the entire description but I'm curious about how people interpret this. What do you think he's referring to exactly? 



> But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his undervaluation.





> Although in the normal type, the tendency, above alluded to, to overpower or coerce the object once openly and visibly with the thing secretly felt, rarely plays a disturbing role, and never leads to a serious attempt in this direction, some trace of it, none the less, leaks through into the personal effect upon the object, in the form of a domineering influence often difficult to define. It is sensed as a sort of stifling or oppressive feeling which holds the immediate circle under a spell. It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious. This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny.





> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject. But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects. Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel 'what others think'. Naturally, others are thinking, all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues, etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours, he must make convulsive efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

The second and third quotes sounds like an attraction to Fi in a Te type and then the position of Fi devolving into inferior Te and it's destructiveness toward the psyche. I need greater context with the first quote.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

The first quote seems to pertain to emotional distancing in a crisis--protecting one's inner harmony by limiting emotional attachment to the 'object'.

The third quote seems like it involves a dominant-tertiary loop. The extraverted functions are suppressed, Fi-Ni or Fi-Si come to an unrealistically negative conclusion, and Te then makes an appearance to respond to the imagined threat without being allowed to fact-check.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> It's not the entire description but I'm curious about how people interpret this. What do you think he's referring to exactly?


From what i can understand, Jung is an INFJ - a Fe user, and Fi mystifies him, especially from the sounds of it, he's talking about dom Fi as in INFP and/or ISFP. Fi users can't explain properly about their function of Fi, so Jung is probably very intrigued and mystified of really what goes on in a Fi user's mind/soul? I haven't studied much writing on Jung yet, little bits here and there, or of what other's say of his writings... 

as an INFP dom Fi user, some of the things i notice in his writing here is how poetic it sounds to me, and i notice that he's very intrigued and mystified with this mysteriously powerful Fi user (referred to as a woman, hence it might be a woman he was very attracted to but couldn't really understand her depths of her soul/mind so he was trying to figure her out?). Now, because his writing style (as an INFJ) is different from how my mind processes (as an INFP), i would have to keep re-reading this over and over to try to understand all that he really is saying, i think that is probably Ni and Ti, which to me is not easily understood as a Ne and inferior Te user. So i just wanted to send in a short answer for now, but i will ponder and send more in later if i figure out more.... 




> But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his undervaluation.



boy, this sounds like some poetic INFJ stuff for sure... seems to me what he's saying is the Fi woman when pissed off and upset with "him' the man, the man interprets it as the Fi woman being cold, a feeling of murderous, harshness, unforgiving, then it momentarily lames the Fi woman's emotions, but when the Fi woman gets time to think more and process more, she comes back even colder, harder and harsher in the form of "violent" resistance, violence as in "spiritual violence" not physical, which reaches into his soul at his most vunerable spot, and passion toward the man gets put on hold and becomes forbidden. She then only expresses her feelings stingily, and the man when once aware of it all, gets a permanent sense of his undervaluation from the Fi woman.

LOL, this is fun trying to interpret this, imo anyhows, i will be back later to interpret more, i have to keep looking up all these big Ti words in the dictionary, haha! :happy:


EDIT:
there was a part near the beginning that i realized i left out of my interpretation which changes some of my interpretation:
the part about *"unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive."*


so to revise my interpretation on that first paragraph it would go like this instead - the revised part is in bold:


The Fi woman when pissed off and upset _*in stormy emotion with "him' the man, will switch to "a (spiritually) murderous coldness (a kind of coldness that "feels (spiritually) murderous" to the man), unless the woman didn't pick up right away in the conscious of "being dissed/insulted" but then picks up on it afterwards and realizes she has been dissed/insulted, then her emotions are momentarily lamed,*_ but when the Fi woman gets time to think more and process more, she comes back even colder, harder and harsher in the form of "violent" resistance, violence as in "spiritual violence" not physical, which reaches into his soul at his most vunerable spot, and passion toward the man gets put on hold and becomes forbidden. She then only expresses her feelings stingily, and the man when once aware of it all, gets a permanent sense of his undervaluation from the Fi woman.



What do my fellow INFP's think of this, is it far-fetched, does it make any sense???


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Wasn't Jung considered to be Ti dominant? I often hear about him being seen as an ITP or in some cases he is argued as being an INTJ.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Wasn't Jung considered to be Ti dominant? I often hear about him being seen as an ITP or in some cases he is argued as being an INTJ.


i don't know enough about Jung yet, to me he seemed INFJ with the little i know of him, i'm getting some of his books soon so i'm looking forward to studying more of his writings. He sounds very poetic to me, and he's a big Ti user for sure, and a big Ni user in some of the stuff i've browsed through of his writings, so to have all that Ti and Ni, he couldn't be INTJ or INTP, he would have to be INFJ, and INFJ's are very poetic too...


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

ok, so continuing on, i'll give a try at paragraph 2...



> Although in the normal type, the tendency, above alluded to, to overpower or coerce the object once openly and visibly with the thing secretly felt, rarely plays a disturbing role, and never leads to a serious attempt in this direction,
> *there is no evil plot of revenge or getting even, it may mildly seem so up front, but proves in time to never manifest in any serious attempt*
> 
> some trace of it, none the less, leaks through into the personal effect upon the object, in the form of a domineering influence often difficult to define. It is sensed as a sort of stifling or oppressive feeling which holds the immediate circle under a spell. It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious. This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images;
> ...



Jung is some hard stuff to interpret i must say, to me as an INFP, my inferior Te has to go into overdrive and work too hard to try to interpret it.... it's a bit over my head... :shocked:

_____________________________________________________________

Edit: ok, so i thought it over just now, and i think the last line is saying that unlike when the man's consciousness refers it to his egoand the influence of this power over him becomes devalued and is now seen as personal oppression from the woman rather than a mysterious power and therefore is now taken as personal oppression...

... rather when the man unconsciously ( i think what we normally refer to as "subconscious") when he unconsciously identifies this subject with his ego: the subject being the woman, her seemingly mysterious power and her behaviour in this situation, when he unconsciously identifies this with his ego, (subconsciously this is taking place in him) then _"the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny." _ subconsciously/unconsciously seeing this as the mysterious power of the intensive feeling he got from the woman, is transformed in him subconsciously/unconsciously into the woman in this situation being banal (cliche'd, commonplace, predictable, void of freshness or origninality) with arrogant ambition (ambition in exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner) with vanity and petty oppression. [/B]

ok, that is what it seems to be saying??? boy, Fi certainly seems to cause the most pondering by so many to try to figure out exactly how Fi functions! This is a pretty wild interpretation by Jung, some of it is credible in my opinion as a dom Fi, but i can't say it's all credible to me, to me it feels like it's missing so much, but i haven't read all his writings on Fi yet, nor even the 3rd paragraph posted in this thread yet, but of the first 2 paragraphs, to me it's missing alot of other info imo.

i guess i'll be back again to try to interpret paragraph 3? where is the full description that contains these 3 paragraphs btw???


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Dreamer777 

You're very close, imo. 

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10



> But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive.


A stormy emotion from him, will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness by her. 

The animation of some primordial image, regarding Fi, means a threat to deeply held values. Jung believed primordial images are where introverted functions get their judgements or perceptions from, since they aren't from objective influences.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> @Dreamer777
> 
> You're very close, imo.
> 
> ...


Yes, good explanation of Jung's method, i like it very much! makes perfect sense really! All internal functions are from memory of past knowledge/data/experiences. Thanks for defining his method to me about those images as i haven't studied much on Jung yet, that really makes me see clearer exactly what he means by the image thing there! Cool! :happy:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> Yes, good explanation of Jung's method, i like it very much! makes perfect sense really! All internal functions are from memory of past knowledge/data/experiences. Thanks for defining his method to me about those images as i haven't studied much on Jung yet, that really makes me see clearer exactly what he means by the image thing there! Cool! :happy:


I also find that I have difficulties arguing with someone while Fi is continually empathising with them. I need to withdraw feeling from the other person during a conflict situation in order to express myself effectively. 

Which brings us to this;


> This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny.
> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal.


The 'unconscious subject' he's referring to in this instance is Fi. Fi aims to rise above the ego and objective facts. This explains Fi doms slight superiority complex and feeling of acting for the 'greater good'. When empathy and feeling are withdrawn, there are less restraints on the ego. 



> The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject.


Here he's talking about Te. Te's ability to somewhat simplify Fi's complex feelings and express them proves helpful on those occasions when feeling is withdrawn and the ego is given higher rank. It's not due to an inferior eruption resulting from Te being overly suppressed, since consciousness is allowing it a certain amount of control to achieve its aim. 





> But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects. Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel 'what others think'.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung - definitely had issues around Fe - no way an INFJ.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung was no way in hell anything but an inferior Fe type, so Ti dominant (that would explain why Fi mystified them, since that's their least conscious function).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung was no way in hell anything but an inferior Fe type, so Ti dominant (that would explain why Fi mystified them, since that's their least conscious function).


I actually think he understood Fi really well. What do you think? 
I was actually hoping you would contribute with your interpretation. 

Also, what do you think about his Ni description, being Ni dom yourself?


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Arrow said:


> Wasn't Jung considered to be Ti dominant? I often hear about him being seen as an ITP or in some cases he is argued as being an INTJ.


I repeat for the millionth time, Jung was an ISTP! He typed himself as an ISTP!


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung was no way in hell anything but an inferior Fe type, so Ti dominant (that would explain why Fi mystified them, since that's their least conscious function).


Jung admitted later in his life that he did not understand F very well earlier in his life when he wrote _Psychological Types_ (hence his sexist stereotyping), because it was his inferior. This is why his description of Fi is so short compared to Ti. Te and Fe were much easier for him to write profusely about because they were more transparent (because they are orientated to the object).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> Jung admitted later in his life that he did not understand F very well earlier in his life when he wrote _Psychological Types_ (hence his sexist stereotyping), because it was his inferior. This is why his description of Fi is so short compared to Ti. Te and Fe were much easier for him to write profusely about because they were more transparent (because they are orientated to the object).


Well even though this is getting somewhat derailed, he did actually say that everything that is said for Ti can also be said for Fi, only Ti is thought and Fi is felt. 

If he was ISTP then Fe would have been his inferior, not Fi.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> I repeat for the millionth time, Jung was an ISTP! He typed himself as an ISTP!


i haven't read much of Jung yet as i mentioned previously, but i'm sorry to say i do not believe there is any way he could be an ISTP. He is way too much into psychology and spends loads of time on psychology than an ISTP would ever. ISTP's aren't going to do that. ISTP's are way too much Se for that. i have alot of irl experiences with ISTP's. In my experience here on PerC, there are 2 types the most that are always questioning their type and doubting what type they are, the INFJ's and the INTP's. If i was to conclude off that simple experience, i would say he's one of those 2 types, because there is no ISTP that is going to spend so much time intuiting on psychology, it just doesn't make sense. 

I ordered a few of Jung's books, so hopefully i will have them soon so i can start studying more of his writings, so i can understand more of where he's coming from.

i realize i stuck my head out on a chopping block here, cause i haven't read enough on Jung yet, but i just don't see how it is possible for ISTP's to be capable of expending so much time and energy on intuiting about psychology and personality types, just doesn't make sense.

Someone mentioned he's low on Fe, cause i'm thinking he's an INFJ, he seems to have the Ti and Ni thing going on, so ISTP's use Ti and Ni so that would make sense why he thinks he's an ISTP, but maybe he's INFJ who is a little low on Fe because his mission was to do alot of writing and not have as much time interracting with people, and his Ti may be stronger because of him spending all this time writing also. Didn't he say in middle age the territary function becomes more developed, that before that it's equal with the territary and the territary shadow. I'm 48, and my territary Si is becoming stronger in me, i can see it and feel it, so to me it seems true that the territary develops more stronger in middle age, what age did he do all this writing???? i personally think imo the man is an INFJ.

Poetic, love to write
Symbolic
strong Ni
strong Ti
into Psychology heavily


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> i haven't read much of Jung yet as i mentioned previously, but i'm sorry to say i do not believe there is any way he could be an ISTP. He is way too much into psychology and spends loads of time on psychology than an ISTP would ever. ISTP's aren't going to do that. ISTP's are way too much Se for that. i have alot of irl experiences with ISTP's. In my experience here on PerC, there are 2 types the most that are always questioning their type and doubting what type they are, the INFJ's and the INTP's. If i was to conclude off that simple experience, i would say he's one of those 2 types, because there is no ISTP that is going to spend so much time intuiting on psychology, it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> I ordered a few of Jung's books, so hopefully i will have them soon so i can start studying more of his writings, so i can understand more of where he's coming from.
> 
> ...


Here we go again with the buying into stereotypes stuff. I have an ISTP friend who likes psychology, so...


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*Dreamer777 *

The irony is that Jung's work claim that aux functions don't have orientation due to concreticism and so much of the recent typology from the perspective of differentiated aux functions don't hold. From the rather long debates over his "type", the general consensus was that he was Ti- S/N -Fe with a strong sensation preference during his first half of life as a natural scientist and later on overtaken by intuition when the need to delve into symbology was necessary for furthering research.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Also back on topic:

A snippet from Jung's Feeling definition under chapter XI 


> Naturally the essence of feeling is not characterized by the foregoing definitions: they only serve to convey its external manifestations. The *conceptual capacity of the intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in abstract terms, *since thinking belongs to a category quite incommensurable with feeling. In fact, no basic psychological function whatsoever can be completely expressed by any other one. This circumstance is responsible fo*r the fact that no intellectual definition will ever be able to render the specific character of feeling in any adequate measure. The mere fact that feelings are classified adds nothing to the understanding of their nature, because even the most. exact classification will be able to yield only that intellectually seizable content to which or with which feelings appear connected,* but without thereby apprehending the specific nature of feeling. Thus, however many varying and intellectually seizable classes of contents there may be, just as many feelings can be differentiated, without ever arriving at an exhaustive classification of feelings themselves; because, beyond every possible class of contents accessible to the intellect, *there still exist feelings which are beyond intellectual classification*. The very idea of a classification is intellectual and therefore incommensurable with the nature of feeling. Hence, we must content ourselves with our attempts to define the limits of the concept.


i.e. Jung cheats  vis-a-vis claim that psychology is an intellectualization of the human mind which by its modality eludes the means to communicate/capture the essence of what Feeling "really is".


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> Also back on topic:
> 
> A snippet from Jung's Feeling definition under chapter XI
> 
> ...


that's what i said from my opinion in trying to interpret the original post here, that there's alot missing, some things are credible, and some things are not. The definition/explanation of Fi will always remain somewhat a mystery because dom Fi's cannot explain logically about Fi, because they speak through their feelings, and i'm not Fe, and Fe is external, but maybe dom Fe's can't explain Fe logically either, but it seems Fe is less mysterious and more universally comprehensible because it's external and not internal. just my thought.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Here we go again with the buying into stereotypes stuff. I have an ISTP friend who likes psychology, so...


liking it and spending donkey's years intuiting on it and writing books is 2 different things. How much time would your friend consider to spend on it?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> liking it and spending donkey's years intuiting on it and writing books is 2 different things. How much time would your friend consider to spend on it?


Um, we've seriously had intellectual discussions on this stuff. I frankly don't believe that there is much, if any real difference in "strength" between the aux/tert functions - I subscribe to the Marie Von Franz camp that they're both just auxiliary functions - oh, and btw, where is there any correlation between one's ability to understand and the functions - there isn't.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> @*Dreamer777 *
> 
> The irony is that Jung's work claim that aux functions don't have orientation due to concreticism and so much of the recent typology from the perspective of differentiated aux functions don't hold. From the rather long debates over his "type", the general consensus was that he was Ti- S/N -Fe with a strong sensation preference during his first half of life as a natural scientist and later on overtaken by intuition when the need to delve into symbology was necessary for furthering research.


See, to me this sounds kinda contradictory... just by the sounds of it... but as i mentioned i am no Jung expert and haven't read alot of his stuff yet...

Ni is the cog. function of scientists. What do you mean by "natural" scientist?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Um, we've seriously had intellectual discussions on this stuff. I frankly don't believe that there is much, if any real difference in "strength" between the aux/tert functions - I subscribe to the Marie Von Franz camp that they're both just auxiliary functions - oh, and btw, where is there any correlation between one's ability to understand and the functions - there isn't.


you didn't answer my question?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

@nonnaci

let me ask you a few questions, you seem willing to try to help me out here to understand more, so let me ask you...

who is the original person or persons that invented the cog function theory? i don't know, so that's why i'm asking, i haven't studied yet on all that, and you seem to have alot of knowledge of it, so i'm only asking cause i don't know, not for any argument or anything like that.. :happy:


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> See, to me this sounds kinda contradictory... just by the sounds of it... but as i mentioned i am no Jung expert and haven't read alot of his stuff yet...
> 
> Ni is the cog. function of scientists. What do you mean by "natural" scientist?


Modern science is defined by a sphere of reasoning which has nothing to do with Ni but instead with rational functions. The reference to "natural scientist" alludes to use of observable historical material across cultures to justify his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious rather than blind speculation.

The Psychology of C.G. Jung: It’s All In How You Look At It | outlawpsych.com


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> @_nonnaci_
> 
> let me ask you a few questions, you seem willing to try to help me out here to understand more, so let me ask you...
> 
> who is the original person or persons that invented the cog function theory? i don't know, so that's why i'm asking, i haven't studied yet on all that, and you seem to have alot of knowledge of it, so i'm only asking cause i don't know, not for any argument or anything like that.. :happy:


To provide some context before Adler, Freud, Jung, the introversion/extroversion dichotomy was known. Jung's psychological types was sort of a synthesis of Freud's instinctive psychology and Adler's ego-psychology which introduced/justified this mandala-like framework.

Read the intro:
Psychological Types, by C.G. Jung


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> To provide some context before Adler, Freud, Jung, the introversion/extroversion dichotomy was known. Jung's psychological types was sort of a synthesis of Freud's instinctive psychology and Adler's ego-psychology which introduced/justified this mandala-like framework.
> 
> Read the intro:
> Psychological Types, by C.G. Jung





> Modern science is defined by a sphere of reasoning which has nothing to do with Ni but instead with rational functions. The reference to "natural scientist" alludes to use of observable historical material across cultures to justify his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious rather than blind speculation.
> 
> The Psychology of C.G. Jung: It’s All In How You Look At It | outlawpsych.com


Thanks for all the links and info, i'm gonna check it out...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> you didn't answer my question?


Um, I'm the INTJ and he's the ISTP and we're both not psychologists, so I don't see what you're aiming for other than a desire to be correct in your assumptions.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Um, I'm the INTJ and he's the ISTP and we're both not psychologists, so I don't see what you're aiming for other than a desire to be correct in your assumptions.


If you are an INTJ, and you use Te, then why can't you give me a better answer that i can understand? I get along great with INTJ's, so i don't know what's up with you in reference to me? I like INTJ's. Are you sure you're an INTJ?


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Dreamer777 said:


> i haven't read much of Jung yet as i mentioned previously, but i'm sorry to say i do not believe there is any way he could be an ISTP. He is way too much into psychology and spends loads of time on psychology than an ISTP would ever. ISTP's aren't going to do that. ISTP's are way too much Se for that. i have alot of irl experiences with ISTP's. In my experience here on PerC, there are 2 types the most that are always questioning their type and doubting what type they are, the INFJ's and the INTP's. If i was to conclude off that simple experience, i would say he's one of those 2 types, because there is no ISTP that is going to spend so much time intuiting on psychology, it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> I ordered a few of Jung's books, so hopefully i will have them soon so i can start studying more of his writings, so i can understand more of where he's coming from.
> 
> ...


And thus you show your ignorance of Jung.

From the mouth of Jung himself:



> As a natural scientist,* thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious.* You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.
> 
> Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. it needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.


Note the tense, "were", he developed his tertiary N as a result of his mid-life crisis caused by his break with Freud.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

I respect Jung's brilliance in some regards, but I think he was very weak in clearly defining some functions that he was personally unfamiliar with or biased against. Fi is a prime example.

He was a human with his own set of complexes. He had a mental breakdown. He rebounded with some different views. It drives me crazy that some people want to hold all of personality theory to the standard of a young Jung. He wouldn't even abide by those definitions or standards, why should we?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

saffron said:


> I respect Jung's brilliance in some regards, but I think he was very weak in clearly defining some functions that he was personally unfamiliar with or biased against. Fi is a prime example.
> 
> He was a human with his own set of complexes. He had a mental breakdown. He rebounded with some different views. It drives me crazy that some people want to hold all of personality theory to the standard of a young Jung. He wouldn't even abide by those definitions or standards, why should we?


could you tell me which books were his before books and which were his after books? i'm new to studying on Jung and don't want to waste much time in the before ones, if he doesn't agree with his before ones, why should i bother waste my time studying from them? i beg you please do let me know which ones are worth my time?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> If you are an INTJ, and you use Te, then why can't you give me a better answer that i can understand? I get along great with INTJ's, so i don't know what's up with you in reference to me? I like INTJ's. Are you sure you're an INTJ?


What kind of answer do you want? You clearly don't get my point. My point is, we're both on the same page with our understanding of psychology. It has nothing to do with type.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> What kind of answer do you want? You clearly don't get my point. My point is, we're both on the same page with our understanding of psychology. It has nothing to do with type.


i'll look around on the ISTP forum and browse around through posts, i've never been on the ISTP Forum, i just know ISTP's in real life, and it just blows my mind that an ISTP would really sit and intuit and write all that stuff on psychology/personality types, so, i'll browse around on the ISTP forum and get more familiar with them that way, as in listening to what they actually write about.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> Also back on topic:
> 
> A snippet from Jung's Feeling definition under chapter XI
> 
> ...


Since this is back on topic, I assume you are referring to my post. I'm not asking for a description of the feeling function. Only for interpretations of Jung's description of Fi's external manifestations.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Since this is back on topic, I assume you are referring to my post. I'm not asking for a description of the feeling function. Only for interpretations of Jung's description of Fi's external manifestations.


wow, we really did go way off from what the post was directly about, sorry about that neverontime, i like your name, i'm never on time either haha! :laughing:

i'll back track and get back to where i left off with my interpretation.... :happy:


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Since this is back on topic, I assume you are referring to my post. I'm not asking for a description of the feeling function. Only for interpretations of Jung's description of Fi's external manifestations.


First part: It's metaphorically shoving the object away from you. This is not to be confused with ignoring the object as the description suggests an active repugnance.

Second part: It's saying that the type naturally imposes his/her subjective biases without batting an eyelash. The traces (visible signs) of the judgment is one of domination like an icy glare (what I pictured). Once the ego gets wind of the feeling and places the self figurative above the object, the external manifestations may come out as arrogant tirades.

Third part: He's stating that feeling is felt but not yet "looped" back to the ego (an awareness of the relation between self and object) until inferior Thinking is projected onto object. The rest follows standard effects of projecting an inferior function (Naomi Quenk's elaboration from this is more descriptive).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> First part: It's metaphorically shoving the object away from you. This is not to be confused with ignoring the object as the description suggests an active repugnance.
> 
> Second part: It's saying that the type naturally imposes his/her subjective biases without batting an eyelash. The traces (visible signs) of the judgment is one of domination like an icy glare (what I pictured). Once the ego gets wind of the feeling and places the self figurative above the object, the external manifestations may come out as arrogant tirades.
> 
> Third part: He's stating that feeling is felt but not yet "looped" back to the ego (an awareness of the relation between self and object) until inferior Thinking is projected onto object. The rest follows standard effects of projecting an inferior function (Naomi Quenk's elaboration from this is more descriptive).


Thanks 
From what I've read of Quenk, I don't rate her that much though. So, I'll give her a miss.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I also find that I have difficulties arguing with someone while Fi is continually empathising with them. I need to withdraw feeling from the other person during a conflict situation in order to express myself effectively.


Yes, me too, absolutely. That's another reason we come across as irrational, the other person(s) don't realize this is all what's going on in our mind/soul/heart! Like even if the other person is wrong as in wrong in outsider's eyes, not just in Fi's eyes, Fi will in the end take the lashes so to speak. or at least Fi in an INFP, i can't speak for an ISFP, i'm not one. i so wish i could explain more of what i'm trying to say, but i'm just not able to get it out logically, so frustrating, would love to be able to get it out logically and help others understand more about Fi, but hey, this is the problem with Fi, just can't explain it properly!!

kinda like Fi doesn't like having to show up the person's fault, but Fi has a duty to stand up against the person's fault because it goes against the Fi's soul value/belief, and because Fi is lousy at explaining things calmly, logically and rationally, then it can't be communicated effectively thus Fi turns cold, defense mechanism against deep pain/hurt. O gosh, did that all just make any sense to you all? i'm really trying my best to try to explain it....

So Neverontime, do you actually accomplish withdrawing "feeling" and accomplish explaining yourself effectively?? i don't, very very rare if ever. do you?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

@Neverontime ... continuing on what you posted here:



> This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny.
> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal.


ok, so this power in the Fi woman that is felt as a mysterious power by the man, is obtained from the deeply felt unconscious images in the Fi woman's physche. but what is conscious in her psyche, is automatically referred to her ego, *and the "influence" becomes devalued into personal oppression.*

what does that part in bold mean, i'm not sure that i understand, what is "the influence"?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> Yes, me too, absolutely. That's another reason we come across as irrational, the other person(s) don't realize this is all what's going on in our mind/soul/heart! Like even if the other person is wrong as in wrong in outsider's eyes, not just in Fi's eyes, Fi will in the end take the lashes so to speak. or at least Fi in an INFP, i can't speak for an ISFP, i'm not one. i so wish i could explain more of what i'm trying to say, but i'm just not able to get it out logically, so frustrating, would love to be able to get it out logically and help others understand more about Fi, but hey, this is the problem with Fi, just can't explain it properly!!
> 
> kinda like Fi doesn't like having to show up the person's fault, but Fi has a duty to stand up against the person's fault because it goes against the Fi's soul value/belief, and because Fi is lousy at explaining things calmly, logically and rationally, then it can't be communicated effectively thus Fi turns cold, defense mechanism against deep pain/hurt. O gosh, did that all just make any sense to you all? i'm really trying my best to try to explain it....
> 
> So Neverontime, do you actually accomplish withdrawing "feeling" and accomplish explaining yourself effectively?? i don't, very very rare if ever. do you?


I believe I manage it pretty well, I usually get my point across. I've always had more thinkers around me than feelers so I guess I'm used to their style of communicating. 
I must make sense to them because those I know well respect my opinion and don't accuse me of being irrational when I express myself that way. 

It's different when I'm simply talking about my feelings though, then they just look confused.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> @Neverontime ... continuing on what you posted here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The influence is Fi, which usually holds back the ego. Like when you refrain from saying something hurtful to someone even though doing so would totally prove that your opinion is correct. Protecting their feelings is more important than than 'winning', even if the other person isn't really doing the same for you. 
That's what 'Feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego' means. 

However, when it's a deeply held value at stake, 'winning' becomes more important than their feelings. So withdrawing feeling and therefore the Fi influence, allows the ego to some extent, to take over the reigns. The Fi influence becomes debased, as in, of less honourable character, because the ego is given more control. The ego is prepared to stoop to much lower levels in order to win.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> The influence is Fi, which usually holds back the ego. Like when you refrain from saying something hurtful to someone even though doing so would totally prove that your opinion is correct. Protecting their feelings is more important than than 'winning', even if the other person isn't really doing the same for you.
> That's what 'Feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego' means.


This sounds more like Fe? i mean, i do this too, not always, but i do it, but doesn't it seem like Fe? i mean, INFP's do score with some Fe on their cog scores, my Fi scores way highest, and then my Si, Ne, Ni, Fe scores are pretty average and equal, then my Se, Te, and Ti scores are low, my Ti being the lowest in the minus actually.



> However, when it's a deeply held value at stake, 'winning' becomes more important than their feelings. So withdrawing feeling and therefore the Fi influence, allows the ego to some extent, to take over the reigns. The Fi influence becomes debased, as in, of less honourable character, because the ego is given more control. The ego is prepared to stoop to much lower levels in order to win.


Yes this i agree with, i do this as an INFP for sure. The only thing is that to me the influence is a mixture of Fi and Fe it seems???


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

@Neverontime



> The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject.





> Here he's talking about Te. Te's ability to somewhat simplify Fi's complex feelings and express them proves helpful on those occasions when feeling is withdrawn and the ego is given higher rank. It's not due to an inferior eruption resulting from Te being overly suppressed, since consciousness is allowing it a certain amount of control to achieve its aim.


what does Jung say about inferior functions and how they work? or just direct me to an article on it? i also know the Naomi Quenk version, so i'm not asking for that, and i see where you are not too into her version, so i'm asking for what Jung says, as you know i haven't studied much on Jung yet. 

as me as an INFP with inferior Te, i use Te all the time. but yeah, Te is weak in me compared to Feeling and Intuiting. But i do use it all the time really. And exactly Te takes complex things and presents them in simple ways, i use Te alot. But, why am i not able to use it enough to explain Fi / Feelings properly?? Why can't Fi users especially, explain to non-Fi users exactly what Fi is since we use Te, and Te is the function to make things simple? Or is it that because we do use Te and not Ti, our answer of Fi is too simple and not enough information is given due to Te??? So i am curious to understand more about the inferior function?



and lastly, 



> But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects. Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel 'what others think'.


what's your interpretation on that?


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

Fi is like total artistic/creative expression... I don't know if it can be accurately expressed through words because if we use Fi as our dominant function then our Te sucks and we can't logically understand/explain it... We can just express it creatively. FOr example, I can draw Fi or I can express Fi in a song, but you ask me on the spot what Fi is, my mind goes _*duurrrrrrrrr*. _

This is just me though and my Te is probably massively inferior because I'm 19 and I get so wrapped up in my projects and I avoid my Te's shitty advice. I'm pretty sure I'm a two dimensional Fi/Ne person. But the other INFP I know is the same way


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

WinklePlum said:


> Fi is like total artistic/creative expression... I don't know if it can be accurately expressed through words because if we use Fi as our dominant function then our Te sucks and we can't logically understand/explain it... We can just express it creatively. FOr example, I can draw Fi or I can express Fi in a song, but you ask me on the spot what Fi is, my mind goes _*duurrrrrrrrr*. _
> 
> This is just me though and my Te is probably massively inferior because I'm 19 and I get so wrapped up in my projects and I avoid my Te's shitty advice. I'm pretty sure I'm a two dimensional Fi/Ne person. But the other INFP I know is the same way


So, in other words WinklePlum wink: cute name) , r u saying from your own experience that the dom and aux are the 2 strongest functions that work in you? but if you really think about it, everytime you speak you have to use Te, or when you're studying even, like silently speaking inside of yourself to yourself or in that case maybe even speaking aloud to yourself as Te does also, doesn't that mean you use Te just as much? How old r u if i may ask? i ask because i think Jung or someone said the territary at middle age becomes more developed and stronger. And also as you as an ENFP with Te ter. wouldn't that make you use Te more than me as an INFP with inferior Te?

EDIT:

yeah, so i realized my dom is judging function, your's is a perceiving one. i wonder if that makes a difference with how you use ter. Te because your dom is perceiving rather than judging? just a thought, not sure if it's a question that makes sense though?


and also my cogs show Fi sky high compared to everything else. Does your Ne show way above the others?


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> So, in other words WinklePlum wink: cute name) , r u saying from your own experience that the dom and aux are the 2 strongest functions that work in you? but if you really think about it, everytime you speak you have to use Te, or when you're studying even, like silently speaking inside of yourself to yourself or in that case maybe even speaking aloud to yourself as Te does also, doesn't that mean you use Te just as much? How old r u if i may ask? i ask because i think Jung or someone said the territary at middle age becomes more developed and stronger. And also as you as an ENFP with Te ter. wouldn't that make you use Te more than me as an INFP with inferior Te?


Haha I said I was 19 in the previous post 

I've come to the conclusion I'm INFP just because it's obvious I live by my Fi, I just subconsciously didn't want the INFP label because the INFP's on this website act different and think way differently than I do. I respect them, but they're so much different and I honestly can't be in that subforum for too long before retreating back into the INTP/INTJ forums to lurk. 

If you read one of my older threads, I think the dominant and inferior functions are the only ones that have definite control in our lives and the auxiliaries are very random. Well... I've sort of changed my opinion but not really because I obviously use Ne to a great extent. I also unconsciously use Si on a daily basis.... Once I learn something, I do it well over and over and I'll reference back to how I learned something before... SO anyway, I'm not ENFP. 

But yeah, I think Fi is the only function I've developed well (through creative expression) and Ne (also through writing and problem solving) but my Te is lacking _badly_. And when it comes out of me under stress, get the fuck away from me because I turn into a straaaange, immature Te dom.

*But anyway*, I think Jung had a lot of trouble understanding Fi. It's like me trying to explain how I use Te. I can't... I can only explain how stupid and clumsy I am when I use it. Difference is, is I can respect Te users. I honestly believe Jung didn't respect Fi and Fe users, I think he sort of hated us. Fi is a strange function, but it produces wonderful results outside of the world of reason and logic I believe. When under the safety net of free expression and inspiration, Fi is like this wonderful generator of self expression and *truth. *Our ideals and connection to our values makes us really good at finding the hidden truths and hidden meanings, but what's great is we can explain it once we've matured or just express it creatively, like so many iNFP's do. Unlike a Ni dom who will be scrambling to explain their reasoning, since they're _so _intuitive_.


_Ahhh, this is so long and probably doesn't make sense, but I've been up for like 18+ hours for my job


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> This sounds more like Fe? i mean, i do this too, not always, but i do it, but doesn't it seem like Fe? i mean, INFP's do score with some Fe on their cog scores, my Fi scores way highest, and then my Si, Ne, Ni, Fe scores are pretty average and equal, then my Se, Te, and Ti scores are low, my Ti being the lowest in the minus actually.


Fi and Fe mainly differ through orientation. It's the same function in different attitudes. So, there's a lot of overlap in values, both types final decision is what they feel is the right thing to do. Fi often holds the same values as Fe, the only difference between the two is Fi's deciding factor comes from internal values (primordial images) and Fe's deciding factor comes from objective values in accordance with the current times. Because Fe expects to find the guidelines externally, that's where it is focused and vice-versa for Fi. 

Fe's feeling judgements are always within the external values held by the world in general and the societies and cultures at the time. They don't go beyond these boundaries. Fi's feeling judgements go beyond the current general consensus of the time, which is why they are sometimes described as catalysts for change. Without Fi (and Ti) the general public attitudes wouldn't move forward. I believe that when Jung made his observations this difference would have been clearer than it is today. Because communities were more isolated then. 

Therefore, Fi will follow the general consensus on values but, only because their subjective judgement agrees it's the right thing to do.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Fi and Fe mainly differ through orientation. It's the same function in different attitudes. So, there's a lot of overlap in values, both types final decision is what they feel is the right thing to do. Fi often holds the same values as Fe, the only difference between the two is Fi's deciding factor comes from internal values (primordial images) and Fe's deciding factor comes from objective values in accordance with the current times. Because Fe expects to find the guidelines externally, that's where it is focused and vice-versa for Fi.
> 
> Fe's feeling judgements are always within the external values held by the world in general and the societies and cultures at the time. They don't go beyond these boundaries. Fi's feeling judgements go beyond the current general consensus of the time, which is why they are sometimes described as catalysts for change. Without Fi (and Ti) the general public attitudes wouldn't move forward. I believe that when Jung made his observations this difference would have been clearer than it is today. Because communities were more isolated then.
> 
> Therefore, Fi will follow the general consensus on values but, only because their subjective judgement agrees it's the right thing to do.


I think external values are not general but can vary depending on location, subculture, organisation, peer group, profession, etc, and are not always clear and unwritten, but in any way 'internalised' (in a complex semantic like structure like knowing what values are held in different social-cultural contexts). So when you go to another country you 'take' your Fe with you, but you need to map differentiations when adapting to local context.

You also see in big metropoles allover the world (like in history often harbor cities, or internet fora, although that's even more complex) that these values are much more mixed, compared to peripheries.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> @Neverontime
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've only read a recap of Jungs theory regarding the inferior functions. Which is in the text I linked to earlier in this thread. He says the functions that are mostly unconscious compensate the dominant function. They are partly conscious, but they are directed by the first, differentiated function. The way they manifest is dependent on how much they have been suppressed. If they are suppressed too much then they oppose the dominant function instead of balancing it out. The more suppressed they are, the more infantile and damaging they are when they erupt. 

Feeling can't be exactly explained because it's far too complex to put precisely into thoughts and words. 



> > what's your interpretation on that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

WinklePlum said:


> Haha I said I was 19 in the previous post
> 
> I've come to the conclusion I'm INFP just because it's obvious I live by my Fi, I just subconsciously didn't want the INFP label because the INFP's on this website act different and think way differently than I do. I respect them, but they're so much different and I honestly can't be in that subforum for too long before retreating back into the INTP/INTJ forums to lurk.


Well, i'm an INFP, and i like to interract with INTP's and INTJ's because there is usually no emotional outbursts between me and them, whatever is said is usually said calmly, and to me an INFP, i think that's a huge deal, i dont' usually get offended by INTJ's and INTP's, even more so INTP's even better. i feel more connected to INTP's, than INTJ's but i like INTJ's just as much. And i like to hear them explain things, i like listening to their explanations, as well as my own type INFP. But INTJ's and INTP's i tend to learn alot from due to their strong thinking skills, and i enjoy learning from them (if they can bear with my emotional inputs, haha! :crazy:.) INFP's i feel a kindred bond with always, even if i don't interract much with them, there is a deep kindred bond in my soul with them. i find Neverontime to be a more unusual INFP imo, she explains things with more thinking power/skills, she did mention she grew up around alot of thinkers and that may be the reason she is more developed in thinking than the average INFP.



> If you read one of my older threads, I think the dominant and inferior functions are the only ones that have definite control in our lives and the auxiliaries are very random. Well... I've sort of changed my opinion but not really because I obviously use Ne to a great extent. I also unconsciously use Si on a daily basis.... Once I learn something, I do it well over and over and I'll reference back to how I learned something before... SO anyway, I'm not ENFP.


i didnt' really analyze you, i just saw ENFP by your avatar and just casually thought you were an ENFP. yeah it would be a toss up between Fi and Ne, which one you use strongest? Dom Fi is dominantly a judging type - less objective to openmindedness, Dom Ne is dominantly a perceiving type - more objective to open mindedness. Right, isn't that how they say it works?



> But yeah, I think Fi is the only function I've developed well (through creative expression) and Ne (also through writing and problem solving) but my Te is lacking _badly_. And when it comes out of me under stress, get the fuck away from me because I turn into a straaaange, immature Te dom.


Well, what do you think on Naomi Quenk's interpretation of how the inferior function of Te works in Fi doms under stress? Do you agree with it as in how you think you behave under stress? 



> *But anyway*, I think Jung had a lot of trouble understanding Fi. It's like me trying to explain how I use Te. I can't... I can only explain how stupid and clumsy I am when I use it. Difference is, is I can respect Te users. I honestly believe Jung didn't respect Fi and Fe users, I think he sort of hated us. Fi is a strange function, but it produces wonderful results outside of the world of reason and logic I believe. When under the safety net of free expression and inspiration, Fi is like this wonderful generator of self expression and *truth. *Our ideals and connection to our values makes us really good at finding the hidden truths and hidden meanings, but what's great is we can explain it once we've matured or just express it creatively, like so many iNFP's do. Unlike a Ni dom who will be scrambling to explain their reasoning, since they're _so _intuitive_._


_

Interesting about Jung, i want to learn more about him, i'm in the caribbean so i have ordered a few of his books, i'll have them next week. our bookstores don't have everything, we have to special order here. i find when a Te user explains something, i grasp it quickly because it's simple, basic, and hits the point quickly. whereas Ti is a more "poetic" if you will, intricate way of explanation with alot of information and big words, not kinda like Te with more the bullet point simple ways. So me as a Te user not Ti, even though my Te is inferior, but i'm not a Ti user, i'm a Te user, so i relate more to Te of course than to Ti. Yes Fi is very good at hidden truths and hidden meanings and reading between the lines. As a matter of fact i've heard before that because Fi reads between the lines, Fi automatically thinks the other person does the same too. And this can cause major miscommunications between especially dom Fi types, when communicating with other types. i'm sure aux Fi as well is the same way in reading between lines, not sure? and yes Fi will try to express creatively in creative ways because of the inferior Te to communicate properly. For example, i burned some cd's with some music (from other artists) i like, so others could understand more of where i'm coming from, what's in my heart, to share that richness of the soul with others in that creative way kinda thing. Fi loves truth, Fi hates hypocrisy and lies, at least dom Fi for sure. Would love to hear what aux and ter Fi's say about that? 


_


> Ahhh, this is so long and probably doesn't make sense, but I've been up for like 18+ hours for my job


Thanks for your reply, i enjoyed it! :happy:


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

@_Dreamer777_ 

Naomi Quenk's interpretation was VERY eye opening... It seems like I retreat into my inferior Te a lot  I have reasons to be stressed, but it's just so much more fulfilling to be present in my Fi, I hate my Te. 

I agree that Te doms are great at relaying information. My boss is ISTJ/ESTJ and we get along so well. I can understand his train of thought and directions. one thing I don't like is he makes EVERYTHING seem like it needs to be done NOW. Whereas it can be difficult for me to perform well under all that pressure. I can get the job done well and quickly, but he always has to tag that onto everything he says and it just smacks my "stress switch"


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

WinklePlum said:


> @_Dreamer777_
> 
> Naomi Quenk's interpretation was VERY eye opening... It seems like I retreat into my inferior Te a lot  I have reasons to be stressed, but it's just so much more fulfilling to be present in my Fi, I hate my Te.
> 
> I agree that Te doms are great at relaying information. My boss is ISTJ/ESTJ and we get along so well. I can understand his train of thought and directions. one thing I don't like is he makes EVERYTHING seem like it needs to be done NOW. Whereas it can be difficult for me to perform well under all that pressure. I can get the job done well and quickly, but he always has to tag that onto everything he says and it just smacks my "stress switch"


Well see this why i want to learn more about the inferior function, because it's a function we use constantly really, it's not like we only use once in a while, we use it all the time, but it's just that our dom being Fi as INFP's, then the dom Fi is what is the top of the pecking order of functions in us so to speak. So, we are incredibly intuned with our feelings, and we make values and judgments based on our feelings, not on thinking, or not for the most part anyway; so the judging function of thinking in us is not used as much because feeling dominates in us, and we make most of our judgments via way of our feelings. So Te is weaker in us, but we use Te constantly. We could not function without Te, everybody needs a thinking function to function with in life. So, yeah, i would like to learn more about the inferior function and how it works on a regular basis, not just in eruptions under stress, but just normally otherwise...??


EDIT: @WinklePlum 

why r u living under so much stress? At 19 you're young with alot of energy and strength, maybe you should consider what is causing u to live in so much stress and make different choices if possible to change your situation? This is why i admire the knowledge of personality typing so much, even if it's not 100% accurate, it's accurate enough to really help us to realize what choices in life would suit us better that we would be more happy in kinda thing?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

> Originally Posted by @Neverontime
> Fi and Fe mainly differ through orientation. It's the same function in different attitudes. So, there's a lot of overlap in values, both types final decision is what they feel is the right thing to do. Fi often holds the same values as Fe, the only difference between the two is Fi's deciding factor comes from internal values (primordial images) and Fe's deciding factor comes from objective values in accordance with the current times. Because Fe expects to find the guidelines externally, that's where it is focused and vice-versa for Fi.
> 
> Fe's feeling judgements are always within the external values held by the world in general and the societies and cultures at the time. They don't go beyond these boundaries. Fi's feeling judgements go beyond the current general consensus of the time, which is why they are sometimes described as catalysts for change. Without Fi (and Ti) the general public attitudes wouldn't move forward. I believe that when Jung made his observations this difference would have been clearer than it is today. Because communities were more isolated then.
> ...





mimesis said:


> I think external values are not general but can vary depending on location, subculture, organisation, peer group, profession, etc, and are not always clear and unwritten, but in any way 'internalised' (in a complex semantic like structure like knowing what values are held in different social-cultural contexts). So when you go to another country you 'take' your Fe with you, but you need to map differentiations when adapting to local context.
> 
> You also see in big metropoles allover the world (like in history often harbor cities, or internet fora, although that's even more complex) that these values are much more mixed, compared to peripheries.


Right, we as dom Fi's have Fe too, but it's just that Fi will overrule Fe when Fi's internal value is violated. So yeah, we can make ourselves fit in to the group, but depending on how our Fi values are being violated will depend on how long we can tolerate being around that group before we depart from it, but if our Fi values are being violated as dom Fi's especially, odds are we will depart at some point, we're very strict with being true to our inner values. And many times our Fi values will coordinate with the group's values (in more positive situations) so it would seem at those times Fi and Fe are very similar??


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I've only read a recap of Jungs theory regarding the inferior functions. Which is in the text I linked to earlier in this thread. He says the functions that are mostly unconscious compensate the dominant function. They are partly conscious, but they are directed by the first, differentiated function. *The way they manifest is dependent on how much they have been suppressed. If they are suppressed too much *then they oppose the dominant function instead of balancing it out. The more suppressed they are, the more infantile and damaging they are when they erupt.
> 
> Feeling can't be exactly explained because it's far too complex to put precisely into thoughts and words.



What are the causes that cause the inferior function to be suppressed? is the types of people we interact with the most on a daily basis? Like if they are weak with Te, and my inferior is Te, then my Te gets suppressed because of not enough interaction with strong Te users?? Like if it's a person with inferior Se, if they don't interact enough with strong Se users, then that causes their inferior function of Se to be suppressed??




> Whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking (due to Te not being completely suppressed)
> 
> .... thinking goes over into opposition... (Fi takes on Te's 'black and white' viewpoint. "I'm right, he's wrong and I will make sure that he knows it." It's no longer empathising or concerned about his feelings. It takes on the 'thinkers' logical frame of mind. It doesn't however, take on Te's empirical judgments, because remember it's still under Fi's influence)
> 
> ...


ok, so in reading this, i see what you're saying, i'm gonna re-construct in another reply post this whole puzzle together in light of this new knowledge i've gained by your interpretation... or i'm gonna try anyhows? :happy:


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

i just found this, it is Jung on Inferior Function: so i'm gonna study this also... copied from Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology

*Inferior function*

The least differentiated of the four psychological functions. (Compare primary function.)
The inferior function is practically identical with the dark side of the human personality.["Concerning Rebirth," CW 9i, par. 222.]

In Jung’s model of typology, the inferior or fourth function is opposite to the superior or primary function. Whether it operates in an introverted or extraverted way, it behaves like an autonomous complex; its activation is marked by affect and it resists integration.

The inferior function secretly and mischievously influences the superior function most of all, just as the latter represses the former most strongly.["The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales," ibid., par. 431.]

Positive as well as negative occurrences can constellate the inferior counter-function. When this happens, sensitiveness appears. Sensi-tiveness is a sure sign of of the presence of inferiority. This provides the psychological basis for discord and misunderstanding, not only as between two people, but also in ourselves. The essence of the inferior function is autonomy: it is independent, it attacks, it fascinates and so spins us about that we are no longer masters of ourselves and can no longer rightly distinguish between ourselves and others["The Problem of the Attitude-Type," CW 7, par. 85.]

The inferior function is always of the same nature, rational or irrational, as the primary function: when thinking is most developed, the other rational function, feeling, is inferior; if sensation is dominant, then intuition, the other irrational function, is the fourth function, and so on. This accords with general experience: the thinker is tripped up by feeling values; the practical sensation type gets into a rut, blind to the possibilities seen by intuition; the feeling type is deaf to logical thinking; and the intuitive, at home in the inner world, runs afoul of concrete reality.

One may be aware of the perceptions or judgments associated with the inferior function, but these are generally over-ridden by the superior function. Thinking types, for example, do not give their feelings much weight. Sensation types have intuitions, but they are not motivated by them. Similarly, feeling types brush away disturbing thoughts and intuitives ignore what is right in front of them.

Although the inferior function may be conscious as a phenomenon its true significance nevertheless remains unrecognized. It behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents, which are partly conscious and partly unconscious . . . . Thus in normal cases the inferior function remains conscious, at least in its effects; but in a neurosis it sinks wholly or in part into the unconscious. ["Definitions," CW 6, par. 764.]

To the extent that a person functions too one-sidedly, the inferior function becomes correspondingly primitive and troublesome. The overly dominant primary function takes energy away from the inferior function, which falls into the unconscious. There it is prone to be activated in an unnatural way, giving rise to infantile desires and other symptoms of imbalance. This is the situation in neurosis.

In order to extricate the inferior function from the unconscious by analysis, the unconscious fantasy formations that have now been activated must be brought to the surface. The conscious realization of these fantasies brings the inferior function to consciousness and makes further development possible.[Ibid., par. 764.]

When it becomes desirable or necessary to develop the inferior function, this can only happen gradually.

I have frequently observed how an analyst, confronted with a terrific thinking type, for instance, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. Such an attempt is foredoomed to failure, because it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should the violation nevertheless be successful, a really compulsive dependence of the patient on the analyst ensues, a transference that can only be brutally terminated, because, having been left without a standpoint, the patient has made his standpoint the analyst. . . . [Therefore] in order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness [and vice versa].["General Description of the Types," ibid., par. 670.]

Attempts to assimilate the inferior function are usually accompanied by a deterioration in the primary function. The thinking type can’t write an essay, the sensation type gets lost and forgets appointments, the intuitive loses touch with possibilities, and the feeling type can’t decide what something’s worth.

And yet it is necessary for the development of character that we should allow the other side, the inferior function, to find expression. We cannot in the long run allow one part of our personality to be cared for symbiotically by another; for the moment when we might have need of the other function may come at any time and find us unprepared. ["The Problem of the Attitude-Type," CW 7, par. 86.]


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> Right, we as dom Fi's have Fe too, but it's just that Fi will overrule Fe when Fi's internal value is violated. So yeah, we can make ourselves fit in to the group, but depending on how our Fi values are being violated will depend on how long we can tolerate being around that group before we depart from it, but if our Fi values are being violated as dom Fi's especially, odds are we will depart at some point, we're very strict with being true to our inner values. And many times our Fi values will coordinate with the group's values (in more positive situations) so it would seem at those times Fi and Fe are very similar.


I don't believe we also have Fe. For Fi to become dominant, Fe must be suppressed to the furthest possible extent. Jung said the opposite attitudes can't exist together within the same individual because they are constantly at odds with each other. 

We can use skills associated with Fe, but not the function, and the skills don't come naturally or automatically like they do for an Fe dom. Fe's automatically adjust their behaviour in accordance with other peoples reactions. Fi needs to make a conscious effort to do this. Although Fi and Fe often result in the same actions, conclusions, results and judgements, they still travel different routes, even when they arrive at the same place.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Dreamer777 thanks for the link, I will check that out. 

As for what causes suppression of one function in favour of another, nobody really knows. But because the types are randomly distributed throughout different cultures and social classes, it's generally believed it's not a result of nurture or a direct hereditary factor from parent to child. If this were the case there would be clusters of the same types in certain areas of the world and definitely within families. 

Personally, I believe it's determined by hormone levels in the womb before birth and to some extent in the teenage years. Since thinking is predominantly found in males, (although, of course not always) and feeling is more apparent among females, it makes sense that testosterone is likely to be a factor. But, this is only my pov.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_Dreamer777_ thanks for the link, I will check that out.
> 
> As for what causes suppression of one function in favour of another, nobody really knows. But because the types are randomly distributed throughout different cultures and social classes, it's generally believed it's not a result of nurture or a direct hereditary factor from parent to child. If this were the case there would be clusters of the same types in certain areas of the world and definitely within families.
> 
> Personally, I believe it's determined by hormone levels in the womb before birth and to some extent in the teenage years. Since thinking is predominantly found in males, (although, of course not always) and feeling is more apparent among females, it makes sense that testosterone is likely to be a factor. But, this is only my pov.



MaleFemaleS – Sensing*73.3 %**71.7 %*74.9 %N – Intuitive26.7 %28.3 %25.1 %T – Thinking40.2 %56.5 %24.5 %F – Feeling59.8 %43.5 %*75.5 %*



MBTI statistics


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_Dreamer777_ thanks for the link, I will check that out.
> 
> As for what causes suppression of one function in favour of another, nobody really knows. But because the types are randomly distributed throughout different cultures and social classes, it's generally believed it's not a result of nurture or a direct hereditary factor from parent to child. If this were the case there would be clusters of the same types in certain areas of the world and definitely within families.
> 
> Personally, I believe it's determined by hormone levels in the womb before birth and to some extent in the teenage years. Since thinking is predominantly found in males, (although, of course not always) and feeling is more apparent among females, it makes sense that testosterone is likely to be a factor. But, this is only my pov.



...or did I show you that statistic already?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> ...or did I show you that statistic already?


I don't think so


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

mimesis said:


> MaleFemaleS – Sensing*73.3 %**71.7 %*74.9 %N – Intuitive26.7 %28.3 %25.1 %T – Thinking40.2 %56.5 %24.5 %F – Feeling59.8 %43.5 %*75.5 %*
> 
> 
> 
> MBTI statistics


That's very interesting! sure does show that way more women than men are feelers over thinkers and vice versa. But, i'm a little confused by that percentage chart, because percent means out of 100. how can the numbers add up to over 100 or add up to less than 100? kinda doesn't make sense to me?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I don't believe we also have Fe. For Fi to become dominant, Fe must be suppressed to the furthest possible extent. Jung said the opposite attitudes can't exist together within the same individual because they are constantly at odds with each other.
> 
> We can use skills associated with Fe, but not the function, and the skills don't come naturally or automatically like they do for an Fe dom. Fe's automatically adjust their behaviour in accordance with other peoples reactions. Fi needs to make a conscious effort to do this. Although Fi and Fe often result in the same actions, conclusions, results and judgements, they still travel different routes, even when they arrive at the same place.


yeah, i see what you're saying... Fe is more suppressed as a function in us, but we have it, my cog scores average in Fe, my Fi is way higher. so we have a slower processing of when we are trying to use Fe, see i'm a bit confused now, cause Fe is the one that adjusts for the group, i do that alot on small occassions, like if i'm at a get together and there are people i have opposing values with, i'm gonna be more Fe like for the short moment, i'm not gonna just act out on opposing people i disagree with, that would come at some other time, never happen, or i'll talk about that to someone i'm close to later on, but i will adjust for the short term. I will not adjust for the long term though, only temporarily; and also cause the cog scores show Fe is higher than Te, Se and Ti in me and shows it is average to Si and Ni in me, Ne is just a little bit higher in my scores than Fe, Si and Ni, but it's average, my Fi is by far the highest. So, now this leads to a whole new study for me is how the shadow functions are suppressed by the main functions?? i know cog scores are a heated debate of whether they have any value or not, but i think there is some value in them, not near 100% accuracy, but it's got something to it. As an INFP, my scores actually do line up with me being an INFP. Especially very high Fi and low Te, low Se and minus in Ti. the second possibility on mine is ISFJ, which i do have quite a bit of ISFJ's ways in me as well, and thirdly INFJ's, which i do have a little in me, i internal intuit and have ahah moments sometimes too, but nowhere the frequency of how INFJ's have them. And again, my Ni scores average with my Si and Fe, with my Ne just being a little higher.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> @Dreamer777 thanks for the link, I will check that out.
> 
> As for what causes suppression of one function in favour of another, nobody really knows. But because the types are randomly distributed throughout different cultures and social classes, it's generally believed it's not a result of nurture or a direct hereditary factor from parent to child. If this were the case there would be clusters of the same types in certain areas of the world and definitely within families.
> 
> Personally, I believe it's determined by hormone levels in the womb before birth and to some extent in the teenage years. Since thinking is predominantly found in males, (although, of course not always) and feeling is more apparent among females, it makes sense that testosterone is likely to be a factor. But, this is only my pov.


Well, i wouldn't rule out hormonal imbalances as causes to a person's behavior/psyche, i absolutely agree that it affects a person, and it's very important to keep hormones balanced. Jillian Michaels explained it like this: _"Keep in mind that no hormone acts on its own. Hormone balance is like the music produced by an orchestra. If one instrument is out of tune, the whole symphony soundslike crap."_ in other words, the whole body/psyche is out of tune and wacky. You can google Jillian Michael's to see all the good stuff she has written about hormones, metabolism, nutrition, exercise, etc. Also the Peruvian's use a herb called MacaFem for balancing of hormones, it goes at the Pituitary Gland to balance the hormones through the Pituitary Gland coding the body the right way. It's good for perimenopause and menopause as well, it's good for both men and women. So, i'm into these good nutrition, right diet and exercise, eating and living healthy, herbal remedies kinda life style, i'm totally on your side with that! :wink: That's a very interesting perspective about life in the womb and the after effects so to speak... after all, it's when we are being formed from an egg into a person! :shocked:

ok, so earlier you mentioned about having better thinking skills due to growing up around alot of thinkers? are you not saying there that there is some influence from the people who surround us closely on a day to day basis?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I don't believe we also have Fe. For Fi to become dominant, Fe must be suppressed to the furthest possible extent. Jung said the opposite attitudes can't exist together within the same individual because they are constantly at odds with each other.
> 
> We can use skills associated with Fe, but not the function, and the skills don't come naturally or automatically like they do for an Fe dom. Fe's automatically adjust their behaviour in accordance with other peoples reactions. Fi needs to make a conscious effort to do this. Although Fi and Fe often result in the same actions, conclusions, results and judgements, they still travel different routes, even when they arrive at the same place.


I take your word for it that Jung said so, but personally I don't think it works that way. 

I will refrain myself from saying certain things when I am with two ladies. Even if I would lose a debate. Like I would chose to lose a debate with my boss, because he is paying my salary. (And I value that salary very high, not so much as 'deeply held').

There are also phenomena like 'groupthink'. And even on Te people can repress themselves.
Like the famous Asch conformity experiment proved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

(and perhaps another male would choose different, because he values men higher than women, and would feel 'incompetent' if he would lose from a woman. Just saying that there are a lot of values involved, in a very complex way, not just the value that is debated, also the relationships, the gain or loss, the consequenses, etc.)

One of the most 'notorious' experiments is off course Milgrams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You can find clips on youtube of the actual experiment.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> yeah, i see what you're saying... Fe is more suppressed as a function in us, but we have it, my cog scores average in Fe, my Fi is way higher. so we have a slower processing of when we are trying to use Fe, see i'm a bit confused now, cause Fe is the one that adjusts for the group, i do that alot on small occassions, like if i'm at a get together and there are people i have opposing values with, i'm gonna be more Fe like for the short moment, i'm not gonna just act out on opposing people i disagree with, that would come at some other time, never happen, or i'll talk about that to someone i'm close to later on, but i will adjust for the short term. I will not adjust for the long term though, only temporarily; and also cause the cog scores show Fe is higher than Te, Se and Ti in me and shows it is average to Si and Ni in me, Ne is just a little bit higher in my scores than Fe, Si and Ni, but it's average, my Fi is by far the highest. So, now this leads to a whole new study for me is how the shadow functions are suppressed by the main functions?? i know cog scores are a heated debate of whether they have any value or not, but i think there is some value in them, not near 100% accuracy, but it's got something to it. As an INFP, my scores actually do line up with me being an INFP. Especially very high Fi and low Te, low Se and minus in Ti. the second possibility on mine is ISFJ, which i do have quite a bit of ISFJ's ways in me as well, and thirdly INFJ's, which i do have a little in me, i internal intuit and have ahah moments sometimes too, but nowhere the frequency of how INFJ's have them. And again, my Ni scores average with my Si and Fe, with my Ne just being a little higher.


Jungs Fi Type 


> Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path.


Here he's saying that Fi's value a harmonious atmosphere, so it's not exclusive to Fe. They will only react when the other person goes too far, but will tolerate 'moderate feeling intensity'. 

I can easily sit among people who's opinions oppose my values. I don't feel the need to argue my point with them most of the time. It depends how much effect their opinion could actually have and whether or not me openly disagreeing with them would make a positive difference. Sometimes I believe arguing could make matters worse, so I don't do it. There's more than one way to get your point across and I will decide in the moment which way is likely to be most effective. 

I also score high in Fe on cog tests. There is overlap between different attitudes of all the functions. Ne does also have aha moments in similar ways to Ni. The Fe result I obtain from the test, I believe is a result of the overlap between Fe and Fi. My mother is ISFJ and we agree on things nearly all the time. There's only a few occasions when we couldn't accept each others viewpoint, which leads me to believe that the objective and subjective feeling values aren't that different most of the time.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> Well, i wouldn't rule out hormonal imbalances as causes to a person's behavior/psyche, i absolutely agree that it affects a person, and it's very important to keep hormones balanced. Jillian Michaels explained it like this: _"Keep in mind that no hormone acts on its own. Hormone balance is like the music produced by an orchestra. If one instrument is out of tune, the whole symphony soundslike crap."_ in other words, the whole body/psyche is out of tune and wacky. You can google Jillian Michael's to see all the good stuff she has written about hormones, metabolism, nutrition, exercise, etc. Also the Peruvian's use a herb called MacaFem for balancing of hormones, it goes at the Pituitary Gland to balance the hormones through the Pituitary Gland coding the body the right way. It's good for perimenopause and menopause as well, it's good for both men and women. So, i'm into these good nutrition, right diet and exercise, eating and living healthy, herbal remedies kinda life style, i'm totally on your side with that! :wink: That's a very interesting perspective about life in the womb and the after effects so to speak... after all, it's when we are being formed from an egg into a person! :shocked:
> 
> ok, so earlier you mentioned about having better thinking skills due to growing up around alot of thinkers? are you not saying there that there is some influence from the people who surround us closely on a day to day basis?


I think there is a lot of influence, but not on the order of cognitive functions. Being around Thinking types has given me insight into how they think and encouraged me to develop the skills to express my opinions logically in order to be taken seriously. Despite being mainly around Thinking types, I'm still Fi, so it didn't have any influence on the development of my dominant function. 

I've researched and considered how much nurture could affect MBTI type and so far I've not found anything that confirms (in my own mind) that it's a result of upbringing. Here's what Jung says on the subject of attitudes. 



> The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. We might, however, demur, and indeed with cogency, that even the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother. Although nothing would induce me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. The fact that, in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must, of course, in the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition. Naturally in saying this I only refer to those cases which occur under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions, i.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude; but this entails a violation of their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cur can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I think there is a lot of influence, but not on the order of cognitive functions. Being around Thinking types has given me insight into how they think and encouraged me to develop the skills to express my opinions logically in order to be taken seriously. Despite being mainly around Thinking types, I'm still Fi, so it didn't have any influence on the development of my dominant function.
> 
> I've researched and considered how much nurture could affect MBTI type and so far I've not found anything that confirms (in my own mind) that it's a result of upbringing. Here's what Jung says on the subject of attitudes.


Well, as far as hormones are concerned, I know the hormone that is involved with social bonding, mother-child bonding, altruism, face-recognition, sexual arousal, breast feeding and contractions when giving birth, and which is also linked to autism, sociopathy or narcissism is oxytoxin. There is still research going on, so new discoveries are coming up. 

Oxytocin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxytocin


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> That's very interesting! sure does show that way more women than men are feelers over thinkers and vice versa. But, i'm a little confused by that percentage chart, because percent means out of 100. how can the numbers add up to over 100 or add up to less than 100? kinda doesn't make sense to me?


It's sensing vs Intuitive and Thinking vs Feeling. 
So women S: 74.9% vs N: 25.1% and T:24.5% vs F:75.5%

On the other hand, still 43.5% of men are 'Feelers' which is just below half. 

On average M+W there is 60% feelers vs 40% thinkers. Women are 15% above and men 15% under that average. And the other way round with thinking preference.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I take your word for it that Jung said so, but personally I don't think it works that way.


I'll save you taking my word for it. He explained here why extraverted and introverted thinking can't be recognised within one and the same individual. 



> This difference is perceived most clearly when extraverted thinking is engaged upon material, which is specifically an object of the subjectively orientated thinking. This happens, for instance, when a subjective conviction is interpreted analytically from objective facts or is regarded as a product or derivative of objective ideas. But, for our 'scientifically' orientated consciousness, the difference between the two modes of thinking becomes still more obvious when the subjectively orientated thinking makes an attempt to bring objective data into connections not objectively given, i.e. to subordinate them to a subjective idea. Either senses the other as an encroachment, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, wherein either type reveals to the other its least favourable aspect, The subjectively orientated thinking then appears quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal. Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war.
> 
> Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however, such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility, although not a few have attempted it. Even if such a separation were possible, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, since in themselves both orientations are one-sided, with a definitely restricted validity; hence they both require this mutual correction. Thought is at once sterilized, whenever thinking is brought, to any great extent, under the influence of objective data, since it becomes degraded into a mere appendage of objective facts; in which case, it is no longer able to free itself from objective data for the purpose of establishing an abstract idea. The process of thought is reduced to mere 'reflection', not in the sense of 'meditation', but in the sense of a mere imitation that makes no essential affirmation beyond what was already visibly and immediately present in the objective data. Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea. And, vice versa, when this thinking has an objective idea for its object, it is quite unable to grasp the practical individual experience, but persists in a more or less tautological position.





> I will refrain myself from saying certain things when I am with two ladies. Even if I would lose a debate. Like I would chose to lose a debate with my boss, because he is paying my salary. (And I value that salary very high, not so much as 'deeply held').
> 
> There are also phenomena like 'groupthink'. And even on Te people can repress themselves.
> Like the famous Asch conformity experiment proved.
> ...



I'll get back to you on your other points later after I've thought about it some more.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

mimesis said:


> MaleFemaleS – Sensing*73.3 %**71.7 %*74.9 %N – Intuitive26.7 %28.3 %25.1 %T – Thinking40.2 %56.5 %24.5 %F – Feeling59.8 %43.5 %*75.5 %*
> 
> 
> 
> MBTI statistics





> It's sensing vs Intuitive and Thinking vs Feeling.
> So women S: 74.9% vs N: 25.1% and T:24.5% vs F:75.5%
> 
> On the other hand, still 43.5% of men are 'Feelers' which is just below half.
> ...


so basically men and women Sensors make up 3/4 of the human race, in fairly equal amounts, women slight higher
and men and women Intuitives make up 1/4 of the human race, in fairly equal amounts as well, men slight higher

and Thinkers make up 40% of the human race, a little more than 1/2 of men are Thinkers, and 1/4 of women are Thinkers

and Feelers make up 60% of the human race, a little less than 1/2 of men are Feelers, and 3/4 of women are Feelers

right? did i get it?

so, according to these test results, in reality it can't really be calculated the way i just did as for the human race, because they may have interviewed equal amounts of men and women, but it doesnt' mean equal amounts of men and women are in the world population? right? what was the basis they did this testing off of?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Neverontime
> I don't believe we also have Fe. For Fi to become dominant, Fe must be suppressed to the furthest possible extent. Jung said the opposite attitudes can't exist together within the same individual because they are constantly at odds with each other.
> 
> We can use skills associated with Fe, but not the function, and the skills don't come naturally or automatically like they do for an Fe dom. Fe's automatically adjust their behaviour in accordance with other peoples reactions. Fi needs to make a conscious effort to do this. Although Fi and Fe often result in the same actions, conclusions, results and judgements, they still travel different routes, even when they arrive at the same place.


So, when i use skills associated with Fe, is that because i have Fe in me as a shadow function? and also i understand what you say about not using the function as in my Fi rules with being automatic, but i can with focus concentration for the short term use a Fe skill but it's from concentrating on using it, it doesn't come automatically, as rather my Fi skills come automatically as i use Fi function, is this what you mean? 

like in other words, i am at the get together with these people, some of whom we have opposing values, so inside my mind/heart in silence i automatically judge them with my Fi, but they don't know that is going on inside me, because on the outside i am concentrating on using Fe to fit in and be harmonious, but unlike Fe, when Fe believes in a group that they would choose to get together with, Fe on the long term, in it for the long term, adjusts themselves to fit into the group permanently, where as me using a Fe skill, is just a temporary fix, to just get by the temporary get together with the group, thus i will not permanently like Fe would, adjust myself to fit into the group.

Does that make sense?

I know you wrote more after that, but it's kinda so much info came in after that, that i can only try to reply in bits and pieces...


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> so basically men and women Sensors make up 3/4 of the human race, in fairly equal amounts, women slight higher
> and men and women Intuitives make up 1/4 of the human race, in fairly equal amounts as well, men slight higher
> 
> and Thinkers make up 40% of the human race, a little more than 1/2 of men are Thinkers, and 1/4 of women are Thinkers
> ...


These are Myers Briggs statistics. Possibly just US. Other stats are more or less alike. It's nice to get an impression. 

Myers Briggs Statistics | Statistic Brain


----------



## Veeg (Jan 24, 2011)

Gotta keep in mind the statistics count in what people score on the tests.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dreamer777 said:


> So, when i use skills associated with Fe, is that because i have Fe in me as a shadow function? and also i understand what you say about not using the function as in my Fi rules with being automatic, but i can with focus concentration for the short term use a Fe skill but it's from concentrating on using it, it doesn't come automatically, as rather my Fi skills come automatically as i use Fi function, is this what you mean?
> 
> like in other words, i am at the get together with these people, some of whom we have opposing values, so inside my mind/heart in silence i automatically judge them with my Fi, but they don't know that is going on inside me, because on the outside i am concentrating on using Fe to fit in and be harmonious, but unlike Fe, when Fe believes in a group that they would choose to get together with, Fe on the long term, in it for the long term, adjusts themselves to fit into the group permanently, where as me using a Fe skill, is just a temporary fix, to just get by the temporary get together with the group, thus i will not permanently like Fe would, adjust myself to fit into the group.
> 
> ...


Fi is your perspective, it's the way you look at things and how you put information together. You can try to imagine an Fe perspective and you could possibly imagine it very well, but you can't actually look at things and order information through an Fe perspective so you can't give it the same value and importance. If we could change our perspective to coincide with different circumstances, we would always be able to completely understand another point of view. Then it would get really confusing because you can't hold conflicting opinions and place equal value and importance on them all. You may do so with different aspects of each, but ultimately you can't wholly believe in two opposing viewpoints. So the functions are more like perspectives than sets of behaviours. Certain behaviours come naturally with certain perspectives.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Fi is your perspective, it's the way you look at things and how you put information together. You can try to imagine an Fe perspective and you could possibly imagine it very well, but you can't actually look at things and order information through an Fe perspective so you can't give it the same value and importance. If we could change our perspective to coincide with different circumstances, we would always be able to completely understand another point of view. Then it would get really confusing because you can't hold conflicting opinions and place equal value and importance on them all. You may do so with different aspects of each, but ultimately you can't wholly believe in two opposing viewpoints. So the functions are more like perspectives than sets of behaviours. Certain behaviours come naturally with certain perspectives.


I dunno Never, sounds like you skipped your adolescence.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I dunno Never, sounds like you skipped your adolescence.


That's a good example of the state our minds would be in if continually shifted from one function to another whenever it was convenient. :wink:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> That's a good example of the state our minds would be in if continually shifted from one function to another whenever it was convenient. :wink:



I wasn't suggesting I have gotten passed that stage...


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Jungs Fi Type
> 
> 
> Here he's saying that Fi's value a harmonious atmosphere, so it's not exclusive to Fe. They will only react when the other person goes too far, but will tolerate 'moderate feeling intensity'.
> ...


yeah, INFP's hold harmony as one of the most important things in life, if not THE MOST important thing! i want harmony all the time, harmony is idealistic. we hate conflict, but to gain harmony the battle has to be fought against conflicters to the harmony so to speak. Harmony is important to me among people and animals and earth and physical objects. Like all people and animals must live together in universal harmony also living together with Earth in universal harmony as well, not destroying one another and not destroying the Earth, and in objects as in everything has it's place and must not be in disarray mixed up all over the place, everything must be carefully and neatly be in it's own rightful place. The stereotype of INFP is messy and disorganized, for me that just doesn't work and is not an option. Everything must have it's place and be organized and tidy, otherwise my Zen, my harmony becomes out of balance. So i don't understand how INFP's can be messy and disorganized? it messes with my psyche to be that way??

I get along fairly well with ISFJ's also, they encourage you to pursue your dreams even if they don't understand your abstract ideas and dreams, and they are very loving and caring. Just not good with abstract ideas kinda thing and don't know how to relate or communicate much on that level with you?

Yeah, so for harmony's sake, we try to not get into conflicts, and we like to treat people kindly and see them happy, so no we wouldn't jump up into an all out opposition just because we are around those with opposing values. But if need be, we will take a stand! But we avoid that as much as possible, cause we are more Zen types, we like to feel more Zen, and dont' really want anything disturbing that if we can avoid it. But, we are spiritually strong, and we will take a stand for sure if we see the need to! and we are harmony seekers, so any stand we take is to promote harmony, that is the end result we want and are seeking.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I think there is a lot of influence, but not on the order of cognitive functions. Being around Thinking types has given me insight into how they think and encouraged me to develop the skills to express my opinions logically in order to be taken seriously. Despite being mainly around Thinking types, I'm still Fi, so it didn't have any influence on the development of my dominant function.
> 
> I've researched and considered how much nurture could affect MBTI type and so far I've not found anything that confirms (in my own mind) that it's a result of upbringing. Here's what Jung says on the subject of attitudes.





> *Under abnormal conditions, i.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude; but this entails a violation of their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cur can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way*


Hence, if the child is made to behave in a falsified type by the parent, then the child becomes neurotic later and the only cure is to develop the natural type of the child! Exactly! This is why i believe in the 16 different personality types! Exactly!

And yes, i think being around Thinking types helps me to organize my inferior thinking skill better, especially more so Te Thinking types, because my inferior is Te. Like for example, when i was in school and some college, i think my thinking skills were better?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Fi is your perspective, it's the way you look at things and how you put information together. You can try to imagine an Fe perspective and you could possibly imagine it very well, but you can't actually look at things and order information through an Fe perspective so you can't give it the same value and importance. If we could change our perspective to coincide with different circumstances, we would always be able to completely understand another point of view. Then it would get really confusing because you can't hold conflicting opinions and place equal value and importance on them all. You may do so with different aspects of each, but ultimately you can't wholly believe in two opposing viewpoints. So the functions are more like perspectives than sets of behaviours. Certain behaviours come naturally with certain perspectives.


Very good explanation!

Definatley we cannot hold 2 opposing viewpoints on something! 
and as i mentioned about the harmony thing going on with INFP's also in my other reply...


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I'll save you taking my word for it. He explained here why extraverted and introverted thinking can't be recognised within one and the same individual.
> 
> 
> > > _Even if such a separation were possible, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, since in themselves both orientations are one-sided, with a definitely restricted validity; hence they both require this mutual correction._
> ...


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Fi is your perspective, it's the way you look at things and how you put information together. You can try to imagine an Fe perspective and you could possibly imagine it very well, but you can't actually look at things and order information through an Fe perspective so you can't give it the same value and importance. If we could change our perspective to coincide with different circumstances, we would always be able to completely understand another point of view. Then it would get really confusing because you can't hold conflicting opinions and place equal value and importance on them all. You may do so with different aspects of each, but ultimately you can't wholly believe in two opposing viewpoints. So the functions are more like perspectives than sets of behaviours. Certain behaviours come naturally with certain perspectives.



The opportunities handed out by developped Ne can indeed lead to indecisiveness (and procrastination). 
I also read on personalityjunkie that iNtuition blurs the difference between Fi and Fe (but possibly was meant only Ni, which is more converging, towards judgement)

With 'perspectives' I guess you mean besides p.o.v., 'direction'. (inward towards Self or outward towards Others for validation social relation/group). 

I don't think the two perspectives or attitudes Fe and Fi are neccesarily always in conflict. (they operate very different though)

But when Fe and Fi do conflict (when Fe value is incongruent) it is obviously Fi dom who decides whether

1. it is worth making a fuzz about it, 
2. to conform, comply, accomodate or tolerate or 
3. to elaborate 
4. to avoid engagement or disengage. 

(On the other hand there is personal gain of social gratification, positive effect on self-worth). 

Evaluation is sometimes difficult even with just Fi values conflicting. ('dilemma'). 

Values are inter-related, are different in hierarchy, permeability (range of convenience), are situational, etc. 
E.g. It's not virtuous to lie, but it also depends about what and to who. Decisions/judgments are also made based on anticipation. 

More: personal construct theory, George Kelly.
www.enquirewithin.co.nz/moffer.htm


An example using all 8 functions.... 


As you drive to the store, you have formed an internal image of how the party will look (Introverted INtuition). You get to the store and you see that the tomatoes do not look ripe (Extraverted Sensing). You determine you will forgo the tomato salad since you want your friends to feel good (Extraverted Feeling). You immediately start to brainstorm other options as you move through the produce isle (Extraverted INtuition) while examining the other vegetables (Extraverted Sensing). You pass the blueberries and recall the documentary you just saw on child labor in blueberry fields (Introverted Sensing). That treatment of children is inexcusable, so you decide not to purchase the blueberries to make the blueberry tart you had thought about (Introverted Feeling). You pass the bakery and see a carrot cake (Extraverted Sensing) that takes you back to the birthday dinner your mom made for you last year (Introverted Sensing). You look at your watch and determine that you had better move a bit faster as you have only a couple of hours left to prepare (Extraverted Thinking). You turn your attention to your thoughts to internally structure the rest of your day (Introverted Thinking).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> The opportunities handed out by developped Ne can indeed lead to indecisiveness (and procrastination).
> I also read on personalityjunkie that iNtuition blurs the difference between Fi and Fe (but possibly was meant only Ni, which is more converging, towards judgement)
> 
> With 'perspectives' I guess you mean besides p.o.v., 'direction'. (inward towards Self or outward towards Others for validation social relation/group).
> ...


I disagree with examples in the table because I'm thinking along different lines. I will try and explain. 

Jung believed the psyche was divided into three distinctive parts:

Ego

The conscious mind, where we consciously make decisions, judgements, learn, grow and make sense of the world on a conscious level. If we consciously consider another persons perspective, it's done here. Most of the perceptions and decisions you mentioned and what is in the example would take place in this part of the psyche. 

Personal Unconscious

This is anything not actually conscious but that can be brought to the conscious mind either easily or with a lot of work, including impulses, fears and memories. Included in this category are memories that have been suppressed or forgotten, or are too weak to reach the conscious mind. Jung felt this was a superficial layer of the unconscious. Some of your example would be processed here. 

Collective Unconscious

Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious is often described as the ‘psychic inheritance’. This part of the psyche can't be accessed via the conscious mind. It is things that we are born with, psychological instincts that don't need to be taught through experience, education or tradition. Introverted perspectives aren't determined by objective influence, yet they the styles of thinking/feeling/sensing/intuition of these types are the same all over the world. This is where our main perspective, the way we understand and view the world, originates from. The subjective or introverted functions are directed by the primordial images stored here. They are already in our psychological 'make up' and therefore pre-date the individual. Jung believed our personality type is determined by this part of the psyche. If type is in the pre-disposition of the individual, whatever determines our functional stack must be here. If our overall unconscious perspective is here, then we only know the one we have. If it was possible, as an Fi dom to 'use' Fe then our whole outlook would be different. The different types aren't consciously choosing to view things differently than anyone else. The extraverted functions align judgements with the general consensus because of the their function perspective, they view things that way. 

This explanation isn't as clear as I would like, but you probably get the idea of where I'm coming from.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I disagree with examples in the table because I'm thinking along different lines. I will try and explain.
> 
> Jung believed the psyche was divided into three distinctive parts:
> 
> ...


Thank you Never, I think you did excellent, just like that. 

I have read about this, and interpretations of people that came after Jung. There is by the way, a 9th transcendant cognitive function that unites primary (concious) process and the shadow process. I'll add some links at the end of this post.

I have no problem with the notion of an unconscious, shadow, collective unconscious, and the holistic approach to that. 

I do have a problem when I try to identify these cognitive processes in myself, that like in the example seem perfectly clear to imagine, identify or even remember lively, that it is countered with 'not possible' or 'I disagree'.

I mean, you may disagree, which I can accept because you don't have to believe me, but it isn't helping me further. 

Because if it isn't Extraverted Sensing or Extraverted Feeling, then what is it? It isn't Fi, which is different and which still functions as it should, be it more as a background-process, and for sure it's not Te. It could be Ne, but what I read about it, doesn't really apply to that. 

Perhaps I am an ambivert or a metavert.

Shadow
Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: What is the "Shadow"? | Psychology Today

Jung (Freud, Eriksson and others) not specifically about cognitive functions. Consciousness, Transpersonal, etc. 
Carl Jung and Jungian Analytical Psychology

Linda Berens & Dario Nardi (shadow process functions 5 - 8)
Cognitive Processes and Type Dynamics


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I disagree with examples in the table because I'm thinking along different lines. I will try and explain.
> 
> Jung believed the psyche was divided into three distinctive parts:
> 
> ...


You forgot the Persona, which is what the MBTI test actually "tests", and thus why I consider it BS.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> You forgot the Persona, which is what the MBTI test actually "tests", and thus why I consider it BS.


so is it just the MBTI test that you dont' agree with, or is it the description of the types that you don't agree with?

like for example, i agree that the cognitive functions useage in us individually is the right method to confirm our type, but not necessarily either that the cog test is necessarily all accurate, maybe, maybe not; and as for the MBTI descriptions, i believe they have a fair amount of truths to them, but the descriptions in someways can overlap into other types, so it's not so clear cut the way MBTI makes it out to be, but overall it's not too bad... that would be some of my opinions on it

by far the most accurate way to determine type is how we use our cognitive functions, for sure.

and i definately don't agree with them using the P and J thing at the end of each type, i was joking around with a friend and said it would be better if they used more like K and V at the end, K for keeping on course, V for veering off course! :laughing:


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Dreamer777 said:


> so is it just the MBTI test that you dont' agree with, or is it the description of the types that you don't agree with?
> 
> like for example, i agree that the cognitive functions useage in us individually is the right method to confirm our type, but not necessarily either that the cog test is necessarily all accurate, maybe, maybe not; and as for the MBTI descriptions, i believe they have a fair amount of truths to them, but the descriptions in someways can overlap into other types, so it's not so clear cut the way MBTI makes it out to be, but overall it's not too bad... that would be some of my opinions on it
> 
> ...


IMO the problem started with Kathrine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers, who basically forced Jung's ideas into a temperament typology system they were already developing for helping young women find what kind of jobs they would do well in, bastardizing Jung's ideas in the process. They were the type of people Jung often criticized for misrepresenting and misunderstanding his ideas.

An example I often use is Darwin's type. Jung in several places uses Darwin as an example of an Te-Dom, contrasting him to Ti-Dom Immanuel Kant. *Jung types Darwin as ESTJ*, while MBTI sites universally type him as INTP.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> i'll look around on the ISTP forum and browse around through posts, i've never been on the ISTP Forum, i just know ISTP's in real life, and it just blows my mind that an ISTP would really sit and intuit and write all that stuff on psychology/personality types, so, i'll browse around on the ISTP forum and get more familiar with them that way, as in listening to what they actually write about.


Well, functions aren't so much about how much they're used, they're about attitude toward them. Psychology/personality isn't all about intuition, btw. Any analytical person can be interested in this stuff. There's no particular default thinking style this stuff requires. It takes all of the functions to understand anything to begin with, and the tert. function is probably no worse than the aux. function most of the time. Famous type expert Marie Von Franz thought that the tert. function was just another auxiliary function, and said that people can even be talented at their inferior, but their typical attitude is to downplay or even reject it, regardless of talents. This stuff is psychological in nature, not practical/utilitarian.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Dreamer777

The MBTI is basically bullshit psychology, no joke. 90% of what the MBTI attempts to characterize in people is actually in the realm of the enneagram, I couldn't be more serious.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Here is an article from another website that i found, it's someone interpreting Jung's writings on Fi doms....

Jung Fi Translation - Articles - Socionics Forum


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> IMO the problem started with Kathrine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers, who basically forced Jung's ideas into a temperament typology system they were already developing for helping young women find what kind of jobs they would do well in, bastardizing Jung's ideas in the process. They were the type of people Jung often criticized for misrepresenting and misunderstanding his ideas.
> 
> An example I often use is Darwin's type. Jung in several places uses Darwin as an example of an Te-Dom, contrasting him to Ti-Dom Immanuel Kant. *Jung types Darwin as ESTJ*, while MBTI sites universally type him as INTP.


IMO the problem didn't start with Myers and Briggs who based their type indicator on Jungs theory. The type indicator is good for the purpose it was intended for. They never actually contradicted Jungs theory because they never claimed MBTI represented Jung's ideas, only that it was based on them. 
In my opinion the problem started when people began trying to use the stereotypical personality character traits from MBTI to tie certain behaviours to certain functions. Even Jung said that the four functions together resulted in different distinctive character traits. He never said functions were skill sets. Then when a whole bunch of people saw an opportunity to make some money and decided to take Jungs theory, combine it with MBTI, change parts here and there, then tell everyone that although Jung did a great job, he got this wrong and that wrong. Now, apparently they understand his theory better than he did. Now there is much more to learn about this popular personality theory and if you pay, you can learn it too and you can develop the 'function skills'. 
They could hardly make money from representing ideas that Jung already wrote about without adding bits on could they? Anyone consider they might be talking crap to sell a book?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

wrong thread, scusi


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

@Neverontime

we never did quite finish up the last paragraph, you did touch on some of it, so i'll look back and copy and paste it here also...

Jung:


> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject. But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects. Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel 'what others think'. Naturally, others are thinking, all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues, etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours, he must make convulsive efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card.



Neverontime:


> Whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking (due to Te not being completely suppressed)
> 
> .... thinking goes over into opposition... (Fi takes on Te's 'black and white' viewpoint. "I'm right, he's wrong and I will make sure that he knows it." It's no longer empathising or concerned about his feelings. It takes on the 'thinkers' logical frame of mind. It doesn't however, take on Te's empirical judgments, because remember it's still under Fi's influence)
> 
> ...


What part exactly is your interpretation of the "trump card"? i know i play "trump cards" alot.... like i've sifted through all the info of the situation and found the trump card that would be the key in proving to the other person whatever it is i'm trying to prove that they are wrong and i'm right, more so in emotions of course, as we are talking about Fi here, an emotional cognitive function, right? in that case when i play the trump card, the other person will probably get up and walk off. Because they are not able to respond back, the trump card blocks the argument from going any further kinda thing, once that trump card is played, the argument ceases, it is blocked by the trump card, it's an absolute end, it completely blocks, ceases, and stops the argument. 

I'm not saying i like to play the trump card, i'm just saying it is true as a Fi dom i do that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Dreamer777 I interpret the 'trump card' much the same as your explanation. Fi is a feeling function, not an emotional function (if you define emotion as intense feeling). Although it's related to emotions in so far as people sensitive to feeling are usually empathetic and sensitive to emotions.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> @Dreamer777 I interpret the 'trump card' much the same as your explanation. Fi is a feeling function, not an emotional function (if you define emotion as intense feeling). Although it's related to emotions in so far as people sensitive to feeling are usually empathetic and sensitive to emotions.


Thanks for clearing that up to me about feeling and emotion! :wink:


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

On the note of MBTI reflecting temperament, I totally agree. I personally think people come off as more their names than their personality type IRL, if that's even possible, lol. Their names capture an essence of them that their type doesn't even show through.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> On the note of MBTI reflecting temperament, I totally agree. I personally think people come off as more their names than their personality type IRL, if that's even possible, lol. Their names capture an essence of them that their type doesn't even show through.


Their names? You think so? Why's that?


----------

