# J/P and behavior



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

meltedsorbet said:


> But how would a shadow Ti even manifest itself? Ti seems like the most logical of all the functions, so how would it be reactive? I haven't really looked into Beebee's theory yet--I've looked online a little.
> 
> Could it be that I want to dissect and assimilate various aspects of other people's personalities? That seems kind of like Ti and Te. That I want to avoid the messiness of actually forming connections and friendships and instead just learn how they live and how they view the world, so that I can apply that insight to myself to be more whole and consistent? IDK.
> 
> ...


 I always found it hard to imagine what Daimonic Ti is like. From what I hard, it's becoming uncharacteristically cold and impersonal in reaction to a serious threat against the ego. What you describe sounds like it may fit.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Eric B said:


> I always found it hard to imagine what Daimonic Ti is like. From what I hard, it's becoming uncharacteristically cold and impersonal in reaction to a serious threat against the ego. What you describe sounds like it may fit.


I think maybe I understand this function better now. Maybe an example of Daimonic Ti is when I finally broke down after being in an unhealthy relationship with someone I "loved" for years. After one night of him being emotionally abusive, I laid on the bed with the thought (and I was basically having something like an existential crisis) "this world is cruel--love doesn't exist--how cruel is it to believe a concept like love?" (not sure if this part is an example of the primitive daimon coming in, or just evidence of a breaking down of more dominant functions).

Then, in a moment of clarity, a little voice said "well actually, love does exist. But not everyone agrees on your definition of love. You and he never actually exchanged love together because you were both operating on different definitions. He's incapable of offering what you consider 'love.' You are crying for something that never existed between you. So you are grieving for nothing but a loss of illusion."

Then maybe that little logical insight was enough to pivot the situation back into the control of the more dominant functions. The other functions (maybe) able to jump in and say "look at all this evidence--evaluate this person and your relationship to him. Figure out how to deal with him properly." And Fi was like, "oh, he's evil. His behavior goes against my values--I would never treat anyone the way he's treated me. I don't have any feelings of affection for him any longer and never will (and I never have again)." (I know the functions don't really talk and what I'm describing is a combination of function relationships and assigning language to one function is oversimplifying).

If it does take on the form of "becoming uncharacteristically cold" then Ti might be represented in that moment of clarity, as the little voice that helped re-frame the issue so that Fi could start functioning again, and maintain that coldness. That moment, with the potency of the daimon archetype, everything cherished was torn down in order for creativity to emerge again.

Hopefully this example is a better one. Thanks again for teaching me about the shadow functions and offering me insight into what shadow Fi is like. Even though I don't really understand what it's like for you to have shadow Fi, your explanation offered me a framework that helps me understand how my functions work.


----------



## dme (May 31, 2013)

Dastan said:


> However I guess there are plenty of people here who are not fully content with either theories referring to their direct/mundane/everydays behavior. Often people suggest that one shouldn't take the type descriptions far to serious and "of course there are procrastinating and untidy Js and well-organized Ps"...


Hello Dastan,

J and P can be confusing when describing introverts. For example, an INFP's dominant function is Fi which is a judging function. INFPs make really quick judgments about people and things when they first see them. Even though they have the "p" they might be better understood as judgers.

On the other hand, INFJ's dominant function is Ni. Introverted intuition is a perceiving function so INFJs are better understood as perceivers. Although because we also use Fe, our major extroverted function is a judging function so the INFJ appears to be a "J" but really isn't that much of a "j." The J/P was invented not by Jung but by Myers and Briggs and it is just an indicator of whether the first extraverted function is a judging or a perceiving function.

For extroverts the p or the j at the end actually is a good indicator because they are extroverts so their dominant function is extroverted. For example, ENFP's dominant function is Ne which is a perceiving function and so on.

cheers,

dme


----------



## dme (May 31, 2013)

I just realized something and I want to know if others have a similar tendency. My first extroverted function Fe is a judging function. If it were Te then I would want everything to be organized right? Fe is the most interpersonal function however, yet I find myself organizing my friends. It's weird. I separate them into groups and I don't let them even know about each other's existence. It's like I organize people the same way that a Te user would organize their environment. And I get really nervous if someone from Group A meets someone from Group B. I've always been like this and it makes no sense. Can anyone relate to that?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

meltedsorbet said:


> I think maybe I understand this function better now. Maybe an example of Daimonic Ti is when I finally broke down after being in an unhealthy relationship with someone I "loved" for years. After one night of him being emotionally abusive, I laid on the bed with the thought (and I was basically having something like an existential crisis) "this world is cruel--love doesn't exist--how cruel is it to believe a concept like love?" (not sure if this part is an example of the primitive daimon coming in, or just evidence of a breaking down of more dominant functions).


It's both. The reason the Daimon would come up in the first place is because of the breakdown of the ego's dominant position. 


> Then, in a moment of clarity, a little voice said "well actually, love does exist. But not everyone agrees on your definition of love. You and he never actually exchanged love together because you were both operating on different definitions. He's incapable of offering what you consider 'love.' You are crying for something that never existed between you. So you are grieving for nothing but a loss of illusion."
> 
> Then maybe that little logical insight was enough to pivot the situation back into the control of the more dominant functions. The other functions (maybe) able to jump in and say "look at all this evidence--evaluate this person and your relationship to him. Figure out how to deal with him properly." And Fi was like, "oh, he's evil. His behavior goes against my values--I would never treat anyone the way he's treated me. I don't have any feelings of affection for him any longer and never will (and I never have again)." (I know the functions don't really talk and what I'm describing is a combination of function relationships and assigning language to one function is oversimplifying).
> 
> ...


What you describe sounds like the positive side of the Daimon offering resolution after experience of the negative side, as was explained to me. The Daimon becomes the “angel” or “transformer”. This is why I use “Daimon” instead of “Demon” more. It's not all evil, though it may seem like it, initially. 

For me, it was described as having a negative reaction of feeling very unworthy, but then eventually coming around to realize what's truly important, which would allay that negative judgment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

dme said:


> I just realized something and I want to know if others have a similar tendency. My first extroverted function Fe is a judging function. If it were Te then I would want everything to be organized right? Fe is the most interpersonal function however, yet I find myself organizing my friends. It's weird. I separate them into groups and I don't let them even know about each other's existence. It's like I organize people the same way that a Te user would organize their environment. And I get really nervous if someone from Group A meets someone from Group B. I've always been like this and it makes no sense. Can anyone relate to that?


Yes, this is definitely a dimension of Fe I think is overlooked. Fe is still organization and structure, but it organizes the interpersonal sphere, not the impersonal sphere.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I removed this comment because I think getting off topic so much is probably considered rude to OP.


----------



## jjl2357 (May 9, 2013)

dme said:


> I just realized something and I want to know if others have a similar tendency. My first extroverted function Fe is a judging function. If it were Te then I would want everything to be organized right? Fe is the most interpersonal function however, yet I find myself organizing my friends. It's weird. I separate them into groups and I don't let them even know about each other's existence. It's like I organize people the same way that a Te user would organize their environment. And I get really nervous if someone from Group A meets someone from Group B. I've always been like this and it makes no sense. Can anyone relate to that?


I do this too - stuff like my friends from one hobby != my friends from another hobby != my friends from work != .... And then I feel all :O-y if the two groups start coming together, like it's some sort of big epiphanic moment for me...


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> To clarify on socionics, it's easily explained by subtype theory which blurs the line between rationality-irrationality. This article describes the basics of how it works:
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The concept of vertical sub-types


Interesting. This would explain why I as a rational base fall almost completely within the behavioral boundary of stereotypical irrational doms? I'm positive that I know myself and I am anything but structured, I also do not follow through on most actions, tendency towards doing multiple things at once and bouncing randomly between tasks till all are done or something else gets my attention at which point I may abandon other tasks and so on. Random, chaotic, disorganized, unplanned but adaptive, tactical, flexible.

I distinctly fall in line with: spontaneous, flexible, adaptable, changeable, short-term <==my strength and away from decisive, steady, organized, long-term <=== my weakness.

I have problems with structure as it bores me, dislike tedious routine, maintaining order. I specifically lack both internal and external order, nothing is structured. Maintaining structure is difficult.

I'm also oddly not aware of my Se (do not do a lot of Se related things), like my creative function is hiding or missing. Mostly aware of Fi-Ni-Te.

@Dastan good enough example of rational dominant who behaves like irrational dominant? By standard classification I'm introverted, feeler and perceiving aka IxFP. Don't know about S vs N as i don't care/suck at Si and am unaware of how or when I use Se. I don't even understand it, while I understand and use Ni.

If I do use Se, it must be blurred by my chronic depression and I more often than not fail at what Se actually is:

- I perceive the world around me as bland colorless, lifeless, motionless and grey, mostly feel numb and inhibited. As if I understand whats going on but I'm removed from it at the same time. There is no direct Se-ish perception I am aware of.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@FreeBeer It may or may not depend on that. I'm a contact subtype but I'm anything but structured IRL. Te seems to appear more intellectually for me than in my ability to actually organize my life.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> @FreeBeer It may or may not depend on that. I'm a contact subtype but I'm anything but structured IRL. Te seems to appear more intellectually for me than in my ability to actually organize my life.


This would make sense as you are irrational base. It doesn't make sense for me as a rational base as I have never been structured neither internally nor externally and it doesn't seem like it will change either .

It makes no sense at all for me within socionics, it makes sense in mbti, HOWEVER mbti ISFP descriptions make no sense whatsoever lol.

If we take away the extroverted social side of ENFP, we basically get me. I start stuff and don't finish, am random, messy, disorganized both internally and externally, I HAVE to externalize thoughts to sort, filer and order them, so I can see what I'm thinking. I make general plans but you won't seem me break it down to smaller pieces, I don't write lists or make detailed plans etc.., neither do I organize my social sphere ^^ or anything for that matter.

Having an internal standard to base decisions on, like how it is reported that Fi doms have a "system of values" is alien to me. WTF is a system of values!? Do people really keep track of their values? I mean I don't know what my values are, they just exist. I only know when I react to a situation, prior to that I don't because I don't have a "system of values" lol.

Also reaching conclusions or judgments is kind of difficult as I tend to gather more and more data, postponing judgment more and more, because HAVE to go through all the inconsistencies in order to reach an optimal/best choice that considers all the information.

*I'm clearly irrational based on this:* Rationality / Irrationality

I'm also interested in @Eric B's and @LiquidLight's opinion as to why this inconsistency exists.

The problem I see is that if we base things on the functions and their order, then socionics ESI (rational base) is the same as MBTI ISFP (rational dom)...but ISFP is described as if it were irrational base aka SEI (which most ISFPs will identify with precisely because of this reason).

Being a "p" in MBT is very much the same as being irrational base in socionics if we disregard neatness and cleanlyness (which imo has more to do with how one was thought and also with general laziness and it is my understanding that people just misunderstood what being a P meant, thus such a flawed interpretation was created).

This incompatibility between the dichotomies and function order/IE placement order (function) in both systems is bothering me. It is not possible to tolerate a logical inconsistency like this given that essentially all socionics functions are the same as MBTI functions and the elements function the same way despite the different models. If we superimpose ESI and ISFP, they are functionally essentially the same, but differ in interpretation.

*Why?*

Why is virtually every SEI description a carbon copy of ISFP descriptions if cognitively they don't function the same way? Being a "P" and being irrational base is essentially considered the same, because MBTI based being a "P" on the creative function (it is what the 4th letter code essentially means), while socionics based it on the base function. Whatever information element falls within that function decides the letter code as well as the subsequent interpretation.

*So if MBTI interpreted irrational preference based on the creative and socionics based on the base function.....which one is wrong and which one is correct? I can not have irrational preference and be a rational base. It is illogical, unless the theory is flawed on one side or the other. The theory has to be congruent with reality. It is not. The question is why is it not and what is the correct interpretation?*

The usual answer I get to this is that the systems are incompatible and should not be superimposed, to which I disagree for obvious reasons. If I'm ISFP within MBTI, I can only type as SEI in socionics or I run the risk of being illogical as irrational preference rules out having Fi as a rational base function and I clearly HAVE irrational preference ....which is why I type as ISFP and not ISFJ. I am not one of those ppl who are split 50-50 in J vs P, I'm pretty much 90%+ a perciever first.

EDIT: there are several answers I'm entertaining here at the same time ranging from me mistyping to flaws in the theory to flaws in my logic, to me missing some important piece of information that clears this up.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@FreeBeer I think you take rationality/irrationality as temperaments a bit too seriously. I don't think they can be genuinely applied across the board and expect to remain true in every scenario, because how we think=/=how we behave.



> Having an internal standard to base decisions on, like how it is reported that Fi doms have a "system of values" is alien to me. WTF is a system of values!? Do people really keep track of their values? I mean I don't know what my values are, they just exist. I only know when I react to a situation, prior to that I don't because I don't have a "system of values" lol.


Well, it could also be that you are so naturally attuned to it that you aren't aware it's there. I mean, I mistyped as INTP and INFP for several months until I realized I was an irrational type because I didn't realize I had Ni as my dominant preference until about a month ago.


> Why is virtually every SEI description a carbon copy of ISFP descriptions if cognitively they don't function the same way? Being a "P" and being irrational base is essentially considered the same, because MBTI based being a "P" on the creative function (it is what the 4th letter code essentially means), while socionics based it on the base function. Whatever information element falls within that function decides the letter code as well as the subsequent interpretation.


Most likely because the descriptions describe stereotypes, not actual people and their cognition? 


> So if MBTI interpreted irrational preference based on the creative and socionics based on the base function.....which one is wrong and which one is correct? I can not have irrational preference and be a rational base. It is illogical, unless the theory is flawed on one side or the other. The theory has to be congruent with reality. It is not. The question is why is it not and what is the correct interpretation?


It is only illogical if you assume it must hold true for every individual which I opine it doesn't. For some people it will click, others not. @Flatlander is also an ILI but most likely not contact (not as evidently as I am, anyway) but he is more structured and organized than I, apparently, based on our conversations, anyway. 

Could be many reasons why this is. Sp first versus sp second for example. I am much better at keeping up sp stuff when I got someone to maintain them for, so to speak. If I were to live with an SO, I would not be nearly as messy as I am now. You have no clue lol. Based on how I live you could deem me as sp last.


> The usual answer I get to this is that the systems are incompatible and should not be superimposed, to which I disagree for obvious reasons. If I'm ISFP within MBTI, I can only type as SEI in socionics or I run the risk of being illogical as irrational preference rules out having Fi as a rational base function and I clearly HAVE irrational preference ....which is why I type as ISFP and not ISFJ. I am not one of those ppl who are split 50-50 in J vs P, I'm pretty much 90%+ a perciever first.


I wouldn't say entirely incompatible, just different interpretations of the same source or essential idea. Different interpretations might lead to different conclusions even if the basics remain the same.


> EDIT: there are several answers I'm entertaining here at the same time ranging from me mistyping to flaws in the theory to flaws in my logic, to me missing some important piece of information that clears this up.


Ni, perhaps?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Kamishi

^^ hmm could be, don't know. Regarding Fi. I always argue in favor of not defining it as a system of values simply because imo and in my experience ethics depends on the situation at hand. Things are relative and one has to consider the circumstances.

In light of such a thing *stable ethical codes do not exist*. I basically decide right there spontaneously based on the situation how I will relate to it / judge it. Such things will be random and they will always depend on the situation.

One size fits all ethics such as the 10 commandments or the "Code of Harry" do not exist for me. Sometimes its good to lie, sometimes its good to steal at other times its not, sometimes its better to kill at other times its not and so on. Black and white ethics are ridiculous and rigid imo. I can make a wow and break it ten minutes later if I feel like that was a good course of action to take. 

That is why I say that Fi is not a system of values, because the pre-established system does not exist. I just *know* what the right thing to do is.

I work more on an instinctual basis where both thinking, feeling and even behavior is spontaneous, from chaos to skeletal structure and understanding, spontaneous improvisation and no visible internal or external structure. I have a general idea of what want to do in life and how things will be when I'm old, but I don't know what I will do tomorrow or an hour from now. No intention to stress myself with such detail either. When the time comes I'll manage anyway. I do whatever I feel like doing or whatever is most pressing.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> If we take away the extroverted social side of ENFP, we basically get me. I start stuff and don't finish, am random, messy, disorganized both internally and externally, I HAVE to externalize thoughts to sort, filer and order them, so I can see what I'm thinking. I make general plans but you won't seem me break it down to smaller pieces, I don't write lists or make detailed plans etc.., neither do I organize my social sphere ^^ or anything for that matter.
> 
> Also reaching conclusions or judgments is kind of difficult as I tend to gather more and more data, postponing judgment more and more, because HAVE to go through all the inconsistencies in order to reach an optimal/best choice that considers all the information.


Sounds like just being a P (in MBTI).


> Having an internal standard to base decisions on, like how it is reported that Fi doms have a "system of values" is alien to me. WTF is a system of values!? Do people really keep track of their values? I mean I don't know what my values are, they just exist. I only know when I react to a situation, prior to that I don't because I don't have a "system of values" lol.


 Like Kamishi said, it could possibly be from being so used to the function, you're not aware of it, but to me, it sounds like you might not prefer it. Particularly the "I only know when I react to a situation". This is often used to describe Fi in general in some descriptions, but that's a typical unconscious reaction. Anyone can react when a value is violated. But mature Fi preferrers will have more of a focus on their inner world of emotions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> @Kamishi
> 
> ^^ hmm could be, don't know. Regarding Fi. I always argue in favor of not defining it as a system of values simply because imo and in my experience ethics depends on the situation at hand. Things are relative and one has to consider the circumstances.


Yeah, well as a mostly unconscious Fi type I don't spend time doing that usually. To constantly evaluate like that isn't something I am that familiar with. Even when I am stuck in a situation where I am trying to figure out where I align in terms of Fi values I tend to try to make that line up with Ni. I usually have difficulties deciding between Te and Fi when they clash unless Ni lines up with one or the other. I just can't decide between what is logical and rational and what it is I desire for most of the part. 

And when I become very aware of my values because someone clashed with them they tend to take on this very rigid and inflexible nature, something just is bad or good and I can't really change my mind at all. The fact I react this way makes me feel somewhat... shameful about it. That my values are so immature.


> In light of such a thing *stable ethical codes do not exist*. I basically decide right there spontaneously based on the situation how I will relate to it / judge it. Such things will be random and they will always depend on the situation.


Yes, because Ji operates a priori. It just supports that you're an introvert first. I think your aversion towards making Fi seem like a set standard of ethics is more an aversion towards Fe. Fe operates with set standards in such a sense since the Fe ethics exist outside the individual, they are objective.


> One size fits all ethics such as the 10 commandments or the "Code of Harry" do not exist for me. Sometimes its good to lie, sometimes its good to steal at other times its not, sometimes its better to kill at other times its not and so on. Black and white ethics are ridiculous and rigid imo. I can make a wow and break it ten minutes later if I feel like that was a good course of action to take.


Yeah, perfect example of Fi evaluation. Obviously, I'm inclined to agree but usually I don't tend to be so pre-occupied thinking about this stuff. 

"The Code of Harry" is a good example of inferior Fe valuation also. It's as if Dexter could not come up with a set of ethics on his own but simply accepted the values his father imposed on him at face value because it made sense at the time doing so. An Fi type would definitely question this much more and try to figure out where they stand and whether they agree with its foundations. 

See, even I can see the positive implications of such standards though. I see how "The Code of Harry" creates a specific result that is effective and logical to follow. Isn't the point to survive? Then follow the code of Harry. It might be, just like it was for Dexter as a character, that I realize much later that following this code does however not make me happy, at which point I might question or fine-tune its content to fit me better, but it's not my immediate knee-jerk response. Rather, I treat it as a logical system first, ethical system later. 

I can have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to ethical values like when I was reading Jung and he began mentioning how "primitive" people were so much different to advanced Westerners. I can rationalize this in many ways, e.g. he lived in a time where such thought was widely accepted and normal and not much questioned as it is today, but my knee-jerk reaction is still that it was wrong of Jung to label non-Western people as "primitive". 

Aside that though, I don't know what I am to do with this value more than the sense of it being wrong. Why is it wrong to me? I don't know. It just is. Trying to explain to myself why I think it's wrong just feels very foreign as a perspective. I can't fine-tune it, I can't distinguish it further. It just is as experienced, in this very black and white and general sense. 

I also react over my own reactions and that my reaction was so strong. I think it's a good example of what Jung would consider to be a result of feeling like you lose control of your egoic perspective for a moment, losing control in favor of the inferior (SeFi would be my inferior perspective as a whole). 

Fuck Fi, why must you be so complicated.


> That is why I say that Fi is not a system of values, because the pre-established system does not exist. I just *know* what the right thing to do is.


I know.


> I work more on an instinctual basis where both thinking, feeling and even behavior is spontaneous, from chaos to skeletal structure and understanding, spontaneous improvisation and no visible internal or external structure. I have a general idea of what want to do in life and how things will be when I'm old, but I don't know what I will do tomorrow or an hour from now. No intention to stress myself with such detail either. When the time comes I'll manage anyway. I do whatever I feel like doing or whatever is most pressing.


Heh, such a Pe perspective. I know what I should be doing today and tomorrow, the problem is getting there. What life would be when I'm old though, meh, whatever happens happens.



Eric B said:


> But mature Fi preferrers will have more of a focus on their inner world of emotions.


What does it mean to be a mature Fi type? But anyway, based on what he wrote and knowing how Fi operates for me, I can clearly tell you right away he is far more conscious of Fi than I am. His primary mode of operation seems to be whether something violates or fits his values or not; I simply just float around mostly.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Eric B @Kamishi

We could start with me saying that being a feeler does not mean I'm in touch with my emotions 24/7. I'm first and foremost a head type 6 center of the thinking triad  (look at the quote in this post).

Well Fi for me sort of "runs in the background". It "takes up system resources", but I'm not fully aware of it because it comes so naturally. I don't need to invest effort into using it, its just there. I can only explain in terms of how some Ni doms say that they "just know" the answers. I just *know* the answers, its a feeling.

In other words I am unaware of using it actively.

I just found a good example. *Its like driving!* Beginners will find it difficult but people who have been driving for a long time aren't even aware of how they are driving, the car has become an extension of themselves. Its like that.

I do not need to be aware of my subjective value system or whatever others use to explain Fi. It just is. I don't require laws, rules, religion or any external system of ethics, because I am perfectly capable of moral behavior, understanding others on an emotional level and a bunch of other feeling related complexities as if it were hardwired into me.

:frustrating: *back to the P/J thing thou. I'm clearly a P in MBTI, need to look further into how that can be justified in socionics where if I'm Fi dom, I'm supposed to be rational first.*

Just in case some ppl may want to conclude that I'm not a feeler (has happened before), I have an extract from Naranjo, which explains why I put such a heavy accent on logical consistency and so forth. 



> Ennea-type VI is not only an intellectual type, but the most logical of types, one who is devoted to reason. Unlike ennea-type VII who uses intellect as strategy, type VI is likely to worship intellect through fanatical allegiance to reason and reason alone—as in scientism. In his need for answers in order to solve his problems, type VI is more than any other a questioner, and thus a potential philosopher. Not only does he use the intellect for problem-solving, but he resorts to problem seeking as a way to feeling safe. In his hypervigilance, his paranoid character is on the look-out for problems; he is a trouble-shooter in regard to himself and has difficulty in accepting himself without problems. While there is hope in seeing oneself with problems—the hope of being able to solve them—there is also a trap in problem making that manifests, for instance, as an inability to go beyond the role of patient in the therapeutic process and a difficulty in just letting oneself be.Not only is the ineffectualness or generalized problem with doing of the more timid type VI individuals a consequence of an excessive orientation to the abstract and theoretical, but seeking refuge in intellectual activity is also a consequence of fearful holding back, indirectness, vagueness, and “beating around the bush.” - Cowardice, Paranoid Character and Accusation - Naranjo


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> @Eric B @Kamishi
> 
> We could start with me saying that being a feeler does not mean I'm in touch with my emotions 24/7. I'm first and foremost a head type 6 center of the thinking triad  (look at the quote in this post).
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think that's the difficult aspect when it comes to a strongly differentiated function because the perspective is so natural to us. 


> I do not need to be aware of my subjective value system or whatever others use to explain Fi. It just is. I don't require laws, rules, religion or any external system of ethics, because I am perfectly capable of moral behavior, understanding others on an emotional level and a bunch of other feeling related complexities *as if it were hardwired into me.*


Heh. I'd love the day we can create a machine to get into someone else's mind. It must be so strange to always think in terms of Fi o.o.


> :frustrating: *back to the P/J thing thou. I'm clearly a P in MBTI, need to look further into how that can be justified in socionics where if I'm Fi dom, I'm supposed to be rational first.*


Yes, but why must this lead to a specific set of behavior necessarily? Leading with Fi means you are first of all cognitively aware of what Fi is, not whether you are messy or organized as a person. Those are values and behaviors that probably could partly be learned outside of sociotype, and I think other systems could be applied here too. Again, instinctual variants.


> Just in case some ppl may want to conclude that I'm not a feeler (has happened before), I have an extract from Naranjo, which explains why I put such a heavy accent on logical consistency and so forth.


The problem is that people think that being a feeler means that you are capable of feeling emotions. Well, duh, we all feel emotions because our brains are hardwired to feel. But to judge according to emotional tones is different and doesn't require emotional input at all, especially not for F dominants. 

For me, Fi values tend to often come with an emotional reaction too because of its more archaic character.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> What does it mean to be a mature Fi type? But anyway, based on what he wrote and knowing how Fi operates for me, I can clearly tell you right away he is far more conscious of Fi than I am. His primary mode of operation seems to be whether something violates or fits his values or not; I simply just float around mostly.


 That's what I use to denote the Fi of those who prefer it (dom. or aux.) and for someone grown, will likely be "matured", compared to less conscious, "primitive", "archaic", etc. (as the tertiary and inferior might be, and of course the lower shadows).
For you, it will be a bit different (and I think you've even said this), because of it being tertiary. I think this is the source of some confusion in coming up with descriptions of the functions. The theorist will be NTJ or even NTP, and tend to describe Fi as being basically, "selfish"; "It's what I want, others be damned", etc. But this is not usually the way it will come off for an FP. They will "consider others" as much as an Fe preferring FJ, only they will reference the inner world instead of the outer world, directly. So what the T's who describe Fi are likely going by is their own experience of the function in its "primitive" form.



FreeBeer said:


> We could start with me saying that being a feeler does not mean I'm in touch with my emotions 24/7. I'm first and foremost a head type 6 center of the thinking triad  (look at the quote in this post).
> 
> Well Fi for me sort of "runs in the background". It "takes up system resources", but I'm not fully aware of it because it comes so naturally. I don't need to invest effort into using it, its just there. I can only explain in terms of how some Ni doms say that they "just know" the answers. I just *know* the answers, its a feeling.
> 
> ...


 I've heard this before, including the "driving a car" example (which could fit any dominant introverted function such as Ti or Ni, since they're "deeper", and perhaps harder to notice). I also see Fi in descriptions as something the person is not aware of, but I wonder about that, because then it sounds like it's not really "rational".

I wouldn't say it's bout "being in touch with Feelings 24/7", but they will be something more easily and readily (and I would imagine, consciously) accessed when making decisions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Eric B said:


> That's what I use to denote the Fi of those who prefer it (dom. or aux.) and for someone grown, will likely be "matured", compared to less conscious, "primitive", "archaic", etc. (as the tertiary and inferior might be, and of course the lower shadows).
> For you, it will be a bit different (and I think you've even said this), because of it being tertiary. I think this is the source of some confusion in coming up with descriptions of the functions. The theorist will be NTJ or even NTP, and tend to describe Fi as being basically, "selfish"; "It's what I want, others be damned", etc. But this is not usually the way it will come off for an FP. They will "consider others" as much as an Fe preferring FJ, only they will reference the inner world instead of the outer world, directly. So what the T's who describe Fi are likely going by is their own experience of the function in its "primitive" form.
> 
> I've heard this before, including the "driving a car" example (which could fit any dominant introverted function such as Ti or Ni, since they're "deeper", and perhaps harder to notice). I also see Fi in descriptions as something the person is not aware of, but I wonder about that, because then it sounds like it's not really "rational".


Well, it depends on how you define "awareness" to begin with. I am not "aware" of Ni mostly as in, I'm acutely conscious of Ni in such a sense, either. It's just very natural and spontaneously occurring. I assume this would be true for most people when it comes to their dominant function perspective. It's what makes it dominant.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

But then Ni is an "irrational" function anyway, so it makes sense it would be like that. For me, Ti was something I was "unaware" of until I began looking for it, and squaring away what it really was. It basically was a matter of being something I *took for granted* as the way everyone should think, but really isn't. Yet it is still a rational process I can distinguish, where Fi is often described as being so much more "invisible" than even that.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Dastan said:


> First Carl Jung described the opposite of Rationality and Irrationality of functions and types:
> rational (Thought and Feeling): according to the reason, giving law/structure/direction
> irrational (Intuition and Sensation): dependent on the full unrestricted, uncontrolled given things/perceptions


Wrong, rationality is thought, followed by intuition. Irrationality is sensation, followed by feeling. Common sense, looks like Jung didn't have much on this aspect. A feeler does not really operate within structure at all.

To your J/P question, I have found out that judging=introversion=abstraction and perceiving=extraversion=sensing.

This ofcourse clashes with mountains of mainstream MBTI theory, but it just makes sense, as I've pointed out in my other thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/149663-te-ne-si-fi-dont-really-exist.html


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Wrong, rationality is thought, followed by intuition. Irrationality is sensation, followed by feeling. Common sense, looks like Jung didn't have much on this aspect. A feeler does not really operate within structure at all.
> 
> To your J/P question, I have found out that judging=introversion=abstraction and perceiving=extraversion=sensing.
> 
> ...


You're not just clashing with "mountains of mainstream MBTI theory"; you're also clashing with Jung and, well, virtually every other reasonably-well-known Jungian and/or MBTI-related source I've ever read.

Jung classified T and F (not T and N) as the "rational" functions, and S and N (not S and F) as the "irrational" functions.

You're entitled to come up with your own theory and definitions, of course, but Dastan was describing what _Jung_ said and, in calling him "wrong" in that respect, you were wrong.

You're entitled your own phoenixpinions, but not your own phacts.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> You're not just clashing with "mountains of mainstream MBTI theory"; you're also clashing with Jung and, well, virtually every other reasonably-well-known Jungian and/or MBTI-related source I've ever read.
> 
> Jung classified T and F (not T and N) as the "rational" functions, and S and N (not S and F) as the "irrational" functions.


So in a sense Jung was saying judging (T/F)=rationality and perceiving (S/N)=irrationality. Why would he use a second classification to term exactly the same thing as judging and perceiving? If he used another term than rational/irrational, I would be fine with it. But these words have original meanings beyond Jung's personal twists, because in no way does rationality imply feeling. If anything, rationality=T>N and irrationality=S>F .



> You're entitled your own phoenixpinions, but not your own phacts.


I am not creating new facts, simply correcting obviously incorrect statements by Jung. Jung is not God.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> I am not creating new facts, simply correcting obviously incorrect statements by Jung. Jung is not God.


Then who, or what, is?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> So in a sense Jung was saying judging (T/F)=rationality and perceiving (S/N)=irrationality. Why would he use a second classification to term exactly the same thing as judging and perceiving? If he used another term than rational/irrational, I would be fine with it. But these words have original meanings beyond Jung's personal twists, because in no way does rationality imply feeling. If anything, rationality=T>N and irrationality=S>F .
> 
> 
> 
> I am not creating new facts, simply correcting obviously incorrect statements by Jung. Jung is not God.


Perception lacks reason and is thus irrational. To judge based on value (Feeling) rather than objective criteria (Thinking) is still reason, thus rational. Feeling, as Jung intended it, is not the same thing as emotion. He also clarifies what he means by irrational.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> Then who, or what, is?


There's a homeless guy in my town by the name of Toothless Jerome that claims to be.


----------

