# How to develop Fi?



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

I love my Fe but I think having a more developed Fi would help me to balance more myself.
For the Enneagram the type 2 should fit with the extrovert feeling (even if I know that there are MTBI types that have Fi and are twos) while the 4 should fit with the introvert feeling.
Since in the Enneagram I'm a 2 and I should integrate myself to the number 4, I think that maybe the mechanism is similar, at least to myself, so I think that developing more Fi would help me a lot.

Which would be some ways to develop my Fi?


----------



## littleblackdress (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, I wouldn't do it myself. I find working with very inferior functions tends to just make one feel, well inferior... If you are determined to do it, however, hang out with an INFP or ISFP - one who has Fi as a first function - then pick their brain, so to speak. However, another option is to develop your Ti, and internalize and systemize your value system that way. Ask yourself what your values are and why, and what kind of person you envision yourself as, and see if your current actions and values lead to being the type of person you envision yourself as... Ti can puzzle through a lot. In fact, I believe this course is more a normal sequence of development for an ESFJ - it helps turn a very reactive immature ESFJ to a responsive and consistent mature ESFJ.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

littleblackdress said:


> Well, I wouldn't do it myself. I find working with very inferior functions tends to just make one feel, well inferior... If you are determined to do it, however, hang out with an INFP or ISFP - one who has Fi as a first function - then pick their brain, so to speak. However, another option is to develop your Ti, and internalize and systemize your value system that way. Ask yourself what your values are and why, and what kind of person you envision yourself as, and see if your current actions and values lead to being the type of person you envision yourself as... Ti can puzzle through a lot. In fact, I believe this course is more a normal sequence of development for an ESFJ - it helps turn a very reactive immature ESFJ to a responsive and consistent mature ESFJ.


Thank you! But don't you think that since in the Enneagram I've to go forward 4, that means that I've to develop Fi?
Fi and 4 even if they don't fit perfectly have a lot in common:
- want expressing feelings\emotions in an artistic way
- They are self-aware
- they want be seen as unique
ecc...


----------



## littleblackdress (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, much of that describes a right brained ENTP - an Fe user. Performers are also ESFP - very artistic and expressive with Fe. I think that a unified vision of what you believe and feel with introspection is what you might want... and you can get that with Fe+developed Ti...


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

littleblackdress said:


> Well, much of that describes a right brained ENTP - an Fe user. Performers are also ESFP - very artistic and expressive with Fe. I think that a unified vision of what you believe and feel with introspection is what you might want... and you can get that with Fe+developed Ti...


That's very interesting. Effectively that makes sense: my sister is a INTP and she's more interdependent than me, and in the past I suspected that she would have Fi instead of Fe because of that.
Sorry but ESFP aren't Fi users? 
However maybe Ti could help myself to be more independent in general, but in order to more emotional independent Fi would help me more, no? Or is the combination of Ti with Fe that creates an equilibrium similar of having Fi? 
If the answer is yes, so my question could change: How I develop my Ti? :tongue:


----------



## littleblackdress (Feb 24, 2013)

Crap, sorry - not thinking. Yes, Fi users. Too damned early in the morning with a baby! I am actually a 4w5 and I am an Fe user - I wouldn't think that you would need to develop Fi - you simply need to be able to do what Fi users do... and Fi is all about personal values that are not dependent on society. Engaging rational logic to behaviour actually creates a unified set of values - especially when one has Ti - constantly looking for the missing pieces... deciding what of societies norms and values are appropriate (Ti views this as fitting logically with your ideals), and what are not.


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

Never develop your shadow functions, it's no good.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Vendetta said:


> Never develop your shadow functions, it's no good.


So don't you think that trying to be close to 4 isn't to me the same of developing Fi?


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

Little Cloud said:


> So don't you think that trying to be close to 4 isn't to me the same of developing Fi?


Fe is the way you process your feelings, Fi is a force that goes just the opposite, it wouldn't work for you.


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

Vendetta said:


> Never develop your shadow functions, it's no good.


Why not? Isn't it important to be well rounded? Or to develop your weaknesses so that they aren't, at least, a hindrance?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Vendetta said:


> Fe is the way you process your feelings, Fi is a force that goes just the opposite, it wouldn't work for you.


This is silly.
Everyone uses all 8 functions we just have a tendency to naturally default to some.

How are Fe and Fi opposed in such a "dangerous" way? Can one not love themselves and others at the same time?

Fe:The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure.

The "social graces," such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling.​
And Fi:It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words.
As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in.

There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life's situations.​
How is this opposed?
It's obvious that some people use one more than the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean exercising both is going to turn someone into some kind of weird hybrid unhuman thingy.


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

clairdelunatic said:


> Why not? Isn't it important to be well rounded? Or to develop your weaknesses so that they aren't, at least, a hindrance?


Shadow functions are not your weaknesses, you use only one type of feeling using the other would be extremely draining. It's better to maximize who you are.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

@clairdelunatic @JungleDisco
I agree with you both. Fe is my dominant function and I don't want to change it or make it less strength, I just want to develop also my Fi, because I think in that way:
- I'll be able to be more emotively independent, I could be, for example, sometimes, happy even if people around me aren't happy
- I could think more on my own emotions\feelings and to think more about my needs
- I could express my emotions in an artistic way
- I could think less about others think of me
- I could be satisfied even if I'm not linked to people with whom I stay


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Little Cloud said:


> @_clairdelunatic_ @_JungleDisco_
> I agree with you both. Fe is my dominant function and I don't want to change it or make it less strength, I just want to develop also my Fi, because I think in that way:
> - I'll be able to be more emotively independent, I could be, for example, sometimes, happy even if people around me aren't happy
> - I could think more on my own emotions\feelings and to think more about my needs
> ...


I know how you feel ><
I'm not sure what the difference between developing Fi and doing what Fi users do is, because the process is the same and the more you do something, the more natural it becomes anyway, so technically that's still developing it... but if I were you I would go for it.

Not caring what other people will say/think is the most liberating thing in the world!

Also, all functions are draining if you try and do both at the same time. You can't Ni/Ne at the same time, but that doesn't mean you can't ever do it... it's like learning how to use one or other in the right situation.


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> This is silly.
> Everyone uses all 8 functions we just have a tendency to naturally default to some.
> 
> How are Fe and Fi opposed in such a "dangerous" way? Can one not love themselves and others at the same time?
> ...


Ah really? How do you think ENFPs get so well with people? By using Fe? They have one dominant feeling function which is Fi and because they are extroverts they can express their Fi, and use Fi for social purposes. Fi is the reason behind all this people people thing, tell him to develop his Fe and he'll get nothing. 
Take a look at your idols, how well-rounded are they? Really take a look, they make use 90% of the time of their first and second function. 
MBTI is telling you that each type has it's gifts and it's flaws, if you think that's silly go learn something else, because going your way MBTI is going to be pretty silly and useless.
Now you're going to repeat the same things over and over just like every debate I had over this particular subject. So yeah go develop your 8 functions and tell me how greatly it works for you.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

JungleDisco said:


> I know how you feel ><
> I'm not sure what the difference between developing Fi and doing what Fi users do is, because the process is the same and the more you do something, the more natural it becomes anyway, so technically that's still developing it... but if I were you I would go for it.
> 
> Not caring what other people will say/think is the most liberating thing in the world!
> ...


So what main functions do you think you have? Fe or Fi?
Yes, I would love to achieve this kind of sensation, because with Fe as dominant it's very hard to not care about others in general, and that's on one hand it's fantastic, but one the other hand it could be terrible.
Thank you for the advice, I'll try to act as a Fi user sometimes, leaving aside for a little time my Fe. I hope with the time I would be able to do that with no really problems! :wink:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Vendetta said:


> Ah really? How do you think ENFPs get so well with people? By using Fe? They have one dominant feeling function which is Fi and because they are extroverts they can express their Fi, *and use Fi for social purposes*. Fi is the reason behind all this people people thing, tell him to develop his Fe and he'll get nothing.
> Take a look at your idols, how well-rounded are they? Really take a look, they make use 90% of the time of their first and second function.
> MBTI is telling you that each type has it's gifts and it's flaws, if you think that's silly go learn something else, because going your way MBTI is going to be pretty silly and useless.
> Now you're going to repeat the same things over and over just like every debate I had over this particular subject. So yeah go develop your 8 functions and tell me how greatly it works for you.


First off, Fi is not a social function, so that doesn't make sense. It's a private, internal function. You don't really express it as it's about internal values/feelings/hunches, you just feel it. And ENFP's don't use their Fi to connect with people... If anything Fi is what makes ENFP's feel so separate from people!
They use Fi to build their strong internal value system. Second of all, I didn't say you have to use all 8 at the same time, so the "well-rounded" argument is defunct. Finally, I'm saying, nobody is just 4 functions, people are more than just the functions because people are more than just how they process and judge information.


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> First off, Fi is not a social function, so that doesn't make sense. It's a private, internal function. And ENFP's don't use their Fi to connect with people.... They use it to build their strong internal value system. Second of all, I didn't say you have to use all 8 at the same time, so the "well-rounded" argument is defunct. Finally, I'm saying, nobody is just 4 functions, people are more than just the functions because people are more than just how they process and judge information.


Ne-Fi my friend, why don't ENTPs get along with people better yet they have Fe with the same intuition. Internal feeling can be driven out towards people, even Fe is about values but values that are more attached to the external world such as concerning people and society as opposed to the Fi's Self value system. You kinda see now? Fe has a value system of it's own, then comes you the scumbag of MBTI and put Fi along with Fe. It's gonna be confusing because these functions are CONTRADICTORY. MBTI speaking you are only your 4 functions more specifically your two first functions, which defines you MBTI speaking. Psychologically speaking you are much more than your functions but we're studying a specific science and there is no expansion I'm afraid.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Vendetta said:


> Ne-Fi my friend, why don't ENTPs get along with people better yet they have Fe with the same intuition. Internal feeling can be driven out towards people, even Fe is about values but values that are more attached to the external world such as concerning people and society as opposed to the Fi's Self value system. You kinda see now? Fe has a value system of it's own, then comes you the scumbag of MBTI and put Fi along with Fe. It's gonna be confusing because these functions are CONTRADICTORY. MBTI speaking you are only your 4 functions more specifically your two first functions, which defines you MBTI speaking. Psychologically speaking you are much more than your functions but we're studying a specific science and there is no expansion I'm afraid.


MBTI is not a science :frustrating:
Even more hilarious, MBTI doesn't even use functions they just acknowledge Feeling, Sensing, Thinking and Intuition.
HAHAHAHAHAHA this post is pure lolage. Fi is a self-value system, correct. Fe is a social value system, also correct. My point is HOW are these opposed? Why is it impossible to have personal values and still follow social norms?!

You've just told me a really nice story about ENFP's. LOL.

Also, try driving personal feelings out of an ENFP and let me know how that goes for you :wink:

edit: If MBTI is a science, homeopathy is actually medicine and psychics do really live in the supernatural realm.


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> MBTI is not a science :frustrating:
> Even more hilarious, MBTI doesn't even use functions they just acknowledge Feeling, Sensing, Thinking and Intuition.
> HAHAHAHAHAHA this post is pure lolage. Fi is a self-value system, correct. Fe is a social value system, also correct. My point is HOW are these opposed? Why is it impossible to have personal values and still follow social norms?!
> 
> ...


Totally doesn't get my point, instead just focuses on picking up words and capitalizing the HAHAHA thing I didn't mean science literally, i think you understand that. And no you actually USE functions don't you know that?
But you obviously know nothing since you're coping raw book material and putting it here so you can have fun disproving me, but the thing is you have to understand the functions as they work in real life, something you clearly don't do, I think if you understand Fe and Fi you would know that they do not work together that's why they drain eachother. Fe = -Fi, that's it.
And about the ENFPs I don't see how that contradicts what I said.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Fi is internal, that feeling deep in the pit of your stomach that something is right, wrong, fair unfair, correct, incorrect. You just know as if by instinct without relying on any external system of morals, laws etc. "You feel it in your bones." If the wold and society would go under you'd still know what is good and what is not, what you like and what not, you'd go against God if you'd have to and tear down the hypocrisy, the veil of lies and deception to expose the raw core of it so you can rip out the infection! Nothing external is sacred enough. 

Fi is conscience, the burning inner flame. Nothing external may stand in it's way. 

Its easy to train, just get into a situation and hold your inner ear to the ground. What do you feel about everything outside of yourself? What is the relationship between you and everything else?

Imo Fi is simple, fast and efficient.  plus Fi doms can make the best damn omelets ever! Improv. cooking is a Fi thing.

People say Fi is a system of values. NO IT IS NOT! Fi is a function, it acts, it judges, it does not build a database of values, yet a Fi dom knows what he/she values.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Fi is internal, that feeling deep in the pit of your stomach that something is right, wrong, fair unfair, correct, incorrect. You just know as if by instinct without relying on any external system of morals, laws etc. "You feel it in your bones."
> 
> :::snip:::
> 
> People say Fi is a system of values. NO IT IS NOT! Fi is a function, it acts, it judges, it does not build a database of values, yet a Fi dom knows what he/she values.


Allow me to disagree a bit with the first part, though I suspect we are actually saying, in essence, the same thing. But I would characterize Fi, not so much as operating without any external influence, but rather that external value systems merely inform the Fi function. On the other hand, Fe seems to me to be more rigidly connected/obedient to external value systems. So, for Fi, external value systems are guidelines, while for Fe, they are rules (the code) that must be followed. ;-)

I say this, because I don't see any introverted function being able to operate in a vacuum. One has to learn things somewhere. One has to get information in, in order to get information out again. The thing is, if you can convince of the validity of your values, I can internalize them for myself, but don't ever expect me to just do it "to keep the peace" or just because it is the accepted norm. <rant>In fact, even though I now understand that this sort of thinking seems to be the result of an extroverted ethics function, and how it seems to help societal groups function, I still find this way of acting distasteful, and difficult (read impossible) to justify.</rant>

To return to my original point. I don't think that Fi is devoid of any outside influence. It's just that that outside influence needs to justify its existence before it can be internalized.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Fi is internal, that feeling deep in the pit of your stomach that something is right, wrong, fair unfair, correct, incorrect. You just know as if by instinct without relying on any external system of morals, laws etc. "You feel it in your bones." If the wold and society would go under you'd still know what is good and what is not, what you like and what not, you'd go against God if you'd have to and tear down the hypocrisy, the veil of lies and deception to expose the raw core of it so you can rip out the infection! Nothing external is sacred enough.
> 
> Fi is conscience, the burning inner flame. Nothing external may stand in it's way.
> 
> ...



That's the best most clear description of Fi, ever.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> Allow me to disagree a bit with the first part, though I suspect we are actually saying, in essence, the same thing. But I would characterize Fi, not so much as operating without any external influence, but rather that external value systems merely inform the Fi function. On the other hand, Fe seems to me to be more rigidly connected/obedient to external value systems. So, for Fi, external value systems are guidelines, while for Fe, they are rules (the code) that must be followed. ;-)
> 
> I say this, because I don't see any introverted function being able to operate in a vacuum. One has to learn things somewhere. One has to get information in, in order to get information out again. The thing is, if you can convince of the validity of your values, I can internalize them for myself, but don't ever expect me to just do it "to keep the peace" or just because it is the accepted norm. <rant>In fact, even though I now understand that this sort of thinking seems to be the result of an extroverted ethics function, and how it seems to help societal groups function, I still find this way of acting distasteful, and difficult (read impossible) to justify.</rant>
> 
> To return to my original point. I don't think that Fi is devoid of any outside influence. It's just that that outside influence needs to justify its existence before it can be internalized.


*Quoting personalityjunkie on Fi:* For example, I didn’t have to factually discern a respect for human dignity; I simply found myself in situations where people did not respect human dignity, and it made me angry — I found out that I hate bullying.”


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> *Quoting personalityjunkie on Fi:* For example, I didn’t have to factually discern a respect for human dignity; I simply found myself in situations where people did not respect human dignity, and it made me angry — I found out that I hate bullying.”


Ha! I love Personality Junkie. I think it's about the best, most reasoned and careful site out there on the functions, etc.  That said, he was describing one person's feelings. He's not saying much as to where these values actually come from. I have to confess that it is difficult to describe these things. In the same way, it's difficult to describe where Ti gets its foundational structure. I like this quote, btw, from the same guy, right before what you quoted:

_My inner values and feelings (Fi) are like a building, a structure of affections that inform my worldview. This involves an inner love for certain things, and an inner repulsion for other things. My values and feelings form “blocks” of varying hardness, depending on how strongly I feel about them; the stronger ones are more resilient…I constantly discover more about the structure as I go, and what I should change to make it better.

_What he is describing is his values/feelings being built out of blocks. This is kind of like how my wife describes her Ti. But the question is, where did those blocks come from? As adults, we like to think that we approach things as they are, but there is a lot that we have gotten, from our infancy up. The example you quote--bullying. That is a particular Fi trait, but as a young child--infant, really--our mothers, and/or family tend to protect us--value us. You take that away, and you frequently end up with a bully. So, a protected and safe-feeling child would revolt at the bully's behavior. Beyond that, starting in the earliest years in school or preschool, bullying is spoken and acted against, or at least given lip service. But a healthy Fi would hate to be bullied, so recognizes bullying as wrong, as well. So again, what you have is the external informing the internal, without prescribing. That's why I said what I said. Everything goes in, but only what matches what we have settled (those hard blocks) gets assimilated. Those harder blocks are the ones we have held the longest, and are the most reinforced. Like I said, nothing comes from a vacuum. It has to get in there somewhere. For Fi, though, I don't think it's always obvious--usually not. 

Oh, and one more thought. ;-) Fi is fed by our lesser functions. The first is our extro-sensing. We see around us, but our Ni also informs and reinforces our Fi. Again, Ni is very much beyond or outside language. How does one express these things in human language? I think this reinforces that sense that my values come from myself alone--and they do, in so far as our minds synthesize and build and create our own values from what we've taken in, thus appearing, even to ourselves, as if they have no outside influence. But I think there is an influence, but it's doing nothing more than informing, and shaping in little ways (and possibly indiscernible at the same time). So, the end result is that what comes out may look nothing like what went in. I think, on the other hand, that for Fe types, what goes in comes right back out. 

I don't know if this will help the OP or not, but I hope our discussion on Fi does.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> People say Fi is a system of values. NO IT IS NOT! Fi is a function, it acts, it judges, it does not build a database of values, yet a Fi dom knows what he/she values.


I'm not sure I quite understand this bit, but everything else I agree with wholeheartedly. Could you explain it?
If you know what you value, how do you know how much you value it if you haven't decided to store it in a bank of values? This doesn't make sense. It sounds contradictory. You are saying you have a "thing" (?) that guides your beliefs but it's not a _system _per se, it's a "gut reaction". Am I correct?

I noticed further down you quoted Personality Junkie, but from that same website you can also get this:


> My inner values and feelings (Fi) are like a building, a structure of affections that inform my worldview. This involves an inner love for certain things, and an inner repulsion for other things. My values and feelings form “blocks” of varying hardness, depending on how strongly I feel about them; the stronger ones are more resilient…I constantly discover more about the structure as I go, and what I should change to make it better.


That sounds like a system of values that informs worldview. This has been my experience with Fi users, their values are black and white. You can not challenge their views directly, they need to experience a shift in their "gut reaction" of a situation before they change their opinion on something.

This is similar to how I experience Ti; when presented with something I just get a "gut reaction" or hunch that it is either logically sound or not. But I can not always describe why I do not think this view is irrational, and then I get frustrated. I think this is Ni-Ti at work though, not too sure.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> I'm not sure I quite understand this bit, but everything else I agree with wholeheartedly. Could you explain it?
> 
> I noticed further down you quoted Personality Junkie, but from that same website you can also get this:
> 
> ...


Fi is not a system, because it is a *function*. More specifically it is the judging of incoming information by attributing value to it. A value that is subjective. While it may lead to someone on the outside percieving it as "a system of values that is internal", I as a Fi user am not aware of this so called system's structure or all the values combined into a structure and if it exists, Fi is still not the system itself, but a action that led to the forming of such a said system.

If you ask about my values my answer will be that it depends on what I feel once I am facing a specific situation, I can not enumerate them or make a list of values or give you specifics about the structure/components of this system of values that is supposed to exist.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> If you ask about my values my answer will be that it depends on what I feel once I am facing a specific situation, I can not enumerate them or make a list of values or give you specifics about the structure/components of this system of values that is supposed to exist.


This is very true. Outside of a context, I don't think I could elucidate what I think or feel in linguistic terms. And I frequently don't know until I actually approach a situation, exactly where I'll come down on it, but generally, once it does happen, I can then clarify, in my mind, at least, the structure underneath. Maybe that's why I like that part from the Personality Junkie page that both @JungleDisco and I quoted, about the blocks. Foundations exist below the surface, but they hold the entire building up. 

But definitely, we ought not confuse the _function_ Fi with the _result_ (or output) of the function Fi.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Fi is not a system, because it is a *function*. More specifically it is the judging of incoming information by attributing value to it. A value that is subjective. While it may lead to someone on the outside percieving it as "a system of values that is internal", I as a Fi user am not aware of this so called system's structure or all the values combined into a structure and if it exists, Fi is still not the system itself, but a action that led to the forming of such a said system.
> 
> If you ask about my values my answer will be that it depends on what I feel once I am facing a specific situation, I can not enumerate them or make a list of values or give you specifics about the structure/components of this system of values that is supposed to exist.


Something being a function (in Jungian terms) does not mean it can not be a system either.
These two are not mutually exclusive. Ti is described as a system and I don't usually see INTP's going up in arms about that peculiar lexical choice.

You keep describing it is a system too, eg the first underlined bit, how do you know how to attribute value to the incoming information if you do not have a system with which you judge it against?

If Fi is the development of this system, why build a system to not use it? That doesn't really make sense.
We know Fi makes value judgements so, it can not also make a system but then not use that system to come to its value judgment.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> Something being a function does not mean it can not be a system either.
> These two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> You keep describing it is a system to, eg the bolded bits, how do you know how to attribute value to the incoming information if you do not have a system with which you judge it by?


If the function and system were the same or identical, then all ISFPs would think exactly the same, or rather, come to identical conclusions. This is patently untrue, so we have to separate the function from the system(s) that result from the function.

Imagine a sorting box (like at an old post office). Everything that comes into the "system" gets sorted and pigeon-holed according to... a system that I designed and operate. Here's how it works. As things come in, they get put into pigeonholes. As the holes fill, some will remain empty, others will fill quite a lot, based on your internal sorting system. Now, here's the thing. It is subject to change/modification. But also that sorting system itself bears on how the incoming data and stored data are treated. It is only when the incoming data becomes overwhelmingly convincing, that the modifications will change. Until that point, however, the system stays in place as-is, and the system throws out what it considers bad data. And smaller changes happen easier than bigger ones. If I were to attempt to describe Fe, on the other hand (I think it's good to try to contrast the two to understand them better), I would say that Fe would be like using the Post Office's system, without any hope of modifying it. They have their rules for alphabetizing and/or sorting, and Fe sticks with those rules, even if, in practice, they aren't the ultimate or most efficient rules for operating the system. Am I right about Fe here?

I know the analogy is weak, but it's all I can come up with at the moment. ;-)


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> If the function and system were the same or identical, then all ISFPs would think exactly the same, or rather, come to identical conclusions. This is patently untrue, so we have to separate the function from the system(s) that result from the function.


No. A system can be subjective, hence why the function is introverted. It implies that the use of the function will be dependant solely on the user and not any external factors. So, I still don't really get what you mean by separating the function from its use. The function Introverted Feeling, implies it is subjective already so there is no need to further separate it.



> Imagine a sorting box (like at an old post office). Everything that comes into the "system" gets sorted and pigeon-holed according to... a system that I designed and operate. Here's how it works. As things come in, they get put into pigeonholes. As the holes fill, some will remain empty, others will fill quite a lot, based on your internal sorting system. Now, here's the thing. It is subject to change/modification. But also that sorting system itself bears on how the incoming data and stored data are treated. It is only when the incoming data becomes overwhelmingly convincing, that the modifications will change. Until that point, however, the system stays in place as-is, and the system throws out what it considers bad data. And smaller changes happen easier than bigger ones. If I were to attempt to describe Fe, on the other hand (I think it's good to try to contrast the two to understand them better), I would say that Fe would be like using the Post Office's system, without any hope of modifying it. They have their rules for alphabetizing and/or sorting, and Fe sticks with those rules, even if, in practice, they aren't the ultimate or most efficient rules for operating the system. Am I right about Fe here?
> 
> I know the analogy is weak, but it's all I can come up with at the moment. ;-)


I have no idea what that has to do with Fe, so no. The metaphor is incorrect.
Fe is like putting away my own subjective value judgements in favour of maintaining/encouraging harmony/ a general consensus.

Here is what personalityjunkie has to say about it:


> When Fe types engage with others, they are looking to create a bond of shared feeling, especially “good” feeling. This requires they not only extravert feeling, but also perceive it. They are hoping their feelings will be understood and reciprocated in a way that allows both parties to get on the same emotional page.


and


> In short, Fi is focused on rallying for specific causes or helping specific individuals, especially children, animals, and the underserved. Fe, contrast, is more concerned with a general fostering of consensus, harmony, and community.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> No. A system can be subjective, hence why the function is introverted. It implies that the use of the function will be dependant solely on the user and not any external factors. So, I still don't really get what you mean by separating the function from its use. The function Introverted Feeling, implies it is subjective already so there is no need to further separate it.


I see what you are saying. I guess I (and @FreeBeer) understood you, by using the word "system" an implication of external values, like how you described Fe. A system would imply something more universal. So that, all relying on their introverted feeling would/should come out with comparable value systems. To be honest, it sounds like a degrading of who I am. ;-) That's why the tempest in a teapot, so to speak. ;-)



> I have no idea what that has to do with Fe, so no. The metaphor is incorrect.
> Fe is like putting away my own subjective judgements in favour of maintaining/adopting a status quo.


But to my mind, you just said the same thing I did:

_If I were to attempt to describe Fe, on the other hand, I would say that Fe would be like using the Post Office's system, without any hope _(maybe I should have said here, "desire" or "wish")_ of modifying it. They have their rules for alphabetizing and/or sorting, and Fe sticks with those rules, even if, in practice, they aren't the ultimate or most efficient rules for operating the system.

_Fi would create their own system (subjective judgments), rather than adopt the Post Office's practices (maintaining/adopting a status quo). 

As an aside, I wonder if Ti and Te dominant/aux folk have the same misunderstandings that can get so heated? ;-)


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I see what you are saying. I guess I (and @_FreeBeer_) understood you, by using the word "system" an implication of external values, like how you described Fe. A system would imply something more universal. So that, all relying on their introverted feeling would/should come out with comparable value systems. To be honest, it sounds like a degrading of who I am. ;-) That's why the tempest in a teapot, so to speak. ;-)


No not at all! I know introverted feelers have their own personal values that they do not readily share, but from my observations these values are built like a system because they tend to be very black and white and rigid UNTIL they sense a shift in their gut reaction.




> But to my mind, you just said the same thing I did:
> 
> _If I were to attempt to describe Fe, on the other hand, I would say that Fe would be like using the Post Office's system, without any hope _(maybe I should have said here, "desire" or "wish")_ of modifying it. They have their rules for alphabetizing and/or sorting, and Fe sticks with those rules, even if, in practice, they aren't the ultimate or most efficient rules for operating the system.
> 
> ...


Now I understand you. And I agree, I do not tend to make my own personal feeling judgements. I use my inner world to process my thoughts and ideas, as opposed to my moral values.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> Something being a function (in Jungian terms) does not mean it can not be a system either.
> These two are not mutually exclusive. Ti is described as a system and I don't usually see INTP's going up in arms about that peculiar lexical choice.
> 
> You keep describing it is a system to, eg the first underlined bit, how do you know how to attribute value to the incoming information if you do not have a system with which you judge it against?
> ...


It is called a function and not a system for a specific reason. The value I give to incoming information is based on what I feel, Am I comfortable with it or not, how does it feel to me, does it bore me, exite me and so on. That is the starting point from which I form my attitude towards it as I start understanding why exactly it makes me feel a certain way and from here on out I can formulate a logical reason as to why aka the full fledged value which will stick with me from now on. As long as the information I have remains constant or similar it will not change.

I do not need to cotrast it to anything. I do not need an outside or internal standard to compare it with. I just know.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> It is called a function and not a system for a specific reason. The value I give to incoming information is based on what I feel, Am I comfortable with it or not, how does it feel to me, does it bore me, exite me and so on. That is the starting point from which I form my attitude towards it as I start understanding why exactly it makes me feel a certain way and from here on out I can formulate a logical reason as to why aka the full fledged value which will stick with me from now on. As long as the information I have remains constant or similar it will not change.
> 
> I do not need to cotrast it to anything. I do not need an outside or internal standard. I just know.


I'm going to compare this answer to ones given by Ni users who claim Ni is a mystical, unknowable, difficult to explain function.

...And I'm going to leave this thread here because it seems to me you just can't really put in words how your Fi works and because of that, it's not a system.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> No not at all! I know introverted feelers have their own personal values that they do not readily share, but from my observations these values are built like a system because they tend to be very black and white and rigid UNTIL they sense a shift in their gut reaction.


I just thought of another reason why "system" doesn't seem to fit my view of it. "System" generally implies a set standard of rules and processes. I have developed systems for work--work flows, worker schedules, etc. Those are systems, but Fi operates a bit differently. It's not a point-A to point-B or point-Z process. It operates more synthetically or (I hate to use this word) holistically. Even the sorting box metaphor isn't quite right for me, but it was what I could think of on the spot. This is because what happens, tends to happen outside of conscious, or rational thought. The building metaphor probably fits better, because, while it is comprised of systems (plumbing, electric, etc.) it is more than the sum of the parts. They all serve the whole, and the whole is both aesthetic and functional. There are rooms for fulfilling certain functions, like cooking or sleeping, and also decorations, etc. To change that internal system would require renovation--tearing out the old, and rebuilding the new. Oh, and just because, to you on the outside, it appears as black and white, on the inside, it is very beautiful and a wonderful home to live in. ;-) (at least most of the time)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> ...And I'm going to leave this thread here because it seems to me you just can't really put in words how your Fi works and because of that, it's not a system.


Bingo!!!roud: You nailed it!


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I just thought of another reason why "system" doesn't seem to fit my view of it. "System" generally implies a set standard of rules and processes. I have developed systems for work--work flows, worker schedules, etc. Those are systems, but Fi operates a bit differently. It's not a point-A to point-B or point-Z process. It operates more synthetically or (I hate to use this word) holistically. Even the sorting box metaphor isn't quite right for me, but it was what I could think of on the spot. This is because what happens, tends to happen outside of conscious, or rational thought. The building metaphor probably fits better, because, while it is comprised of systems (plumbing, electric, etc.) it is more than the sum of the parts. They all serve the whole, and the whole is both aesthetic and functional. There are rooms for fulfilling certain functions, like cooking or sleeping, and also decorations, etc. To change that internal system would require renovation--tearing out the old, and rebuilding the new. Oh, and just because, to you on the outside, it appears as black and white, on the inside, it is very beautiful and a wonderful home to live in. ;-) (at least most of the time)


I don't use "system" to mean automated process.
I use "system" to mean "A set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular." - from google dictionary.



ferroequinologist said:


> Bingo!!!roud: You nailed it!


That was irony.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> That was irony.


So was mine. ;-)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> I'm going to compare this answer to ones given by Ni users who claim Ni is a mystical, unknowable, difficult to explain function.
> 
> ...And I'm going to leave this thread here because it seems to me you just can't really put in words how your Fi works and because of that, it's not a system.


Its not a system because the valuesystem is the result of the function, not the function itself. Why is that so hard to comprehend? How does a baby know what it likes and what it doesen't? Is it born with a preestablished set of values? Ofc not.

Maybe mine and ferroequinologist's approach is strange because we are Ni-ish and not Si-ish.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Its not a system because the value system is the result of the function, not the function itself. Why is that so hard to comprehend?


I think you are separating the word function and use unnecessarily, that's the point.
The word Function implies use/purpose.
As it does with all functions.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> I think you are separating the word function and use unnecessarily, that's the point.
> The word Function implies use/purpose.
> As it does with all functions.


It is not interpretable:

*Cognitive function* Noun - mental process - (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents;
*
System* - Noun
A set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

Fi-Se-Ni-Te <---cognitive function system
Fi <---cognitive function


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> It is not interpretable:
> 
> *Cognitive function* Noun - mental process - (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents;
> *
> ...


*breathes a deep heavy sigh*

Right, I want to say, I understand fully what you are talking about.
The reason I believe we are disagreeing is that you are saying Fi is the function that builds the system of values, but is not the system of values it builds. 

I am saying, Fi is a system of values because you use that subjective system you have built over time to _make_ value judgments. Which is consistent with the second definition of System you posted. Fi can be the set of "things" (values) working together as part of an "interconnecting network" (moral framework), at least that is how I look at it.

It is also consistent with your definition of cognitive function, "the performance of some composite cognitive activity", composite here could imply a synthesised framework, i.e. a system.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> *breathes a deep heavy sigh*
> 
> Right, I want to say, I understand fully what you are talking about.
> The reason I believe we are disagreeing is that you are saying Fi is the function that builds the system of values, but is not the system of values it builds.
> ...


o.o so where do the values come from?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o so where do the values come from?


you build the framework of values over time I believe.

This is consistent with the definition of Introverted feeling from personalityjunkie, the one that has already been quoted:


> I constantly discover more about the structure as I go, and what I should change to make it better.


edit
oh and this one:


> Introverted Feeling also works to shape its own worldview—a personalized system of values—that can serve as a platform for self-understanding and decision-making. In this sense, it is similar to Ti, which also involves a process of building or modifying an inner structure.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> you build the framework of values over time I believe.
> 
> This is consistent with the definition of Introverted feeling from personalityjunkie, the one that has already been quoted:
> 
> ...


Isn't that what I was describing? Fi builds the value system through exposure to new situations by giving value to incoming information(Se-Ne)...o.o, values are then stored in memory and do not change unless new information forces them to, through a process of reevaluation. Imo while Fi makes use of stored subjective values, it is not the system of values. The system is a consequence of Se or Ne ---> Fi --->memory.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

clairdelunatic said:


> Why not? Isn't it important to be well rounded? Or to develop your weaknesses so that they aren't, at least, a hindrance?


----------



## Pom87 (Apr 7, 2012)

By being someone that uses it.


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

MissJordan said:


>


Thanks for the video, MissJordan.  An NT who sounds like Kai Risdall. Where can I get his number? lol

Not for that reason, I watched the rest of his videos. They're a really great preview, and visualizing the functional stack, as he presents it, is very helpful. But where does grasshopper go next? I really want to learn about functions, as he suggests. But his videos are frustratingly... "peripheral," if that word applies here. And if only he hadn't started off with Dana White as an example of successful people to want to be like. After being forced to watch Ultimate Fighter for several seasons, I... HATE.... him.

After watching the video, I'd like to clarify: is SuperDave saying we shouldn't work on shadow functions because it's just a waste of energy if we want to be "great?" I think this is what @Vendetta was getting at earlier in the thread. But what if a person doesn't want to be successful in the way Dana White is successful? 

I wish someone would explain why wanting to have all my bases covered is automatically bad. Or is it that I should stop worrying and trust that my subconscious has my shadow functions ready to use when I'm under duress?

Also (and this is a slight tangent... I wish PerC had a way of organizing tangents in threads)... I came across this thread after watching those videos. Someone says that developing shadow functions is downright _dangerous_. Really? WHY?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

clairdelunatic said:


> is SuperDave saying we shouldn't work on shadow functions because it's just a waste of energy if we want to be "great?" I think this is what @_Vendetta_ was getting at earlier in the thread. But what if a person doesn't want to be successful in the way Dana White is successful?
> 
> I wish someone would explain why wanting to have all my bases covered is automatically bad. Or is it that I should stop worrying and trust that my subconscious has my shadow functions ready to use when I'm under duress?


I think that what he was actually trying to get across was that concentrating on your strengths will lift all the functions as those strengthen. I think this is because you cannot strengthen your strong functions without also using all the others, so exercising your strengths will also exercise all of them. Of course, then he goes in another video and talks about how to build your inferior function, so I'm not sure how serious he is across the board, or how trustworthy what he is saying is. I can only tell you my perspective after many, many years of attempting to work my life into the mold of others (which meant using those lower four functions whether consciously or not), and I can tell you that if you do that a midlife crisis will definitely be in your future, as you attempt to sort out who you really are, and who you really want to be. So, for me, my money would be on the "strengthen your strong points, and let the others come along for the ride." ;-) 

The one thing you have to realize is that if your inferior function is already a primitive, immature, and not at all trustworthy guide, why do we think we want to play around in that dark field of the functions that are even further immature, primitive and not well understood? You think you are developing, but what you are really doing is delving into a bottomless pit of the unknown, and you have no idea what you may find there. I have my doubts about the subconscious as frequently understood, but most certainly there is an unconscious side of us that we aren't really in touch with. This does not mean we should seek it directly, however. I think letting it work behind the scenes through our four conscious functions is probably the safest, and will also probably also yield the greatest fruit, long term. Don't try to become someone you are not. That's what I would advise, for what it's worth (hey, it's free advice!) :kitteh: (and I'm not offering this as advice, only my perspective.)


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime (Dec 13, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Fi is internal, that feeling deep in the pit of your stomach that something is right, wrong, fair unfair, correct, incorrect. You just know as if by instinct without relying on any external system of morals, laws etc. "You feel it in your bones." If the wold and society would go under you'd still know what is good and what is not, what you like and what not, you'd go against God if you'd have to and tear down the hypocrisy, the veil of lies and deception to expose the raw core of it so you can rip out the infection! Nothing external is sacred enough.
> 
> Fi is conscience, the burning inner flame. Nothing external may stand in it's way.
> 
> ...


Exactamundo










Although the last portion is exactly what makes me doubt the Fi-dom in myself hence forever putting me outside the typing box. Or my values are just so... changeable dependent on my stage in life. But at the end of the day. I follow myself and myself only.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

@ferroequinologist 
But if you have reason how do you explain why a lot of people that belongs for example to ESFJs have a pretty developed Fi?
I've just made a test of cognitive functions and my Fi is scored immediately after my Fe , so in a quite high level!

*Your Cognitive Functions:
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.38
Introverted Feeling (Fi) ||||||||||||||||| 7.885
Introverted Sensation (Si) ||||||||||||||||| 7.7
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||||||||||| 6.46
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||| 5.6
Extroverted Sensation (Se) ||||||||| 3.94
Extroverted Thinking (Te) ||||||| 2.78
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||| 2.53

*Do you think that the test is not accurate? I think too that I've a quite developed Fi almost for being a ESFJ.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime (Dec 13, 2012)

Little Cloud said:


> @_ferroequinologist_
> But if you have reason how do you explain why a lot of people that belongs for example to ESFJs have a pretty developed Fi?
> I've just made a test of cognitive functions and my Fi is scored immediately after my Fe , so in a quite high level!
> 
> ...


A lot of Fi users also score high on Fe. It's because Fi can manifest that it looks like Fe, vice versa. An Fi user might have a subjective set of values that mirror the objective set of values while the Fe user could also have internalized the objective set of values they perceive through some introverted function like Ni or Si. 

Source: it came from my ass but hey I'm an Fi Ni!! :laughing:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Little Cloud said:


> @ferroequinlogist
> But if you have reason how do you explain why a lot of people that belongs for example to ESFJs have a pretty developed Fi?
> I've just made a test of cognitive functions and my Fi is scored immediately after my Fe , so in a quite high level!
> 
> ...


I have taken a test on teamtechnology.co.uk, and my scores were like this--actually, all my functions were heavily weighted on the introvert side in this test. However, in actual practice, when played out in real life, I see the values clash all the time between my Fi and my Fe. Also, my supposedly extroverted sensing was also heavily weighted toward Si in the test, but again, in reality, Si is like, "huh?" I not only do not understand it, but my best friend and coworker _is_ an Si, and this is one area where he and I just don't see eye-to-eye. Oh, and my thinking was the same, yet my Te, while frequently testing weak, is actually, in real life, much more dominant than my Ti. Lastly, My wife is a classic INTP, and we experience the clash of the differences almost every day. Now, after 20 plus years of not knowing about these things, we learned to live and work and live within that, but because of her, I have quickly learned how the introverted and extroverted functions counteract each other in real life, despite what the tests say. 

Here is how I would put it. You may have a strong "awareness" of your Fi at a theoretical level, but when push comes to shove, your Fe will win out every time. Also, like left-handedness or righthandedness--your opposite hand may be able to perform some functions well--for instance, I golf right-handed because lefty clubs are so hard to find and expensive. Also, I can shoot a basketball right-handed, and loved, when I played, swapping sides for layups because it kept the other guy on his toes, never knowing which side I was going to go next--I developed that on purpose for that function. Oh, and I also could swap for a righty hockey stick if I couldn't find a lefty, and we all know that many pro baseball players switch hit. You can exercise a function for one purpose, I would suppose, but for the sake of a healthy personality and lifestyle, having lived both sides of the fence, so to speak, I would much rather have developed my strong points through the past 30 years of my adulthood than done what I did, (due to circumstances, and people I live and work with) try to be someone I'm not, and develop those ghostly shadow functions. 

I guess the question is, which is more important to you? Developing yourself in the best, most efficient and rewarding manner, or simply exercising something just because... or because you think that somehow developing your weakest points at the expense of your strongest ones will help? I dunno... Like I said, I've been going through a midlife crisis this past year, spiraling around, trying to regain my direction. I believe I can attribute a huge part of that to the fact that I've been forcing myself to use these functions that are my weakest link at the expense of my strong functions. That's why this video really strikes a cord with me. Oh, here's a good article that I think describes my past year pretty well: Midlife Crisis, Stress and Depression Make sure you read past the first page of the article.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I have taken a test on teamtechnology.co.uk, and my scores were like this--actually, all my functions were heavily weighted on the introvert side in this test. However, in actual practice, when played out in real life, I see the values clash all the time between my Fi and my Fe. Also, my supposedly extroverted sensing was also heavily weighted toward Si in the test, but again, in reality, Si is like, "huh?" I not only do not understand it, but my best friend and coworker _is_ an Si, and this is one area where he and I just don't see eye-to-eye. Oh, and my thinking was the same, yet my Te, while frequently testing weak, is actually, in real life, much more dominant than my Ti. Lastly, My wife is a classic INTP, and we experience the clash of the differences almost every day. Now, after 20 plus years of not knowing about these things, we learned to live and work and live within that, but because of her, I have quickly learned how the introverted and extroverted functions counteract each other in real life, despite what the tests say.
> 
> Here is how I would put it. You may have a strong "awareness" of your Fi at a theoretical level, but when push comes to shove, your Fe will win out every time. Also, like left-handedness or righthandedness--your opposite hand may be able to perform some functions well--for instance, I golf right-handed because lefty clubs are so hard to find and expensive. Also, I can shoot a basketball right-handed, and loved, when I played, swapping sides for layups because it kept the other guy on his toes, never knowing which side I was going to go next--I developed that on purpose for that function. Oh, and I also could swap for a righty hockey stick if I couldn't find a lefty, and we all know that many pro baseball players switch hit. You can exercise a function for one purpose, I would suppose, but for the sake of a healthy personality and lifestyle, having lived both sides of the fence, so to speak, I would much rather have developed my strong points through the past 30 years of my adulthood than done what I did, (due to circumstances, and people I live and work with) try to be someone I'm not, and develop those ghostly shadow functions.
> 
> I guess the question is, which is more important to you? Developing yourself in the best, most efficient and rewarding manner, or simply exercising something just because... or because you think that somehow developing your weakest points at the expense of your strongest ones will help? I dunno... Like I said, I've been going through a midlife crisis this past year, spiraling around, trying to regain my direction. I believe I can attribute a huge part of that to the fact that I've been forcing myself to use these functions that are my weakest link at the expense of my strong functions. That's why this video really strikes a cord with me. Oh, here's a good article that I think describes my past year pretty well: Midlife Crisis, Stress and Depression Make sure you read past the first page of the article.


Thank you, I understand what you mean, I know that with these things one have to be careful. However I don't want to change myself, I love my functions, especially my Fe, I would not change it with anything else, but since I see my Fe is so developed and I'm very interested in other things like introspection. self-awareness and other things similar (that I think are important for each person), I've just begin to ask to myself if these things are related to the Fi function or not. If yes, I would like to develop it without exaggerate, gradually.


----------



## the gray man (Dec 19, 2013)

then comes you the scumbag of MBTI

-quote


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

Little Cloud said:


> @*ferroequinologist* @_puer_aeternus_ I would develop my Fi because I need more emotional independence. I don't want to need always to share my emotions to feel good with myself. I want know myself more, and so being more self-aware, and that means also knowing well my emotions\feelings, improve introspection. It's a thing that I would love to learn. I think that I'm just improved a little but I have a lot to do enough.
> I don't think that would drain me if I would do that in a moderate way and in some particular moments, sharing off for some time my Fe that could be by his own very draining, I can assure you.
> Do you have read the link that I've made with the Enneagram? I know that these things would be excellent for me if I manage the quality, because I think Fi it's very similar to the number 4 of the Enneagram, that is the number to I have to come closer as a 2 in order to integrate myself.



I understand what you mean. I am a Four INFP and my mother is a Two, probably ESFJ. She asked me the same question. In brief, as emotions are deeply attached to the body and sensations, you need to go through Si before getting to Fi. It is the easier way for you. I mean, if you spend some time sensing internally your body, sensations, you will create an inner space where you will be able to perceive new things, lay the settings for an inner understanding of yourself and needs, then you will developp some self knowledge and build/discover your own set of values. You already have this personal set of values, it is just that you cannot discriminate it from social values, yet (though I do not know where you are in your development, you may be already well advanced). So, my advice to you and my mother is to remember to focus on your body sensations while doing something, it will ground you better and give you the opportunity to develop your Fi in social interactions. So, in your case, Si is the key to Fi.


----------



## J4K0 (Jan 25, 2014)

Fi is defined as a judging function based on one's internal values. According to some of y'all, people with a conscious Fe are not conscious of Fi at all, or that some dreaded but vague consequence will arise from trying to develop it. Are you really trying to say that half of all types have no conscious notion of their own values?

This is just silly, and it pains me to see people speaking in such absolutist terms in regards to a theory with such little hard evidence to back it up.

IMO, people experience all of the functions consciously, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm Ne dominant, but that doesn't mean I don't consciously use Se. You'd have to be totally bonkers to only "view the world as possibilities".


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

J4K0 said:


> Fi is defined as a judging function based on one's internal values. According to some of y'all, people with a conscious Fe are not conscious of Fi at all, or that some dreaded but vague consequence will arise from trying to develop it. Are you really trying to say that half of all types have no conscious notion of their own values?
> 
> This is just silly, and it pains me to see people speaking in such absolutist terms in regards to a theory with such little hard evidence to back it up.
> 
> IMO, people experience all of the functions consciously, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm Ne dominant, but that doesn't mean I don't consciously use Se. You'd have to be totally bonkers to only "view the world as possibilities".


I'd love to spend a day walking behind you, watching you interact with the world, and see how you do. I'm sure it would be good for a few laughs. Trust me, I live with an INTP, and she can be quite fun watching how she can be totally oblivious to the world around her. 

We talk about "conscious" and "unconscious" functions in the way that Jung did (and Socionics), but the real truth is, for those functions we are less capable with, we _have_ to consciously be aware of them, or we will be totally unaware of them. So, for you, in reality, you don't actually think about "using" Ne. It just happens--naturally, without giving it any thought whatsoever. Se, on the other hand, you need to actually concentrate to observe the world around you. I, on the other hand, don't think about it. I just am there. My senses take in, evaluate, and I act or don't act. You should drive with my wife and me sometime. She's constantly pointing out things--"There's a car up ahead!" Yes. I already observed that, and noticed the driver, and the wheels--they aren't moving, the car isn't going to pull out, and if it does, I'm already ready to hit my breaks, oh, and I've already noticed that there are cars coming the other direction, so it would be a very bad idea to avoid him but yanking the car to the left--to the right it is. She makes herself consciously aware of all that is around us, but she is completely useless at properly evaluating them, and ranking dangers, non-dangers, potential, but low dangers, etc. The truth is, the more unconscious a function is, the more we have to consciously "use" that function. But that is where the pitfalls are. Trying to utilize the function opposite your dominant one is where there is a lot of internal conflict. I'd love to see you argue with a dominant Te person. I've seen my wife with them. She has absolutely no patience with them, and just brushes them off. She doesn't like discussing with such people at all. Why is that--it is offensive to her, how they try to dominate the thinking, and railroad things. This is how she would feel if she tried to "use" Te herself. It just feels wrong, and is very irritating. It's not that she can't, but it never feels right. Try eating with your opposite hand, or better yet, shoot a basketball or baseball. You can't really do it--sure, the mechanics are such that the ball will fly, but it won't fly where you want it, and not with anywhere near the precision or force than with your dominant hand. Now, try to not use your dominant hand at all for anything. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Now, Ti and Te are one thing, but Fi and Fe are in a whole different ball park (sticking with the ball and sport theme). We are talking values here--ethics--right and wrong. The question is about where do you feel compromised when having to compromise--what feels violated. For Fe types, it is when they must give up the "good of the whole" for their own sake. My INTP wife, being she's married to me, the Fi dom, sometimes feels very awkward when I won't compromise something for the sake of my family. She feels guilty when we/I have to do that. I don't understand that--to me, family is number one, bar none. I'll kill you rather than let harm come to my wife or kids. And I'll enjoy doing it if you've threatened or harmed one of them. But in any case, where do you feel the guilt when you must compromise? Fe feels it when sacrificing the whole for self, but Fi feels the compromise or the guilt when having to sacrifice its values for the sake of the whole. These two are entirely and wholly incompatible at that point. If one wants to "develop" their Fi, how can they do that? Can you make yourself not feel guilty for doing something you feel is wrong? Can you not help but feel violated when forced to do something you don't want? My Fe-dom daughter got caught in an awkward situation, and was forced to let a chaperone know what her roommates had done on an outing. She didn't want to, but was compelled, and she couldn't lie. That was last summer. She still feels guilty for the whole situation. I can guarantee you I wouldn't have. The girls chose their fate by doing what they did (which was both illegal and unsafe, and which, it turned out, the chaperones knew about, so they were going to get caught whether my daughter said anything or not). They dug their own grave, and I'd feel no guilt over it if it were me. So, let's "develop" our Fi here. I'll tell my daughter to not feel guilty. Sorry. Doesn't work like that--not in the world in which I live, at least. 

The thing is, people act like these are "things" that we "develop" like memorizing facts, or learning how to use a tool. It isn't quite like that. I think the handedness allegory is the best one. You can strengthen your weak hand, but only at the expense (short term or long term) of skill with your dominant hand, or even overall effectiveness. I think I stated here that in high school, I learned how to shoot a basketball with my right hand (I'm a lefty), but it not only wasn't easy, but it did effect me in weird ways. Sure it was useful in games, because I could keep my defender on his toes by mixing it up, but the problem is, I couldn't do it the whole game. Once I started to tire, I just couldn't shoot any more right-handed, so I'd have to revert to shooting only left-handed. And I had to constantly practice with my right hand, and when I was shooting right-handed, I wasn't practicing left-handed, and my normal shooting would suffer. It's not at all easy, unless you are ambidextrous, and there aren't that many people who can do everything with both hands. And aren't such people usually handicapped in other areas like speech or something? The brain just can't handle the polar opposites well, and from what I've seen, it holds up with these functions as well... Better to develop the heck out of your dominant functions, and you'll raise the rest with it. (And I could talk about a lifetime of living in my Te, due to work, etc. and the negative results that's had on me, but I've already bored everybody enough, and it's ugly, anyway)


----------



## J4K0 (Jan 25, 2014)

In order to validate any of your claims, a cognitive basis for these functions must be established. Neuroscience is not nearly so symmetrical and binary as the model we're using, and anecdotes hardly prove anything.


----------



## J4K0 (Jan 25, 2014)

Also there seems to be a bit of a false dichtomy in your reasoning here, that is, your internal values (Fi) are based on your awareness and concern for those around you (Fe), in this case your family. Again, the world just isn't that binary.


----------



## JusticeTaylor (Nov 21, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I think that what he was actually trying to get across was that concentrating on your strengths will lift all the functions as those strengthen. I think this is because you cannot strengthen your strong functions without also using all the others, so exercising your strengths will also exercise all of them. Of course, then he goes in another video and talks about how to build your inferior function, so I'm not sure how serious he is across the board, or how trustworthy what he is saying is. I can only tell you my perspective after many, many years of attempting to work my life into the mold of others (which meant using those lower four functions whether consciously or not), and I can tell you that if you do that a midlife crisis will definitely be in your future, as you attempt to sort out who you really are, and who you really want to be. So, for me, my money would be on the "strengthen your strong points, and let the others come along for the ride." ;-)
> 
> The one thing you have to realize is that if your inferior function is already a primitive, immature, and not at all trustworthy guide, why do we think we want to play around in that dark field of the functions that are even further immature, primitive and not well understood? You think you are developing, but what you are really doing is delving into a bottomless pit of the unknown, and you have no idea what you may find there. I have my doubts about the subconscious as frequently understood, but most certainly there is an unconscious side of us that we aren't really in touch with. This does not mean we should seek it directly, however. I think letting it work behind the scenes through our four conscious functions is probably the safest, and will also probably also yield the greatest fruit, long term. Don't try to become someone you are not. That's what I would advise, for what it's worth (hey, it's free advice!) :kitteh: (and I'm not offering this as advice, only my perspective.)


but it'd be so awesome to go off the deep end, at least once, you know?
although, accordingly, you'd be submerging your primary self. But, following the whole drowning logic i've started, in that case, you'd just have to take the dive in controlled intervals, and hopefully, you'll grow from the experience.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Not sure what direction this thread's been going but I'm going to say the functions tests give you a really, really, really rough idea. Actual development/position of a function is complex, and neither casual conversation with forum members nor testing will give you a sufficient idea of what its whole position, enough that you'll likely be able to develop it.

Even if you get how it's working in you very well, you tend to experience type-development slowly and gradually, not by doing some artificial things. A lot of the times your type in a fully functional individual is just a guideline, and one can't see some extremely pathological outward manifestation of the inferior sides of the psyche. 

The real answer to your question is to figure out what the position of a function is in you, meaning not really whether it's no 1, no 2, no 3, etc -- rather actually knowing specific ways it's important/playing a role in you, and then figure out what you really mean by develop.

As far as staying balanced, that's straightforward, you just need to let the function work where it is due. But what's an embedded lie there is it's not always easy to figure out where it is due.


----------

