# What is Fi?



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> I don't understand why you need me to quote Jung, with regards to a video that is in relation to objectively tracking and identifying functions using the scientific method.
> 
> If you feel each 'function' is completely stand-alone and not connected to it's opposing aspect, I would highly recommend you read some Jung - for you to tell me you understand each function as _separate _absolutely mystifies me beyond comprehension as Jung outlines in literally every single type descriptor in Chapter X the ways in which the inferior aspects arise (i.e, inferior extroverted intuition in an introverted sensing type, via versa, so on and so forth) - he undoubtedly views them as having bipolar relationships with one another.
> 
> ...


But the video suggests that sensing and feeling only become intelligent when they are linked with thinking and intuition. That's what I have issues with. He's pretty much saying that without N/T we merely have the intelligence and capabilities of a worm lol (or a dog, another example of SF he uses)

There is obviously a relationship between the function pairs, what I meant is that they are completely different. What I understand of the inferior function is the that the dominant suppresses it, because they are opposites. 



> I understand Jung and others view Thinking as a logical discrimination, linear reasoning, I personally see this only insofar as well, ones own subjective logic, or ones own subjective reasoning.


Idk what linear reasoning means, but the rest sounds like Ti specifically.

Using logic doesn't have anything to do with intelligence though. And if you understood Te and Ti as more than just reasoning you would probably realise this  Same goes for Fi/Fe and the idea that they can't be jerks.

Exactly, that's why reasoning isn't the best way to describe it. The functions are about what kind of reasoning you have. An Fi and Fe type could have the same values, but for different reasons.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> But the video suggests that sensing and feeling only become intelligent when they are linked with thinking and intuition. That's what I have issues with. He's pretty much saying that without N/T we merely have the intelligence and capabilities of a worm lol (or a dog, another example of SF he uses)


This is the truth, though, it's relatively true to Jung:



> Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation.


So, isolate Sensing and Feeling here - 'what is present' and 'it's value'.
Without Thinking and Intuition - you don't know what it means (and therefore can't properly evaluate it, whatever it is, in the first place), and you're also oblivious to any potential possibilities pertaining to it's past or present.

If you were to place this into 'reality', this would mean that when someone walks through a door, you have no fucking idea where they went. They just disappeared. You saw them go through the door and that's it.
You need Thinking to recognize walking through the door means they're in the next room.
You need intuition to realize they're going to come back out of the door, or exit via some other door, or not.

_Please don't take this out of context_, I'm not in any way suggesting SF types are derps or stupid, they're simply people that prefer Sensing, and Feeling, over Thinking and Intuition - though, like _all _humans, we all possess all functions and DSP lays this out in another video whereby he says to assume everybody is the best at everything, everyone is maximum N, max S, max T and max F, because if you don't, some ENTP who has better Si than you, for instance, will break your system and you _will _mistype them.



> There is obviously a relationship between the function pairs, what I meant is that they are completely different. What I understand of the inferior function is the that the dominant suppresses it, because they are opposites.


Still connected. You said you see them as separate.



> Idk what linear reasoning means, but the rest sounds like Ti specifically.
> 
> Using logic doesn't have anything to do with intelligence though. And if you understood Te and Ti as more than just reasoning you would probably realise this  Same goes for Fi/Fe and the idea that they can't be jerks.
> 
> Exactly, that's why reasoning isn't the best way to describe it. The functions are about what kind of reasoning you have. An Fi and Fe type could have the same values, but for different reasons.


I'm unsure why you're trying to be condescending here when it's you who is in the dark, so to speak - I am confident in my interpretations and understandings of Te, Ti, Fe and Fi.

The general 'vibe' of logic is indeed one of intelligence - look it up, shit, I'll do it for you:

From dictionary.cambridge.org:



> *logic *noun [ U ] (_REASONABLE THINKING_)
> 
> ​ a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment:
> 
> ...


Good luck convincing me that logic isn't linked to 'intelligence' or the ability to make the 'correct choice' in peoples minds.

I have never implied Fi/Fe as not being jerks etc, I don't like _any _kinds of stereotyping as a means of describing the functions.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

The simplistic approach is exactly why it works, imo. Most of the scholar sources well use "values" when describe F functions because it's not about emotions. It's about things that are "important to you as an individual/group." Which yes, does run amok because it can be easily confused with "reasons". 

Why did you do XYZ? 
Idk, reasons.

Which is why a lot of Fs mistype as Ts. Because they're skewing their own internal values as reasons, which they perceive as logic. 

Just as no man is an island, neither are functions. Se behaves differently depending on where it is in the stack, and what is immediately next to it. TiSeNi behaves entirely different than SeFiTe.

I also dig the fact that he takes everything as a spectrum, which is something I've been personally saying for years. If you have absolutely zero Se, you must as well be Helen Keller. If you have no Si, you might as well have memory loss. Ne, no imagination. Ni, no way to process abstract information (aka, the ability to learn as everything is slightly abstract in the beginning). Ti, independent thought, a drone worker. Te, you're just a colossal, selfish asshole. Fi, alexithymia. Fe, antisocial disorder.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

From Jungs talk on 8 September 1913, at the Fourth International Psychoanalytical Congress in Munich:



> We speak of extraversion when the individual gives his whole interest to the outer world, to the object, and attributes an extraordinary importance and value to it.* When, on the contrary, the objective world sinks into the shadow, as it were, or undergoes a devaluation, while the individual occupies the centre of his own interest and becomes in own eyes the only person worthy of consideration, it is a case of introversion.**
> 
> I call _regressive extraversion_ the phenomenon which Freud called _transference_, when the hysteric projects upon the object his own illusions and subjective valuations. In the same way I call _regressive introversion_ the opposite phenomenon which we find in schizophrenia, when these fantastic ideas refer to the subject himself.


*objectivism - the tendency to live in the outer world. (Binet, 1903).
**subjectivism - the tendency to enclose oneself in one's own consciousness. (Binet, 1903).


To apply the above to Fi and Fe, could it not simply be summed up as:

My own personal values, likes and dislikes are more important than those of everyone else (Fi).
The personal values, likes and dislikes of the objective world (i.e, social/environmental context) are more important than those of my own (Fe).


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Turi said:


> Good luck convincing me that logic isn't linked to 'intelligence' or the ability to make the 'correct choice' in peoples minds.


And I will say that logic isn't always intelligence. Ever heard of sensory overexitability?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> And I will say that logic isn't always intelligence. Ever heard of sensory overexitability?


Logic definitely isn't intelligence.
I'm suggesting intelligence is "implied" in the term logic to a degree and that's why I dislike using "logic" to describe T types, because this idea isn't reflected from my experience.

I hadn't heard of Sensory Overexcitability, no, though I just read this link and found it somewhat interesting along with the four other types of OE.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Turi said:


> Logic definitely isn't intelligence.
> I'm suggesting intelligence is "implied" in the term logic to a degree and that's why I dislike using "logic" to describe T types, because this idea isn't reflected from my experience.
> 
> I hadn't heard of Sensory Overexcitability, no, though I just read this link and found it somewhat interesting along with the four other types of OE.


Well, yeah it's one of Dabrowski's overexitabilities. It's mostly a greater processing of perception.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Wisteria - a little supporting 'evidence' from Jung himself, re: the functions working together, essentially, this is from a letter dated 4 June 1915 - _Correspondence with Schmid_.



> (...)I want to purge my thinking of all that is erratic and unaccountable, of all pleasure and unpleasure caused by personal feeling, and raise it to the height of justness and the crystal-clear purity of the universally valid idea, way beyond anything connected with mere feeling. You, on the contrary, want to put your feeling above your personal thinking, and to free it from all the fantasized and infantile thoughts that might impede its development. That is why the thinking person represses his all-embracing feeling, and the feeling person his all-embracing thinking.
> 
> But the thinking person accepts feelings that correspond to his thinking, and the feeling person accepts thoughts that correspond to this feeling.


In the letter, Jung also notes that he sees Feeling as irrational, as the Feeling type he is corresponding with likely sees Jungs preference for Thinking as _also _irrational.

You can see in this letter (predates _Psychological Types_ by six years, fwiw), T and F are indeed connected - and it's _not _purely in the form of suppression - note the last sentence I quoted. 
This is aligned with what DSP is outlining in his video/s - Feelers have _reasons _for their values, and Thinkers have _values _behind their reasons.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> This is the truth, though, it's relatively true to Jung:
> 
> So, isolate Sensing and Feeling here - 'what is present' and 'it's value'.
> Without Thinking and Intuition - you don't know what it means (and therefore can't properly evaluate it, whatever it is, in the first place), and you're also oblivious to any potential possibilities pertaining to it's past or present.
> ...


Yes we obviously use all of them. I'm not stupid lol (though I must ask why would an ENTP have better Si than me?)



> Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation.


Ok, this must be same definition that the guy in the video was using - and why I think his explanation is too simplified. Jung goes into far more detail than this, as he describes each function for each type (which is the only part of Jung that I have read). This quote really is just the tip of the iceberg. To start defining Fe and Fi based from this simple definition that Feeling is what you value, isn't a very good way to describe these functions. There is so much more depth to Fe and Fi than just "values of yourself" and "values of others" and no one will understand it correctly this way. His explanation is very shallow, like he hasn't given it much thought or context. It will lead people into thinking that Fe types just follow social norms and Fi types actually come up with their own independent values.

I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm only saying what I think, just like you are. That's a little arrogant to assume that you know everything and i'm "in the dark" >_>

Also I never said you did think that about Fi and Fe. 

I don't mean the dictionary definition of logic.
The way Jung describes intuition is very different from the actual definition too;



> intuition
> ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)n
> noun
> the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
> ...


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> @Oprah - you're right to be skeptical re: Fe as truly about 'adopting the values agreed upon by society'.
> 
> From _Psychological Types_ (probably already been copy-pasted), from the Extroverted Feeling type descriptor.
> 
> ...





Turi said:


> Abstracting values from the social context and adopting them as ones own is to introvert them.
> I'm not sure what you're after, I feel like I explained this in the section you bolded.
> 
> @Lord Pixel - absolutely not. It's true to itself, and _itself _being a preference for considering 'context' and prioritizing that over personal taste when it comes to layin' down some J.
> ...



I am slightly confused, you seem to be both implying that Fe types both do and don't have values... and if they do, they would always prioritize the values outside of themselves (easier said than done, there are so many values out there... What if there is a conflict in the feeling environment? What would Fe do then? No one ever addresses that, btw. Fe always supposedly "gives in" to the feelings of others to keep the peace, but this is hardly ever possible because there is a lot of "external disturbance", so to say, except if you surround yourself with people who are in complete unison with one another.).

You say adopting external values is introverting them, aka. goes against Fe. But this also makes zero sense considering how you emphasize the way Fe would reflect the feeling environment. That _is_ adopting the external feeling values, if only for a moment when it is convenient. The difference between this and "truly" adopting them seems arbitrary at best.

Then you mention that what Fe expressess is the thing that is only agreeable in the moment, and not an expression of their own actual feeling/values. But surely you cannot assume Fe would rely on inherent internal values, as that is what Fi does. _So where do the "true values" of a Fe type come from? _

Additionally, lol at the part about it being true to itself. You are saying Fe isn't fake, but then describe it the exact way that makes people say it's fake.

Okay, so it is true to itself as determining the context and timing? Is it really Fe determining that, or the person? It seems that you think the main agenda of Fe is to maintain peace, yet typically it is people who make such decisions, functions don't do that for us.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

flyincaveman said:


> The simplistic approach is exactly why it works, imo. Most of the scholar sources well use "values" when describe F functions because it's not about emotions. It's about things that are "important to you as an individual/group." Which yes, does run amok because it can be easily confused with "reasons".
> 
> Why did you do XYZ?
> Idk, reasons.
> ...


And this is why the simplistic approach is wrong, imo. People who start defining the functions don't bother to understand the functions the way Jung describes them, and start making simple interpretations of it. Like Thinking is reasons, Feeling is values. There is a thin line between the two so it's no wonder people are getting T/F confused with each other.

Now people think Si is memory (which isn't even sensing), Se is using the five senses, Ni is thinking about the future, Ne is imagination, and so on. It has nothing to do with why the function is introverted or extroverted.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Yes we obviously use all of them. I'm not stupid lol (though I must ask why would an ENTP have better Si than me?)


This is exactly the mindset we need to eradicate, there are a million reasons an ENTP might have 'better' Si than an Si dominant.
Functions aren't 'skills'.
It's the same thing as the T = logic thing, it implies a 'skill', which isn't true.



> Ok, this must be same definition that the guy in the video was using - and why I think his explanation is too simplified. Jung goes into far more detail than this, as he describes each function for each type (which is the only part of Jung that I have read). This quote really is just the tip of the iceberg. To start defining Fe and Fi based from this simple definition that Feeling is what you value, isn't a very good way to describe these functions. There is so much more depth to Fe and Fi than just "values of yourself" and "values of others" and no one will understand it correctly this way. His explanation is very shallow, like he hasn't given it much thought or context. It will lead people into thinking that Fe types just follow social norms and Fi types actually come up with their own independent values.


There are multiple quotes straight from Jung that summarize the functions in a similarly brief format.
Jung does go into detail, mostly with regards to introversion and extroversion - this is basically what the entire book is about, and a whole lot of his other works.

Of course that quote, and other similar ones are the 'tip of the iceberg', they're _supposed _to be, they're literally brief summaries.

Unfortunately for you - that _is _the essence of the functions, extroverted feeling is objective evaluation, introverted feeling is subjective evaluation. That's it.
Of course there are nuances but that _is _it.

I understand Chapter X is the only "part of Jung" that you have read, and this is unfortunate as there is a plethora of brilliant ideas and information to be found not only in the rest of that book, but in other works of his as well.
You can argue all you like - I'm not budging, that _is _the essence of Feeling and I highly recommend you do some more research because Chapter X is not all there is to it, at the very least read the following _Definitions _ chapter.



> I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm only saying what I think, just like you are. That's a little arrogant to assume that you know everything and i'm "in the dark" >_>


I would sincerely hope you're not trying to be condescending - you indeed _are _in the dark here, you've admitted that your knowledge is limited to one single chapter of _Psychological Types_ - I don't really feel a need to continue this conversation now that I realize where we're at here.

Do some research and you will find that simple little quote truly _does _encapsulate Feeling.




DOGSOUP said:


> I am slightly confused, you seem to be both implying that Fe types both do and don't have values... and if they do, they would always prioritize the values outside of themselves (easier said than done, there are so many values out there... What if there is a conflict in the feeling environment? What would Fe do then? No one ever addresses that, btw. Fe always supposedly "gives in" to the feelings of others to keep the peace, but this is hardly ever possible because there is a lot of "external disturbance", so to say, except if you surround yourself with people who are in complete unison with one another.).


You're the one typed as a dominant extroverted feeling type - you tell me what Fe would do in that situation.



> You say adopting external values is introverting them, aka. goes against Fe. But this also makes zero sense considering how you emphasize the way Fe would reflect the feeling environment. That _is_ adopting the external feeling values, if only for a moment when it is convenient. The difference between this and "truly" adopting them seems arbitrary at best.


If the values are adopted 'only for a moment', then they are _not _being adopted, they're being _reflected _- this isn't the same concept as truly developing personal values by which you live your life by.



> Then you mention that what Fe expressess is the thing that is only agreeable in the moment, and not an expression of their own actual feeling/values. But surely you cannot assume Fe would rely on inherent internal values, as that is what Fi does. _So where do the "true values" of a Fe type come from? _


I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here - you can view Fi and Fe as the following:

Fi - my personal values, likes and dislikes are more important than those of everyone elses.
Fe - the personal values, likes and dislikes of the social context/environment are more important than my own.

I feel that sorts it out.
Everybody has their own personal values, Fe types however do indeed prefer to accommodate for those of their social context, whereas Fi types don't care about social context as they are not oriented outwardly in this fashion.

Introverted attitude - World revolves around me.
Extroverted attitude - I give myself to the world.



> Additionally, lol at the part about it being true to itself. You are saying Fe isn't fake, but then describe it the exact way that makes people say it's fake.


That was intentional to highlight those specific reasons as being 'not' fake.



> Okay, so it is true to itself as determining the context and timing? Is it really Fe determining that, or the person? It seems that you think the main agenda of Fe is to maintain peace, yet typically it is people who make such decisions, functions don't do that for us.


..are you familiar with the concept of the Ego?
If a person is an extroverted feeling type, you could say 'Fe' is the 'ego' - the 'ego', being essentially the 'person'.
iow, they're the _same thing_ if one is a dominant extroverted feeling type.

I do believe maintaining peace is the main agenda of Fe, however this has to be put into context, because 'peace' is a ridiculously versatile term (much like Fe).
'Peace' could mean joining in and kicking some kid to a pulp with all your friends.
'Peace' could mean standing up for the kid, against your friends.
'Peace' could mean running away from the situation altogether.

It all depends on the context and how the Fe type interprets it - do you go along with your friends to keep the peace? Do you attempt to make a stand and maintain a more communal form of peace? Do you escape the situation as a means of maintaining the peace (don't want to get involved for whatever reasons)? 

Fe due to it's extroverted nature can't really be summed up or 'guessed' without knowing the context, imo.

Take the picture example above - an alternative might be the Fe type saying the picture is not beautiful, even though it's in an art museum etc, due to them perhaps being with somebody or a group of friends who don't like the picture, so you slightly alter the context and you alter possible Fe choices.

So while I would agree with Fe types seeking to maintain the peace, I believe this idea is extremely versatile and fluid - to theorize on the possible decisions Fe types might make, context is required.




Wisteria said:


> And this is why the simplistic approach is wrong, imo. People who start defining the functions don't bother to understand the functions the way Jung describes them, and start making simple interpretations of it. Like Thinking is reasons, Feeling is values. There is a thin line between the two so it's no wonder people are getting T/F confused with each other.
> 
> Now people think Si is memory (which isn't even sensing), Se is using the five senses, Ni is thinking about the future, Ne is imagination, and so on. It has nothing to do with why the function is introverted or extroverted.


Mate - you're the one who needs to start understanding them.
Simple interpretations are simple for a reason, they're brief, they're intended to get the gist across - you've read one chapter of a book and think you're in a position to attack other peoples understandings.

Re: Sensing as memory, I agree with you - I don't even know where that came from.

Re: Se however, it is your five senses - strip away the bullshit stereotypes and adjectives that you appear to deem as 'depth' and you will understand extroverted sensing is quite literally recognizing something is there.
That's it. It's taking in information via your five senses.

Without the other functions, there is nothing to:
Tell you what it is (thinking).
Tell you what it's worth (feeling).
Suggest possibilities pertaining to it (intuition).

Sensing, pure sensing, is nothing more than recognizing something is there.
You heard a sound. What sound? Need thinking to determine that.
You see something. What? Need thinking to determine that - oh, it's a wall. 
It's Thinking that defines things and let's you know what Sensing is observing.

Ne _is _imagination.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> You're the one typed as a dominant extroverted feeling type - you tell me what Fe would do in that situation.


I was asking you for a reason.



> If the values are adopted 'only for a moment', then they are _not _being adopted, they're being _reflected _- this isn't the same concept as truly developing personal values by which you live your life by.


Same thing, different way of conceptualizing it. But fine, then how does Fe type go about developing their personal values?



> I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here - you can view Fi and Fe as the following:
> 
> Fi - my personal values, likes and dislikes are more important than those of everyone elses.
> Fe - the personal values, likes and dislikes of the social context/environment are more important than my own.
> ...


Assuming that Fe doesn't reach for inherent internal values like Fi does, nor does it adopt external values (because that counts as introverting them, according to you) - I asked, where do the "true"/personal values come from? Not inside, not outside. Where?



> That was intentional to highlight those specific reasons as being 'not' fake.


Still funny.



> ..are you familiar with the concept of the Ego?
> If a person is an extroverted feeling type, you could say 'Fe' is the 'ego' - the 'ego', being essentially the 'person'.
> iow, they're the _same thing_ if one is a dominant extroverted feeling type.


I haven't really heard of equating these things, no. It was my understanding that it functions in tight relation with the 'ego', but to say that all of these things are the same thing doesn't really compute, I shall have to look it up.



> I do believe maintaining peace is the main agenda of Fe


Why? The main agenda of feeling is to evaluate things. Jung even mentions something about EF type mainly trying to establish an intensive feeling rapport with the environment, yes, but why would this correspond to some pre-existing idea of what "peace" is? 



> however this has to be put into context, because 'peace' is a ridiculously versatile term (much like Fe).
> 'Peace' could mean joining in and kicking some kid to a pulp with all your friends.
> 'Peace' could mean standing up for the kid, against your friends.
> 'Peace' could mean running away from the situation altogether.
> ...


Yes, we are definitely in agreement that giving examples of "Fe behavior" is futile.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Ne isn't imagination, particularly in the common use of the word. Ne is unconscious perception dependant on previous/subliminal and externally given images and impressions. It makes inferences to the sense impression, often as it's being perceived. A Ne type will trust the inferences over the actual sense impression, sometimes the inferences are so tied into the sense impression that the Ne type will immediately accept them as part of the sense impression.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kynx said:


> Ne isn't imagination, particularly in the common use of the word. Ne is unconscious perception dependant on previous/subliminal and externally given images and impressions. It makes inferences to the sense impression, often as it's being perceived. A Ne type will trust the inferences over the actual sense impression, sometimes the inferences are so tied into the sense impression that the Ne type will immediately accept them as part of the sense impression.


Considering Ne is extroverted intuition, and intuition exists in the mind, it's _absurd _that you've even _attempted _to argue that it isn't imagination.
Especially considering you've literally supported it not being imagination, with a case that supports it being imagination - both Ni and Ne are imagination, but Ne is the one that best fits the general idea of 'imagination'.

What creates those unconscious perceptions? Where do those inferences occur, exactly?

Do I need to Google 'imagination definition'? 
Because it's as pure 'Ne' as it gets, and it doesn't even matter which definition I use - I just looked up as many as I could, trying to find what obscure definition you must be using that sounds like something remotely non-Ne like, and I can't find it.

Please, link me to a definition of Ne that doesn't sound exactly like the extroverted intuitive type.

For the lulz, here's a couple of spicy quotes from Jung:

From Chapter XI, _Psychological Types_:


> In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents (...) Intuitive knowledge possesses an intrinsic certainty and conviction.


From _The Psychology of the Transference_:


> Intuition gives outlook and insight; it revels in the garden of magical possibilities as if they were real


Clearly intuition is imagination.
It's not possible to build a case against intuition as being imagination.


EDIT: 
Before any dominant Se or Si types try and 'catch me' suggesting they have no imagination (twisting the shit out of my words doesn't appear to be out of the ordinary around here) - I would suggest the exact opposite, the inferior position is supposedly the gateway to the unconscious, having inferior intuition here presents the perfect opportunity for active imagination to go nuts with all kinds of intuitive thoughts.
I would argue inferior intuition is the most stereotypically 'creative' and 'out there' form of intuition.
*full disclosure, am bias towards introverted sensation types*


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Turi said:


> Considering Ne is extroverted intuition, and intuition exists in the mind, it's _absurd _that you've even _attempted _to argue that it isn't imagination.
> Especially considering you've literally supported it not being imagination, with a case that supports it being imagination - both Ni and Ne are imagination, but Ne is the one that best fits the general idea of 'imagination'.
> 
> What creates those unconscious perceptions? Where do those inferences occur, exactly?
> ...


You didn't answer my previous questions, btw. I assumed that perhaps you didn't want to engage, but I now know that clearly isn't the case. Did you miss my previous quote?

Where's the rest of Jungs definition on intuition?

Never mind. I've found it. 



Jung said:


> Intuition appears either in a subjective or an objective
> form: the former is a perception of unconscious psychic
> facts whose origin is essentially subjective; the latter is
> a *perception of facts which depend upon subliminal
> ...


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kynx said:


> Where's the rest of Jungs definition on intuition?
> 
> Never mind. I've found it.


In what universe does the bolded section not relate to imagination?

I'm unsure as to whether you're trying to troll me, or genuinely need some guidance.

Do a quick google search for 'subliminal' for me, will you.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

So if I can imagine something in my mind, does that mean I'm actually an Ne type? :shocked:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> So if I can imagine something in my mind, does that mean I'm actually an Ne type? :shocked:


Why is _this _what you have taken from my postings?

Real quick, more tasty Jung, from _Psychological Types_:



> For complete orientation all four functions should contribute equally: thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation


Where exactly do you guys think these hidden possibilities occur?
I'll give you a hint: they're not tangible.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> Why is _this _what you have taken from my postings?


I think you've made me realise my true type...If ENTPs have more Si then I must actually be inferior Si! And I'm not that imaginative so I can't be inferior Ne

It all makes sense now


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> I think you've made me realise my true type...If ENTPs have more Si then I must actually be inferior Si! And I'm not that imaginative so I can't be inferior Ne
> 
> It all makes sense now


You're still connecting functions with 'skill' levels.
I like how you've resorted to mockery and sarcasm, rather than just go and research to iron out any flaws in your knowledge base.
It's truly admirable, I wish I could do it.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Turi said:


> In what universe does the bolded section not relate to imagination?
> 
> I'm unsure as to whether you're trying to troll me, or genuinely need some guidance.
> 
> Do a quick google search for 'subliminal' for me, will you.


Not recognised or understood by the conscious mind but still having influence on it. 

Are you going to answer my previous questions or not?

I might well need guidance, but only by those who can show me that they're in a position to give it. So far, you haven't shown me that, at all. All you have shown me is that you're either misunderstanding Jungs theory or you're unable to explain it adequately enough for others to understand and that you become condescending whenever other members are disagreeing with you. If you continue with your condescending comments or continue to suggest that I'm trolling you, then I won't engage with you further.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

You might as well disengage then because iNtUiTiOn literally cannot exist anywhere else but in ones imagination, the fact this is difficult to comprehend and you're trying to argue against this notion unnerves me and I can't react any other way than with condescension as I feel I'm being trolled.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Not sure if I've stated it here, but I know I have elsewhere on this site.
Every person has access to ALL EIGHT functions. Anyone can use them to effect. MBTI is about which is your default state.

Without:
Se, you might as well be deaf and blind
Si, no experience

Ne, ability to create something from nothing (novels would hold almost zero value)
Ni, ability to make sense of abstract ideas, ie learning something as simple as basic algebra

Ti, ability to form your own thoughts
Te, ability to accept external thoughts (you'd forever be that asshole that never goes along to get along)

Fe, a sociopath that never cares about another
Fi, personal morals

Yes, ultra simplistic. On purpose.

In my head, how I'm able to differentiate Ni vs Ne is ingenuity vs imagination. I know it's not exactly right, but it's close enough for government work in my head. Fi is a focused imagination, a problem solving imagination. I might be a little (or way off) here, but that's my understanding of it.

To that end, Fe vs Fi is, just as free floating. A person cannot consistently give, give, give and give to a group without eventually taking a step back and asking, "But what about Schmee?" Fe is dependent upon social context at all points. It's basically mob mentality in that regards, but yes, not exactly mob mentality. But close enough for comparison. And that's how Fi gets sucked into that mob mentality, sometimes your personal values match that of the group and then the group takes over. Sometimes you go with a group, even if you don't want.

Also, I'm somehow agreeing with @Turi in this thread. Dafuq is wrong with me


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

@Turi Do you think I was trolling you as well?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

flyincaveman said:


> Also, I'm somehow agreeing with @Turi in this thread. Dafuq is wrong with me


You're being woke.
Everyone else is still sleeping.
But they'll wake up.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Can someone explain how thinking is about reasons? Any example of Te and Ti doing this?

And back to the thread topic, I've read some posts and here's my take on it;

Sometimes I think people are not realising that Fe types have personal values that they abide by too. Feel like I've said this before, but Fi and Fe can have the same value but for different reasons. Such as the example @iLeaf used about young people smoking - I don't believe Fe types just shrug it off and say "well they're just doing because everyone else does". And finding it inappropriate or wrong could easily be for Fe reasons - everyone believes smoking is a bad habit to get into, and as parents who are supposed to be responsible for their children's health, therefore it is quite messed up to pass the cigarette to your daughters. 

I would have commented on this earlier but I got distracted by the video.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> You're still connecting functions with 'skill' levels.
> I like how you've resorted to mockery and sarcasm, rather than just go and research to iron out any flaws in your knowledge base.
> It's truly admirable, I wish I could do it.


Oh that's easy, just find something better to do than reading about Jungian theory all day.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Oh that's easy, just find something better to do than reading about Jungian theory all day.


h:


----------



## Lady of Clockwork (Dec 14, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> And back to the thread topic, I've read some posts and here's my take on it;
> 
> *Sometimes I think people are not realising that Fe types have personal values that they abide by too.* Feel like I've said this before, but Fi and Fe can have the same value but for different reasons. Such as the example @*iLeaf* used about young people smoking - I don't believe Fe types just shrug it off and say "well they're just doing because everyone else does". And finding it inappropriate or wrong could easily be for Fe reasons - everyone believes smoking is a bad habit to get into, and as parents who are supposed to be responsible for their children's health, therefore it is quite messed up to pass the cigarette to your daughters.


There is no reason to think that because nobody said, not even myself, that those with Fe over Fi have no personal values or morals - I'm not sure where you got that judgement from, nor analysis. Fi focuses on the values on every independent individual - that's one self, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Betty, Stacey, Michael, Petunia, etc; Fe focuses on the values as a generalised whole - as you've just expressed of yourself - that's "Group One" or "Everybody".

In regards to my post, when talking about Fe, I talked about the _perception _of the group of people. This group I referred to had no inclusion of either myself nor my sister, so it didn't matter what either of us said, in the end it had nothing to do with us. My sister knew it was wrong, and would never obligingly pass a cigarette to a minor, but she wasn't the one affected - what use would applying logic or reason or personal values hold against the situation? She focused on the mutualism within the group, the value of a group of people coming together to have a good time. I did not - that mentality just doesn't abide with me, and I couldn't imagine myself smoking to form harmony within a group, which is what I meant later about quick judgements but delayed reasons -- my sister and I were separated at a young age, so perhaps our different upbringings had different influences.

If you start talking about "Everyone" and using that as a basis for an argument, you are not using Fi. In your judgement, "_everyone believes smoking is a bad habit to get into *(Fe)*, and as parents who are supposed to be responsible for their children's health *(Fe|Ti)*, therefore it is quite messed up to pass the cigarette to your daughters *(Ti)*_," the trouble is, not everybody believes that, and these girls were early teens, so they were capable in making their own judgements, in which cases your judgement was gathered using Fe as collective values, and concluded using a personal reasoning (Ti). 

Writing "I think" or "I feel" or "I believe" isn't using Te. I supposed Fe and Te feel justified because collectively, the majority gets the vote.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

flyincaveman said:


> Not sure if I've stated it here, but I know I have elsewhere on this site.
> Every person has access to ALL EIGHT functions. Anyone can use them to effect. MBTI is about which is your default state.
> 
> Without:
> ...


Everyone indeed uses all these functions because they are necessary. How do you determine the difference between the use of these functions when it's dominant, compared to lower positions (tert/inferior) and when it's not in the functional stack? (how do you relate to Te for example, as an Istp?)



iLeaf said:


> There is no reason to think that because nobody said, not even myself, that those with Fe over Fi have no personal values or morals - I'm not sure where you got that judgement from, nor analysis. Fi focuses on the values on every independent individual - that's one self, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Betty, Stacey, Michael, Petunia, etc; Fe focuses on the values as a generalised whole - as you've just expressed of yourself - that's "Group One" or "Everybody".
> 
> In regards to my post, when talking about Fe, I talked about the _perception _of the group of people. This group I referred to had no inclusion of either myself nor my sister, so it didn't matter what either of us said, in the end it had nothing to do with us. My sister knew it was wrong, and would never obligingly pass a cigarette to a minor, but she wasn't the one affected - what use would applying logic or reason or personal values hold against the situation? She focused on the mutualism within the group, the value of a group of people coming together to have a good time. I did not - that mentality just doesn't abide with me, and I couldn't imagine myself smoking to form harmony within a group, which is what I meant later about quick judgements but delayed reasons -- my sister and I were separated at a young age, so perhaps our different upbringings had different influences.


So you never do anything for the sake of a group? I wouldn't do something like smoking to fit into a group either, for obvious reasons, but what about something that isn't threatening to your health? Do you ever refrain from saying your opinion if it's disruptive to the group? (and if so for what reason?)

You don't have to answer that question (anyone can answer it actually) I'm just trying to highlight the differences between Fi and Fe.



> If you start talking about "Everyone" and using that as a basis for an argument, you are not using Fi. In your judgement, "_everyone believes smoking is a bad habit to get into *(Fe)*, and as parents who are supposed to be responsible for their children's health *(Fe|Ti)*, therefore it is quite messed up to pass the cigarette to your daughters *(Ti)*_," the trouble is, not everybody believes that, and these girls were early teens, so they were capable in making their own judgements, in which cases your judgement was gathered using Fe as collective values, and concluded using a personal reasoning (Ti).
> 
> Writing "I think" or "I feel" or "I believe" isn't using Te. I supposed Fe and Te feel justified because collectively, the majority gets the vote.


That was my point - I was trying to say that Fe can also have values/opinions like yours in that scenario. I knew my reasoning was Fe (not Ti though, nothing you or I mentioned has anything to do with a Thinking function).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> That was my point - I was trying to say that Fe can also have values/opinions like yours in that scenario. I knew my reasoning was Fe (not Ti though, nothing you or I mentioned has anything to do with a Thinking function).


Feeling requires Thinking.
Thinking requires Feeling.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> Feeling requires Thinking.
> Thinking requires Feeling.


I have a completely different idea of Te and Ti is about


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> C
> *Sometimes I think people are not realising that Fe types have personal values that they abide by too. Feel like I've said this before, but Fi and Fe can have the same value but for different reasons.* Such as the example @*iLeaf* used about young people smoking - I don't believe Fe types just shrug it off and say "well they're just doing because everyone else does". And finding it inappropriate or wrong could easily be for Fe reasons - everyone believes smoking is a bad habit to get into, and as parents who are supposed to be responsible for their children's health, therefore it is quite messed up to pass the cigarette to your daughters.


Pretty sure I just covered that three posts above yours.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Everyone indeed uses all these functions because they are necessary. How do you determine the difference between the use of these functions when it's dominant, compared to lower positions (tert/inferior) and when it's not in the functional stack? (how do you relate to Te for example, as an Istp?)


Every single time I get into a debate, I'm using Te. Every post in this thread has been exercising that Te.

I'm pitting my own personal reasons for why I believe I am right against the reasons that you all think I am wrong. Whenever you all can convince me that my own personal reasons ARE wrong, I'll end up changing mine to fit your all's. But right now, your reasons for why I am wrong are not overpowering my personal thoughts.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> I have a completely different idea of Te and Ti is about


You certainly do.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

flyincaveman said:


> Every single time I get into a debate, I'm using Te. Every post in this thread has been exercising that Te.
> 
> I'm pitting my own personal reasons for why I believe I am right against the reasons that you all think I am wrong. Whenever you all can convince me that my own personal reasons ARE wrong, I'll end up changing mine to fit your all's. But right now, your reasons for why I am wrong are not overpowering my personal thoughts.



Functions are perspectives 
Your dominant function _is_ the reason that you believe your reasons are right and the reason why you won't change your mind unless certain criteria is met to convince you otherwise. Your function is what's determining your viewpoint and placing importance on specific criteria which you deem correct or incorrect If we could switch to different functions, then we would inevitability switch to different perspectives, at the same time. Then we could switch back and forth, debating ourselves. The default (dom/aux) functions aren't antagonistic to one another, which is why we can frequently switch between them relatively smoothly. Switching to opposing functions would involve continually disagreeing with our own opinions. Not just opinions on specific topics either, but our entire worldview.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Kynx said:


> Functions are perspectives
> Your dominant function _is_ the reason that you believe your reasons are right and the reason why you won't change your mind unless certain criteria is met to convince you otherwise. Your function is what's determining your viewpoint and placing importance on specific criteria which you deem correct or incorrect If we could switch to different functions, then we would inevitability switch to different perspectives, at the same time. Then we could switch back and forth, debating ourselves. The default (dom/aux) functions aren't antagonistic to one another, which is why we can frequently switch between them relatively smoothly. Switching to opposing functions would involve continually disagreeing with our own opinions. Not just opinions on specific topics either, but our entire worldview.



Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Or how.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

flyincaveman said:


> Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Or how.


I'm disagreeing with you on the ability to 'use' all functions.
I'm agreeing with your reasons why you won't just change your personal beliefs on the topic. 
It's kind of case in point. 
Ti won't align itself to anything that doesn't fit it's inner framework. That would mean disregarding it's inner framework in favour of something that makes less sense. If your mind isn't placing highest importance on an outer framework, then it's not 'using' Te. A perspective can't just shift itself to an opposing perspective and it can't hold both together (without going crazy,). The inner framework would need to be abandoned, in order to adopt another.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Kynx said:


> I'm disagreeing with you on the ability to 'use' all functions.
> I'm agreeing with your reasons why you won't just change your personal beliefs on the topic.
> It's kind of case in point.
> Ti won't align itself to anything that doesn't fit it's inner framework. That would mean disregarding it's inner framework in favour of something that makes less sense. If your mind isn't placing highest importance on an outer framework, then it's not 'using' Te. A perspective can't just shift itself to an opposing perspective and it can't hold both together (without going crazy,). The inner framework would need to be abandoned, in order to adopt another.


So, as someone with Fi, you don't ever, ever care about what your group of friends value? Ever? Under any circumstance?

As someone with Si, you've never stopped while eating something and think to yourself, "holy hell, this is the most amazing pizza I've ever tasted?"

If I only EVER cared about my own internal framework for developing reasons, I would never grow as a person. I would be the same shitstain I was at 16 that always thought I was right and everyone else was wrong, and fuck them for trying to convince me otherwise. I would immediately eject any new decision that didn't EXACTLY line up with my own.

One HAS to use all functions in order to survive. Both physically and socially.

If I never touched on Te, ever, any time someone had said something to the effect of, "hey, we're out of bread, can you stop by the store and get some?" My immediate response would always be "fuck you, I don't ever eat bread, you get it." 100% of the time. The argument of, "but everyone else in this household eats bread" would hold absolutely zero sway over me.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

flyincaveman said:


> So, as someone with Fi, you don't ever, ever care about what your group of friends value? Ever? Under any circumstance?
> 
> As someone with Si, you've never stopped while eating something and think to yourself, "holy hell, this is the most amazing pizza I've ever tasted?"
> 
> ...


Those definitions are completely inconsistent with Jungs definitions, to the extent that they actually invalidate his original theory.
I blame cognitive processes .com for putting these descriptions out there in the first place.

We're trying to discuss something which we have totally different interpretations of. This isn't going to work.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

flyincaveman said:


> Every single time I get into a debate, I'm using Te. Every post in this thread has been exercising that Te.
> 
> I'm pitting my own personal reasons for why I believe I am right against the reasons that you all think I am wrong. Whenever you all can convince me that my own personal reasons ARE wrong, I'll end up changing mine to fit your all's. But right now, your reasons for why I am wrong are not overpowering my personal thoughts.


From what I've gathered from you and turi's posts, you believe that introverted vs extroverted rational functions mean your own individual beliefs vs the consensus.



flyincaveman said:


> So, as someone with Fi, you don't ever, ever care about what your group of friends value? Ever? Under any circumstance?


Fi isn't an "all about me" function. Isn't that just being selfish or self absorbed? and i'm sure Fi types do care about the values of their friends. I know you're saying this is Fe, but it's not really.



> As someone with Si, you've never stopped while eating something and think to yourself, "holy hell, this is the most amazing pizza I've ever tasted?"


That's basic sensing (and memory)



> If I only EVER cared about my own internal framework for developing reasons, I would never grow as a person. I would be the same shitstain I was at 16 that always thought I was right and everyone else was wrong, and fuck them for trying to convince me otherwise. I would immediately eject any new decision that didn't EXACTLY line up with my own.


...do you see your younger self in Turi?



> One HAS to use all functions in order to survive. Both physically and socially.


That's true, though I would say it's more for the sake of functioning in general.



> If I never touched on Te, ever, any time someone had said something to the effect of, "hey, we're out of bread, can you stop by the store and get some?" My immediate response would always be "fuck you, I don't ever eat bread, you get it." 100% of the time. The argument of, "but everyone else in this household eats bread" would hold absolutely zero sway over me.


lol again this just seems more like you're describing some asshole who only cares about themselves, doesn't care about basic human needs.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Kynx said:


> Those definitions are completely inconsistent with Jungs definitions, to the extent that they actually invalidate his original theory.
> I blame cognitive processes .com for putting these descriptions out there in the first place.
> 
> We're trying to discuss something which we have totally different interpretations of. This isn't going to work.


Uhhh....
1) never been to that site
2) decided to check the site out after I realized I've never been
3) they say exactly what every other cognitive function site says
4) I'm actually saying almost the opposite of those sites?

But, here... Let's see what Jung himself says, in Chapter X regarding Te:



> *Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education*. (....)But in the case of a philosopher it is open to doubt, whenever the course of his thinking is directed towards ideas. In such a case, before deciding, we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent *higher collective concepts*, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not *be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time*. In the latter event, such ideas must also* belong to the category of objective data*, in which case this thinking should also be called extraverted.


Basically, your internal reasons give way to the reasons of the group.
No where does he use the term "logic" when describing thinking.

Here is Ti:


> Thus it happens that this type tends to disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature.* Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk*, however daring, and *never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling*, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes f*or him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account.* The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. *If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth.* Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. *His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this.* An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, *he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality*.* Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone.*


The basic clash to this is, well, this post thread. Here I am, screaming what can be considered a subjective truth, using my own research, my own intense interest in MBTI (I mean, for fuck sake, I've been a member here for like six years now I think and I'm a mod? Why else would an ISTP be doing this if we didn't have an intense interest?), my own ideas of reality. That THIS is the truth. These are MY reasons. That I've adopted through my own course of study and research.

And then there's you all, with your allegedly objective truths. You say that I'm pulling my information on cognitive functions from bad sources, but you have yet to either cite or provide your own interpretation that differs from the site you yourself quoted. You stand vehemently by the idea that the commonly accepted definitions of functions are correct, the very definition of Te.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> From what I've gathered from you and turi's posts, you believe that introverted vs extroverted rational functions mean your own individual beliefs vs the consensus.


In a nut shell, basically. Thinking isn't "logic" and Feeling isn't "emotions". Instead Thinking is rationale devoid of value judgments, and Feeling is rationale devoid of... I want to say objective facts here, but that's not quite the phrase I'm looking for. Objective reality? I don't know. I'm still working on how to appropriately phrase that one for short hand.



> _Fi isn't an "all about me" function. Isn't that just being selfish or self absorbed? and i'm sure Fi types do care about the values of their friends. I know you're saying this is Fe, but it's not really._


Yes and no. Fi can extend to immediate family and best friends, assuming that's where your own personal values lie. A person can easily have an internal value of "protect my friends at all costs". Which most people do. However, someone is Fi whenever the values of their friends come into conflict with values of themselves, and their personal values will trump that of the group the _majority_ of the time.

A person who has Fe can still have a personal value of that trumps the groups, if that value is strong enough (ie, sorry guys, I'm not going to be part of a lynchmob. That just doesn't jive with me).



> _That's basic sensing (and memory)_


Yea, that was an absolutely abysmal example and I realized that after I submitted. Too lazy to have gone back and changed it. I honestly don't even know what I was trying to say there, at all. It made sense in my head at the time.



> _...do you see your younger self in Turi?_


If you're asking if I think he's an arrogant shitstain? No. He has a much different approach to the argument than I would have had. We're different types and it's hard to gauge where is at on the maturity spectrum from where I was. All in all, when he's not actively trolling people, I find him reasonable and knowledgable on what he talks about.



> _That's true, though I would say it's more for the sake of functioning in general._


I wanted to say that, but downplayed it. Surviving is easier to swallow than functioning at a relatively "normal" state to someone who vehemently believes that you can only used your assigned functions.



> _lol again this just seems more like you're describing some asshole who only cares about themselves, doesn't care about basic human needs._


That's kind of the point. Internal functions are kind of asshole functions. They don't care about group. Other people's reasons and values don't play into them. Which is why I say we all function with all 8. Without External J functions, we're assholes. Without Internal J functions, we're spineless cowards at the mercy of the group.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kynx said:


> I'm disagreeing with you on the ability to 'use' all functions.


This is beyond preposterous and you know it.

You wouldn't be able to convince a _single T type here_, that they use one specific orientation of thinking at all times.
Not even bothering going into this because there's something off with your posts - I can't tell if it's intentional or unintentional, though.



Wisteria said:


> From what I've gathered from you and turi's posts, you believe that introverted vs extroverted rational functions mean your own individual beliefs vs the consensus.


This is accurate, and it's accurate to Jungs interpretations of introversion and extroversion as well.



> Fi isn't an "all about me" function. Isn't that just being selfish or self absorbed?


Every introverted function is 'all about' the self. Yes, it's selfish, yes it's self-absorbed - introversion _is _self-absorbed, that could pretty much be the _definition _of introverted attitudes.
Introversion takes from the world and gives to the self.
Make no mistake, introversion is _*all *_about the self.



> That's basic sensing (and memory)


I know @flyincaveman regrets posting that, but I think he's on the right track with it - it's that stereotypical compare/contrast of the present with the past that is often attributed to Si.

I believe it's better attributed to the way in which Si organizes observable information - where does this taste fit in compared to my other tastes?

Not a literal question anyone would ask themselves, it's perception, there's no logical, rational process involved, it would simply be an immediate intake of that information and a lightning fast recollection from what is essentially your unconscious mind that tells you boom, fits in right at the top.
There is a _feeling _value here, however I don't believe the essence of Si is lost.

The idea also fits a section of the introverted sensation descriptor that expresses how introverted sensation types see things as they were, are and will be - were (previous pizzas) are (current pizza) will be (at the top, #1).

It's also not 'basic' Sensing - it is absolutely being combined with other functions to achieve this conclusion - Sensing in it's most basic form is simply recognizing something exists.
Sensing _alone _wouldn't even know it's a pizza, yet alone what it tastes like, where it fits into your own little pizza hierarchy nor make a judgment regarding it being the 'best'.

Without Thinking, Sensing literally doesn't know what anything is.
It sees something. That's it.
Sees what? Need T for that.

If you twist this post into me somehow suggesting SF types are derps who don't know what anything is, my head will explode.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

If someone wants more of a visual aid to understand Fi better... @*RGBCMYK *

Watch the tv show The Detour, the father figure in the show Nate Parker is a good example of Fi in use. Especially Season 1 episode 4 about the conquistador restaurant.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

flyincaveman said:


> Every single time I get into a debate, I'm using Te. Every post in this thread has been exercising that Te.
> 
> I'm pitting my own personal reasons for why I believe I am right against the reasons that you all think I am wrong. Whenever you all can convince me that my own personal reasons ARE wrong, I'll end up changing mine to fit your all's. But right now, your reasons for why I am wrong are not overpowering my personal thoughts.


Is what I quoted actually a serious comment, I can't tell if whats above is just a joke or actually serious. Or if maybe ISTP is just what is posted.
Sorry I am a tad confused in this to comment, will you please clarify some by what you mean in the quote


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Is what I quoted actually a serious comment, I can't tell if whats above is just a joke or actually serious. Or if maybe ISTP is just what is posted.
> Sorry I am a tad confused in this to comment, will you please clarify some by what you mean in the quote


It is indeed a serious comment. People get so wrapped up in their own personal functions they don't understand the other functions and what they are. Or even that everyone uses all 8 functions every day, not just their "assigned" functions.

Read further back in the thread, you'll see the differentiation between Ti and Te


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> This is accurate, and it's accurate to Jungs interpretations of introversion and extroversion as well.


Then you (or Jung for that matter) better start explaining what do extroverts do when there is no external consensus.



> Every introverted function is 'all about' the self. Yes, it's selfish, yes it's self-absorbed - introversion _is _self-absorbed, that could pretty much be the _definition _of introverted attitudes.
> 
> Introversion takes from the world and gives to the self.
> Make no mistake, introversion is _*all *_about the self.


Didn't Jung think self has a different meaning than the subject or the ego? Yet you are using these terms almost as if they could be replaced with one another.

If you truly think introverts are selfish then wow. You are more biased against them than most.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Then you (or Jung for that matter) better start explaining what do extroverts do when there is no external consensus.
> 
> 
> Didn't Jung think self has a different meaning than the subject or the ego? Yet you are using these terms almost as if they could be replaced with one another.
> ...


No, not bias, read up on introversion and extroversion please.
I am definitely correct.

No external consensus = try to reach external consensus.

The self and ego are indeed two different things and this changes literally nothing and is irrelevant.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Turi said:


> I believe it's better attributed to the way in which Si organizes observable information - where does this taste fit in compared to my other tastes?
> 
> Not a literal question anyone would ask themselves, it's perception, there's no logical, rational process involved, it would simply be an immediate intake of that information and a lightning fast recollection from what is essentially your unconscious mind that tells you boom, fits in right at the top.
> There is a _feeling value here, however I don't believe the essence of Si is lost._


I think that's where I was trying to go with it? But I feel like I abandoned it halfway through to avoid the "memory" connotation that Si has, that is woefully incomplete. I usually say "memory-forward" because it makes sense in my own head, but kind of ambiguous to other people.



> Sensing _alone wouldn't even know it's a pizza, yet alone what it tastes like, where it fits into your own little pizza hierarchy nor make a judgment regarding it being the 'best'._


Huh, I think I found a nice, friendly analogy for Fi vs Fe with this though.

You love pizza
Your friends love tacos

Fe will dictate that you go with tacos because your friends love tacos, assuming you at least like them. Fi would dictate that you'll let your friends go their own way while you grab some pizza. That's not to say that you'll do that every time, but the urge would definitely be incredible strong almost always. Even an Fe dom will occasionally skirt and get their own pizza because sometimes you just need to do what YOU like. And an Fi dom will get tacos because they value the group.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

DOGSOUP said:


> Then you (or Jung for that matter) better start explaining what do extroverts do when there is no external consensus.
> 
> 
> Didn't Jung think self has a different meaning than the subject or the ego? Yet you are using these terms almost as if they could be replaced with one another.
> ...


You're confusing introvert and extrovert for sociability, which has no bearing on functions. Someone that is Te is not inherently social, nor Ti inherently anti-social. I'm very much in the realm of Ti, but you'll have a very hard time finding a majority of people who would call me a social introvert. I'm taking 20 credit hours right now, and I'm the loudest, most outspoken person in literally every single one of my classes. That's including the one of about 150 students and I'm still the only person that speaks up.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

flyincaveman said:


> Uhhh....
> 1) never been to that site
> 2) decided to check the site out after I realized I've never been
> 3) they say exactly what every other cognitive function site says
> ...


The definition which you mentioned which caused me to mention cognitive processes was the Si pizza comment. I see that you stated this isn't actually your definition.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Turi said:


> This is beyond preposterous and you know it.


What's preposterous is that you appear to have no knowledge of the introverted attitude's connection to the collective unconscious, yet continue to declare that you know what you're talking about. 

*Jung uses subjective to mean that which is derived from the collective unconscious, not from the ego*


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Kynx said:


> The definition which you mentioned which caused me to mention cognitive processes was the Si pizza comment. I see that you stated this isn't actually your definition.


Oh, yea. That was a bad example. Plz 4giv meh. I haz send.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Kynx said:


> What's preposterous is that you appear to have no knowledge of the introverted attitude's connection to the collective unconscious, yet continue to declare that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> *Jung uses subjective to mean that which is derived from the collective unconscious, not from the ego*


Honestly, I'm not tracking here. Please explain


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kynx said:


> What's preposterous is that you appear to have no knowledge of the introverted attitude's connection to the collective unconscious, yet continue to declare that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> *Jung uses subjective to mean that which is derived from the collective unconscious, not from the ego*


Irrelevant. 
My response is with regards to your suggestion that we don't all use all of the functions.

Look, I'm not interested at all in this wankfest that is happening between us all here.
I couldn't give two shits about what someone said 100 years ago in relation to a bunch of patients with mental disorders. 
I couldn't, honestly. 

I find it interesting but I'm not in the least wanting to argue with some keyboard warriors on an internet forum about the specifics of this.

Now to completely contradict what I just said and _actually address_ what you've posted - subjective pertains to the personal unconscious, this is _distinct_ from the collective unconscious.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Okay, maybe this will help explain how I'm seeing things.

Every person has their own reasons. Every group has its own reasons.

Everyone struggles pitting their own reasons vs the groups.

It's basically a war. For someone with Ti, the group may win the occasional battle, but ultimately it's the self that wins the war, kind of thing, that determines the placement of Ti in the stack. The opposite is true for someone with Te. And the same can be applied to F.

I'm still struggling hard with comprehending Si though. Fuck me, that's an insanely hard one for me to wrap my brain around. It's such a drastically foreign concept to me (academically speaking) that I can't recognize when I use it.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Turi said:


> Irrelevant.
> My response is with regards to your suggestion that we don't all use all of the functions.
> 
> Look, I'm not interested at all in this wankfest that is happening between us all here.
> ...


Introverted functions derive content from the collective unconscious. 
If you don't care what was said 100 years ago, why are you debating the theory and so adamantly claiming to be correct about it all?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> No, not bias, read up on introversion and extroversion please.
> I am definitely correct.


Oh I have, and nowhere did it say what you claimed it said. As the sceptics would say, [citation needed].

Actually I found this bit:


Psychological types (1921): The Introverted Type -The General Attitude of Consciousness said:


> Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines, with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic, or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, subjective, or egoistic, to be both *misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory*. It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert


Dunno what else I should read, I mean, low extroversion in big 5 means you'll be reserved and might appear self-absorbed but that isn't the same as being like that. MBTI introversion is more about the "inner world", still not the same thing as what you were saying.



> No external consensus = try to reach external consensus.


At last! I'm sure you will figure out how to do this one day.



> The self and ego are indeed two different things and this changes literally nothing and is irrelevant.


It is very relevant if you are using the self or self-absorbation as if it was the same as focusing on the subjective factors, or if you are saying that a person's dominant function is essentially their ego or even the person in their totaliy... Especially since the difference is quite meaningful in the case of the introvert, although Jung wasn't exactly _clear_ about it... but his definition of introversion focuses on these subjective factors are inherent to a person and reflect the self in all others. It is not some egocentric judgement you make it out to be, but evaluation based partially on age-old, instinctive psychological content, while obviously to be able to create new factors based on subjective impressions and reactions. I assume extroversion would to some extent be repression of these instinctive factors in favor of what rests in the object in the present moment, as you say, it needs context, as it does not focus on creating psychic facts like "laws" or "truths" drawn from the world but instead the interaction of objects in the world as is, but it still needs some ways to evaluate things (if judgement) to help it come to conclusions.


* *







Psychological types (1921): The Introverted Type -The General Attitude of Consciousness said:


> As the subjective factor, then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the object, makes a new psychic fact. Now, in so far as the subjective factor, since oldest times and among all peoples, remains in a very large measure identical with itself—since elementary perceptions and cognitions are almost universally the same—it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the outer object





Psychological types (1921): The Introverted Type -The General Attitude of Consciousness said:


> Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man—we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.





Psychological types (1921): The Introverted Type -The General Attitude of Consciousness said:


> The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity, but which to the subject is an ever present subjective factor. This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject's ego, an assumption that is certainly implied in the above mentioned designations of Weininger; it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego. The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, because the former also embraces the unconscious, while the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness.





Psychological types (1921): The Introverted Type -The General Attitude of Consciousness said:


> The individual Self is a portion, or excerpt, or representative, of something universally present in all living creatures, and, therefore, a correspondingly graduated kind of psychological process, which is born anew in every creature. Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the object I have proposed the term archetype.


I love Jung so much. I'd definitely let him psychonanalyze me.


----------

