# Fe as a hermit?



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Okay time to stop the bullshit. If you two want to pretend you know what you're talking about reference to any definition of Fe that says it's nature is capable of changing and being something other than what is described by Jung, Berens or anyone else who has published their descriptions. Otherwise you simply *attempting to make an argument on what you have made up* and nothing factual. I don't care about your opinion and what you think Fe can be. Show me any evidence it is what you are claiming.


Yes I do believe us intuitive types are actually trying to understand it rather than regurgitate what we have read by someone else. We have our own minds and use them. We are not robots that cannot think independently. We are trying to be open minded and come up with better understanding of it that can be better communicated, but in trying we are discussing and throwing out ideas to bounce back and forth to one anther.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Rosebier said:


> Yes I do believe us intuitive types are actually trying to understand it rather than regurgitate what we have read by someone else. We have our own minds and use them. We are not robots that cannot think independently. We are trying to be open minded and come up with better understanding of it that can be better communicated, but in trying we are discussing and throwing out ideas to bounce back and forth to one anther.


The problem is you are not trying to understand it. Instead, you are clueless (which is indicative of this thread) of the basic principles instead, creating your own version based on your limited understanding. That's not learning, that's creating an alternate view in lieu of reality and facts. To open your mind, you actually have to use it, understand basic principles and then build a new paradigm. I am open to any thoughts to better the system, but as alluded to above you people are attempting to claim what Fe does when you are still trying to understand what Fe is. To this point no one including your critique here shows no indication that you even know what Fe is let alone how you can come up with thoughts of how it works.

This is indicative of your initially saying:


> Se is not taking action it is an information gathering function. It is a streaming conscious attention to absorbing what is going on in this very moment. One of the judging functions takes over after the info is gathered to assist in making a decision on how to take action. I explain this further in my next post.


Don't try and deny it, because you erased your posts. We received it. Really? Se is not about taking action? Are you even familiar with the core values of the SP type? Improviser, Performer, Executor, Doer, freedom from hindrance to take action? You do not know what Se is, so arguing what it does seems relative don't you think? You go on further to argue (Again! Don't try to deny it)


> Actually it would be Fi only if you started focusing on it a viewing it as a personal value. Yes, Fe is Fi, but the Fi is subconscious. We are still viewing the memory of our loved ones in an Fe manner. Doing things for them now. ex. I am going to get really good at singing this particular song now while I have time on this island because my wife Mary would absolutely love it if I sang it to her when I get back. The Fe user does not view it as his own values to do things for others. He skips over that part of the thought process and goes directly to focusing on practicing singing the song. He is still relating to her even though her body is not physically 5ft away from him at the moment. How close does one have to be to another in order to use Fe? If your wife is at the grocery store and you are at home would making dinner for her the way she likes it not be considered Fe to the one who prefers to value Fe things? So, 5ft or 10 light yrs. Whats the difference? If your wife was in the next room and you decided to walk in there and tickle her because you know she always smiles when you do that, were you not using Fe when you were in the other room and first made the decision to interact with her?


WTF?? Simple rule of thumb that even an intuiting type should be able to understand..... If you are extraverting you will always focus on what is in front of you, whether it's Fe, Ne, Te, or Se..... That is what Jung calls a focus on the objective which means external world, not literally on an inanimate object as one of your intuiting cousins alluded to. Again Fe:


> Considering others and responding to them. *The extraverted Feeling process is used in relation to particular people and situations and so has a more here-and-now quality than a universal, future, or past quality. When particular people are out of our presence or awareness, we can then adjust to new people or situations.*


Nee I say more? If you're introverting then you are inside, subjective not focusing on an external object. Hence if you are motivating yourself to get back to your family because of your intonations of how they may be dealing with the matter, you CAN'T be using an extraverted function because they're not in your presence. You're using an introverting function.


> It is not a break in reality if you are aware that it is actually just a volley ball and you are simply imagining it as another person. On the contrary, Wilson was actually a tool Tom Hanks created so that he could remain sane. He knew he needed to have something to relate to (Fe) so he imagined Wilson. Ne provided the new info about how a person like Wilson might react to what Tom said and did, so that he could actually have relations and use Fe with him.


If you are having a dialogue with a volleyball and responding to it's inquiries, statements or critique, do you truly think you still know that is a volleyball? IMAGINING.... IMAGINING..... as in imagining the television just told you to kill your neighbor, your dog told you to rob a bank. No wonder this is a one-sided conversation if you think that imagining a volleyball is talking to you is not a break in reality... These are your words, not mine.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Well I was going to keep intuition out of the picture to preclude making it a N/S thing but since you brought it up, I guess I will go ahead and make appease you.
> 
> This has been indicative of my discussions with intuiting types for ten years now that you make it almost your personal crusade to not know the facts about type, and once you succeed in failing to understand the concepts you then begin to build your own beliefs on how the system works. You argue vehemently but unless the onlooker knows better, you actually sound credible until that little annoying point becomes apparent that what you’re saying is not based on principle. The more the topic is discussed the more it becomes apparent that the intuiting types have just blurted out a bunch of bullshit and attempted to pass it off as facts.


Actually, it_ is_ based on principle rather than the more tangible, yet less essential, outwards manifestations you prefer. Principle is the point. You are not using the principles of the system, you are treating it like a collection of attributes. There is meaning in which attributes are collected together and this meaning, this system, this fundamental principle is what intuitives see and what we are using to find more attributes and manifestations that fit within the pattern, ones that follow the basic principles since the theory could not list everything - it had to abstract. You seem to take these abstractions literally when they were not intended to be so limited and literal, but instead descriptive and ways of explaining the underlying ideas. The things you are quoting are not principles. They are only attributes.



Functianalyst said:


> After much argument it became quite apparent to everyone who has some knowledge of type that all you have stated was an opinion in such a strong manner to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about. This is indicative of the remaining of your point. Instead of learning the facts of how type works, you would rather make up shit in saying:....***...That made absolutely no sense, you are attempting to measure whether there are more ways of using Fe than Fi? What the hell!! If you do not know what a function is, then how the hell can you argue what it does? What it is, is quite apparent to everyone that knows about cognitive functions. If you do not know what it is, then you’re still at first base. Of course I am discussing what it does since learning what it is should be quite apparent, at least to those of us who actually read and digest the information and facts instead of making it up as we go.
> And the fact that you are even comparing cognitive functions to MBTI shows you are cluless. Cognitive functions (Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi) – Jung; rudimentary dichotomies E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P – MBTI. So understand there is a difference.


Try reading it again. That is not remotely close to what I am saying.



Functianalyst said:


> Okay time to stop the bullshit. If you two want to pretend you know what you're talking about reference to any definition of Fe that says it's nature is capable of changing and being something other than what is described by Jung, Berens or anyone else who has published their descriptions. Otherwise you simply attempting to make an argument on what you have made up and nothing factual. I don't care about your opinion and what you think Fe can be. Show me any evidence it is what you are claiming.


If you are incapable of seeing abstract patterns that exist in reality, that does not mean they are made up. It means you cannot think in patterns. You have not understood the whole concept of Fe but are just grasping at some limited definitions and insisting that this is all there is since, apparently, the limits of your personal understanding define reality. If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Actually, it_ is_ based on principle rather than the more tangible, yet less essential, outwards manifestations you prefer. Principle is the point. You are not using the principles of the system, you are treating it like a collection of attributes. There is meaning in which attributes are collected together and this meaning, this system, this fundamental principle is what intuitives see and what we are using to find more attributes and manifestations that fit within the pattern, ones that follow the basic principles since the theory could not list everything - it had to abstract. You seem to take these abstractions literally when they were not intended to be so limited and literal, but instead descriptive and ways of explaining the underlying ideas. The things you are quoting are not principles. They are only attributes.
> 
> Try reading it again. That is not remotely close to what I am saying.
> 
> If you are incapable of seeing abstract patterns that exist in reality, that does not mean they are made up. It means you cannot think in patterns. You have not understood the whole concept of Fe but are just grasping at some limited definitions and insisting that this is all there is since, apparently, the limits of your personal understanding define reality. If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.


You're full of shit.... and I say that because if you claim it's based on principle, you would make your argument from a clear Fe definition, not something you have conjured up in your mind..... In typical fashion, intuiting types attempt to make arguments they believe can't be proven since they never reference to anything remotely close to a foundation. That's why Jung considered Ni dominant types "cranks". You attempt to play a shell game and become upset when your tricks are revealed. You have provided nothing but an opinion and all of you know it's easy to end this argument by referring to a description to base the debate on. But you're not going to do that because you and everyone here that is half way aware of type, knows you guys are providing mere opinions and your own sense of reality, but nothing factual and nothing related to type. Now if you think I am not referring to the principles, point it out but you had better be able to do the same. Otherwise, you're showing your crankism.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> You're full of shit.... and I say that because if you claim it's based on principle, you would make your argument from a clear Fe definition, not something you have conjured up in your mind..... In typical fashion, intuiting types attempt to make arguments they believe can't be proven since they never reference to anything remotely close to a foundation. That's why Jung considered Ni dominant types "cranks". You attempt to play a shell game and become upset when your tricks are revealed. You have provided nothing but an opinion and all of you know it's easy to end this argument by referring to a description to base the debate on. But you're not going to do that because you and everyone here that is half way aware of type, knows you guys are providing mere opinions and your own sense of reality, but nothing factual and nothing related to type. Now if you think I am not referring to the principles, point it out but you had better be able to do the same. Otherwise, you're showing your crankism.


That's like saying all that humans are is "featherless bipeds." Definitions are often simplifications, as in this case, and cannot necessarily do complex ideas justice. You think the definition is the entire truth - I think no definition will cover it if you take it literally only and don't consider the complicated ideas it is conveying *quite clearly *to anyone who is capable of thinking abstractly. Ideas that are essentially part of the definition, not ones that are added by us. That you are blind to them is _your _problem. You try to define the world within the limits of your limited understanding and then rage at anyone who understands anything you don't. You seem incapable of grasping the concept that people can disagree - you only see one thing, so you think there is only one thing to see and everyone else is wrong or deliberately aggravating you. And unfortunate delusion.

Let's consider the concept of outwards-focussed, that you have such difficulty grasping because you only understand it in literal terms. Now, you think that something has to exist in front of you for a person to be outwards focussed. So an extravert who plays to imaginary audiences when thinking is being introverted. Someone who remembers details of their own preferences (let's say books, movies, etc.) according to which of her friends like them is being introverted. Someone who develops a system designed to function in the outside world and manipulate it is being introverted if they do it themselves instead of having minions. Anything not directly involving humans is being introverted. Conversely, when I skip over steps when I speak because I do not consider my audience, I am being extraverted because there is an audience there. This is a complete distortion of type theory.

The reality:
An introvert wouldn't need or want an audience to develop their ideas and would think of them only if they knew they were going to have to deal with it. Extraverts create them because they ae focussed outwardly. The second is textbook Fe. Third is Te. Personality is defined by what our minds do, not by the external situation we happen to be in. 

Alone does not equal inwards focussed.
In company does not equal outwards focussed.
Try to grasp these basic concepts please.

What the Fe-users are describing is still the feeling function being _oriented outwardly_. Your focus on the need for a tangible representation of this is blinding you to that fact. It may be that Sensors with Fe would have this need too, and thus less able to use their Fe and have to draw on their other functions more in isolation, if they share your literal thinking in this way.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Lol. Definitions are facts? :shocked: :crazy:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> That's like saying all that humans are is "featherless bipeds." Definitions are often simplifications, as in this case, and cannot necessarily do complex ideas justice. You think the definition is the entire truth - I think no definition will cover it if you take it literally only and don't consider the complicated ideas it is conveying *quite clearly *to anyone who is capable of thinking abstractly. Ideas that are essentially part of the definition, not ones that are added by us. That you are blind to them is _your _problem. You try to define the world within the limits of your limited understanding and then rage at anyone who understands anything you don't. You seem incapable of grasping the concept that people can disagree - you only see one thing, so you think there is only one thing to see and everyone else is wrong or deliberately aggravating you. And unfortunate delusion.
> 
> Let's consider the concept of outwards-focussed, that you have such difficulty grasping because you only understand it in literal terms. Now, you think that something has to exist in front of you for a person to be outwards focussed. So an extravert who plays to imaginary audiences when thinking is being introverted. Someone who remembers details of their own preferences (let's say books, movies, etc.) according to which of her friends like them is being introverted. Someone who develops a system designed to function in the outside world and manipulate it is being introverted if they do it themselves instead of having minions. Anything not directly involving humans is being introverted. Conversely, when I skip over steps when I speak because I do not consider my audience, I am being extraverted because there is an audience there. This is a complete distortion of type theory.
> 
> ...


My tolerance level has waned on this matter. Either you and the others can refer to specific Fe descriptions for a point of reference to corroborate your arguments or continue your factless banter. I think you all have become insulting to the forum in believing no one here has a clue to what Fe represents. So at this point any arguments without a viable reference will be considered simple bullshit. It's time to put up or shut up with your innuendos of what you think Fe is. Either you know, or you don't. Now I have referenced to two of the most used descriptions and anyone following this debate has by now googled extraverted feeling to know what it means, and it does not refer to what any of you claim. The fact is until any of you make a point of reference, you're talking pure bullshit and we know it...... So put up and refer to a particular description that coincides with your thoughts or you, Psycho and others can merely appear as fools for believing we are going to accept your opinions simply because you said it. I have made no claims without references. Can you do the same or are truly a crank? In fact I will make it easy for you. Make your argument from the descriptions I have presented.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> My tolerance level has waned on this matter. Either you and the others can refer to specific Fe descriptions for a point of reference to corroborate your arguments or continue your factless banter. * I think you all have become insulting to the forum in believing no one here has a clue to what Fe represents*. So at this point any arguments without a viable reference will be considered simple bullshit. It's time to put up or shut up with your innuendos of what you think Fe is. Either you know, or you don't. Now I have referenced to two of the most used descriptions and anyone following this debate has by now googled extraverted feeling to know what it means, and it does not refer to what any of you claim.


ROFL.
10char


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> ROFL.
> 10char


Yet I see you still have yet to provide anything....Now that's funny.


Psychosmurf said:


> Lol. Definitions are facts? :shocked: :crazy:


yet you have provided nothing but your opinion. Still doesn't matter because the more bull you talk and the more I challenge you, the more people reading this thread are going to look to every response without a reference and ask, why aren't you providing any reference, so the joke is on you as well as the fact that you both have still yet to provide anything but talk..... Again, put up or shut up.....


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Yet I see you still have yet to provide anything....Now that's funny.yet you have provided nothing but your opinion. Still doesn't matter because the more bull you talk and the more I challenge you, the more people reading this thread are going to look to every response without a reference and ask, why aren't you providing any reference, so the joke is on you as well as the fact that you both have still yet to provide anything but talk..... Again, put up or shut up.....


I've made arguments. Other Fe users have given examples and made other arguments. We have all tried to explain what you are missing. You cherry-picked a few definitions that don't entirely say what you think they do - I get more meaning out of them than you do. Which would be the same if I found yet another definition. And nothing I say really goes against the ones you linked anyway; you are just incapable of seeing the connections. Even breaking down the idea of outwards-focussed for you (which everyone, including you, agrees is part of the concept of extroversion) was too much for you to understand. If you can't even get that... You have yet to address, let alone refute, my arguments, and you have not really made an argument. You just go "I read this, I understand this part of it, therefore nothing else is true!" That's not an argument or proof. You act like having it written down somewhere is more important than it making sense or it applying to reality. I prefer the latter way of justifying something -- which you have yet to provide.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

I was pointing out an important idea. Definitions are not facts. I don't think you understand how definitions work either. Definitions are sets of judgments that are supposed to convey an _idea_, and they can be changed and fine-tuned until we are in agreement about whether or not we are, in fact, talking about the same idea when we say the word that was defined by the definition. Therefore, definitions do not consist solely of the judgments that were expressed. 

Here's an example: If I say that a "car" is a vehicle with 4 wheels and engine, then that definition consists of the three judgments, "A car is a vehicle", "A car has 4 wheels", and "A car has an engine." The idea of a car does not have to fit the definition of a car perfectly. We can easily imagine cars with additional characteristics, such as those having doors and seats. We can also have cars with characteristics that are a modified form of the judgments used to define "car", such as cars with 3 wheels, cars that are showpieces and not vehicles, and cars that are run by peddling rather than an engine. 

My point is that Jung and others use a small set of judgments to convey a difficult to grasp idea. That's why there's so much discussion and so many different definitions of the function types. Everyone is continually trying to improve their understanding. Jung isn't set in stone.


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> You're full of shit....


You know, I created this thread as a discussion thread to get everyone's thoughts on the matter. If I wanted only definitions already published, than I would just go read those books, not create a thread. 

As the OP I welcome creative open minded input. I do value what you have added to this discussion, but I would appreciate it if you would try to be nice and not scare others away from adding their thoughts for fear they might be called "full of shit."


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Either you and the others can refer to specific Fe descriptions for a point of reference to corroborate your arguments or continue your factless banter.


aka... "either debate using only the points that support my stance or you are wrong..."

This is a forum where people intelligently (or at least that's the goal) discuss subjects, not a bulletin board exclusively for misunderstood quotes from 'experts'. Therefore, we will continue to quote ourselves, our own experiences, and our own insights. 

Furthermore, when an ENFJ, an INFJ, an INTJ, and an INTP all agree, this is the cognitive equivalent of a planetary alignment. This only happens if something is indeed fact.


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Furthermore, when an ENFJ, an INFJ, an INTJ, and an INTP all agree, this is the cognitive equivalent of a planetary alignment. This only happens if something is indeed fact.


LOLOLOL!

Fe does not dissapear when the other people dissapear.

Again I repeat the original question... So how would Fe work when no people are around?

I want more examples and thoughts on the matter.

I will give one of my own: 

I associate feelings with objective subject matter at will. I actually search for a reason to feel strongly about info for tests in class so I can remember the information. ex. I read the book and or notes with drama like in a movie so it then becomes important enough for me to remember. If I am not already interested in something I have to create interest, a reason to remember.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

The point is a debate is futile without a frame of reference, therefore claiming anyone is wrong or your assertions are correct makes absolutely no sense. How are you attempting to allege what any function does without some idea of what it is. As for the OP, if it was your point to merely throw out the idea of what you think Fe could be and not what it is, you could have made that point a long time ago. 

So I guess it should be pointed out by Rosebier that this thread should not be taken as an attempt for any readers to learn what Fe is or does, but merely a light hearted discussion on thoughts. It should also be noted that no one should take the discussion as factual, but merely opinions. Okay.... No need to carry on as long as all of you concur, which it appears you have, that there has never been anything discussed factual. 

So I guess my thoughts are why would any of you attempt to respond to my posts with arguments of what Fe is or does, if this was always merely a non-factual account of what you believe Fe could possibly do on a deserted island?


----------



## saccharomyces (Jun 2, 2010)

omg, how terribly entertaining this all has been! especially when it got to this claim


Functianalyst said:


> My tolerance level has waned on this matter.


 i really almost fell off my chair laughing, since i couldn't find much indication here of tolerance whatsoever in functianalyst posts. 

and i am deliberately not going to add anything to the discussion, because being called "full of shit" just because of having a more open-minded view (since i don't think implying "only my models of thinking and proving my thoughts are valid" could in any way show that your understanding could be the broader, and everything what others say is "rudimentary" and "limited" lol, how does it prove limited, if what you're saying might fit in there as a special case, but what they're saying just doesn't fit in your understainding anywhere..?) is really not a useful goal, but that's the most i'd get for my opinion. besides, i'm not by the pc often enough to really be able to take part constantly.

actually, no offence, but this discussion here seems to have gotten to the point where *someone's* just trying so hard to prove their superiority with the most irrelevant of means, that it's become more than just amusing.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> The point is a debate is futile without a frame of reference, therefore claiming anyone is wrong or your assertions are correct makes absolutely no sense. How are you attempting to allege what any function does without some idea of what it is. As for the OP, if it was your point to merely throw out the idea of what you think Fe could be and not what it is, you could have made that point a long time ago.
> 
> So I guess it should be pointed out by Rosebier that this thread should not be taken as an attempt for any readers to learn what Fe is or does, but merely a light hearted discussion on thoughts. It should also be noted that no one should take the discussion as factual, but merely opinions. Okay.... No need to carry on as long as all of you concur, which it appears you have, that there has never been anything discussed factual.
> 
> So I guess my thoughts are why would any of you attempt to respond to my posts with arguments of what Fe is or does, if this was always merely a non-factual account of what you believe Fe could possibly do on a deserted island?


Can I ask who awarded you the Advanced MBTI badge when you have so little grasp of cognitive functions that you've insisted upon defining Extroverted Feeling with a Thinking model for pages and pages of posts - as a reaction to Fe users explaining in detail to the contrary?

To make an analogy, it's as if you're so convinced that unicorns don't exist that when one walks up to you and says "Um, dude, I'm a unicorn." You insist that it's just a talking glowing horse with a horn, because you read a definition somewhere that stated unicorns don't exist.

The reason I use this analogy is because at one point in creating his definitions of the various Personality Types, Carl Jung himself stated that INFJs (Ni + Fe users) are like unicorns. He believed that they can't actually exist because the two functions should not be able to support each other. We could still use that definition if you'd prefer, and only have 15 types... possibly 14 types, as ENFJs could fall into this definition as well. This would make your arguments much more valid by removing two of the Fe users from the possible definitions. While we're at it, why don't we only use the definitions and theories that support your stance, since that's effectively what you're insisting upon here despite volumes of assertion, insistence, and evidence countering your arguments - most importantly, first hand accounts.


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> The point is a debate is futile without a frame of reference, therefore claiming anyone is wrong or your assertions are correct makes absolutely no sense. How are you attempting to allege what any function does without some idea of what it is. As for the OP, if it was your point to merely throw out the idea of what you think Fe could be and not what it is, you could have made that point a long time ago.
> 
> So I guess it should be pointed out by Rosebier that this thread should not be taken as an attempt for any readers to learn what Fe is or does, but merely a light hearted discussion on thoughts. It should also be noted that no one should take the discussion as factual, but merely opinions. Okay.... No need to carry on as long as all of you concur, which it appears you have, that there has never been anything discussed factual.
> 
> So I guess my thoughts are why would any of you attempt to respond to my posts with arguments of what Fe is or does, if this was always merely a non-factual account of what you believe Fe could possibly do on a deserted island?


Actually the point of this thread was not exclusively to debate. I only asked questions about what everyone thought an Fe would do as a hermit. I was totally open to some debate in this thread, but maybe I should have specified in my original post that I expected people to be decent and nice to others if participating. 

This is a very mean post and you successfully hurt my feelings a little bit. I hope your personal goals have been reached. 

You are not welcome here anymore by me unless you apologize for your behavior and start treating others with respect.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

I am not sure if anything like this was said before, but here is my opinion.

I am an INFJ with a strong Fe. I also very introverted. A lot of the times I will stay home because going out in the world takes too much effort. Sometimes when I am feeling particularly down, I fear I might become a loner or a 'hermit' and just stay home all the time. But despite all of this, my Fe is not affected. My concern for the external still exists. I guess you could just say I don't actually manifest my concern too often. 

As for simply being the last people alive, that is a completely different scenario. If I knew of all the populated world before everyone else died (or went away or whatever), then I would still feel my heartstrings pulled if I chose to think about the lives people used to live. 
But if I was simply born onto a deserted world, then I think my psyche would function completely different than it does today because I would never been affected by external lives from my own. I would be a different person and psychology in and of itself would take on a whole different form. Don't you think society and what not has helped shape the human psyche? 
But let's say there was no humans in the world I was born into, but there was still life such as animals. I think my Fe function would still apply to them. Instead of being concerned with the human condition, I would be merely concerned for the animal condition. 

So, yes. An hermit/loner with a strong Fe is definitely possible.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Well this thread has become waning. The analogies and metaphor's was splendid by the way well worth reading the humorist post. 
Well Rosebier my post that I did before was an example of how one may manifest while cut off from the world. Growing up I had a lot of free time as you can say that was kind of hermit like. Gave me a lot of time to dwell on my Intuition pick it apart and all of that good stuff. I am still trying to figure out how a Fe user would not exist if placed in a isolated situation are not cognitive functions a process of how we think or perceive. Unless someone was isolated from birth with no contact of any living animal then I do not see how this is not to be. That person would not be a Fe dom anyway right? 

Oh yeah leave the Sensor alone people!


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

saccharomyces said:


> omg, how terribly entertaining this all has been! especially when it got to this claim
> i really almost fell off my chair laughing, since i couldn't find much indication here of tolerance whatsoever in functianalyst posts.
> 
> and i am deliberately not going to add anything to the discussion, because being called "full of shit" just because of having a more open-minded view (since i don't think implying "only my models of thinking and proving my thoughts are valid" could in any way show that your understanding could be the broader, and everything what others say is "rudimentary" and "limited" lol, how does it prove limited, if what you're saying might fit in there as a special case, but what they're saying just doesn't fit in your understainding anywhere..?) is really not a useful goal, but that's the most i'd get for my opinion. besides, i'm not by the pc often enough to really be able to take part constantly.


Deliberately not going to add anything ehh... Attempting to make some special case how Fe will work under extreme conditions, when there is a very plausible answer per the system is ludicrous. As an ENFJ, you use Se at your tertiary level. An ENJ will use that function (if extremely extraverted) better than I or any other ISP that is extremely introverted. For some reason everyone would prefer to overlook the obvious and create a theory that defies the principles of type. 

Fe doesn’t mutate into some hybrid form to survive, the user simply adjust their function usage to adapt to the current circumstances. Claiming it will be a motivating factor to get off the island because they begin to consider those left behind is not Fe, that’s Fi or it may not be type related since it could be an emotional state that is causing the motivation, not a cognitive one. Nevertheless I am still waiting for anyone, so maybe you can show me where Fe will work subjectively because that is what is being claimed. It stopped focusing on the circumstances in front of them and begin wondering to another place and time.


saccharomyces said:


> actually, no offence, but this discussion here seems to have gotten to the point where *someone's* just trying so hard to prove their superiority with the most irrelevant of means, that it's become more than just amusing.


 Still not deliberately adding anything I see. Well no offense but you have still yet to say anything that would remotely show where Fe will still work. This is not about superiority, it’s about intellectual integrity which is sorely missing. Referring to a Conan Movie is not evidence to support a claim.


Nobleheart said:


> Can I ask who awarded you the Advanced MBTI badge when you have so little grasp of cognitive functions that you've insisted upon defining Extroverted Feeling with a Thinking model for pages and pages of posts - as a reaction to Fe users explaining in detail to the contrary?


Is it really that hard for you to base thoughts on reality instead of fictional material. You have attempted to claim what Fe does referring to Conan, made analogies using planetary alignments and unicorns. What would be wrong with simply reading descriptions of Fe and then making your claim that based on specific statements you interpret Fe can be used in the way you propose. Is it so hard for you to make the distinction between reality and your vivid world of make belief? I am not saying that to be mean spirited, but you continue to assert claims referring to fiction. Can I ask how you can pretend to have an idea of how a function works when so far you have not referred to anything to show you know what it is?


Nobleheart said:


> To make an analogy, it's as if you're so convinced that unicorns don't exist that when one walks up to you and says "Um, dude, I'm a unicorn." You insist that it's just a talking glowing horse with a horn, because you read a definition somewhere that stated unicorns don't exist.


Here you go back to the fictional comparisons when there are plenty of real comparisons. There are no need for analogies when the actual facts can supply the mind with just as thought provoking an answer. Arguing how Fe works from a dialogue of Conan does not make it factual, it only shows you prefer to live in a fictional world and have an arduous time discerning between what you read or watch in a movie with what is actual. Again I have on reason to take your analogies any more serious than I take your argument that the Fe cognitive function can change it’s nature.


Nobleheart said:


> The reason I use this analogy is because at one point in creating his definitions of the various Personality Types, Carl Jung himself stated that INFJs (Ni + Fe users) are like unicorns. He believed that they can't actually exist because the two functions should not be able to support each other. We could still use that definition if you'd prefer, and only have 15 types... possibly 14 types, as ENFJs could fall into this definition as well. This would make your arguments much more valid by removing two of the Fe users from the possible definitions. While we're at it, why don't we only use the definitions and theories that support your stance, since that's effectively what you're insisting upon here despite volumes of assertion, insistence, and evidence countering your arguments - most importantly, first hand accounts.


Please show the forum where Jung said this. This is where my tolerance as stated above depletes. Is it really necessary for you to make up things when the truth is better? You know Jung never said that, and anyone who has read Jung's work knows he never said that for obvious reasons in your statement that he never alluded to in his work. Again is it necessary to make up things?


Rosebier said:


> Rosebier said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the point of this thread was not exclusively to debate. I only asked questions about what everyone thought an Fe would do as a hermit. I was totally open to some debate in this thread, but maybe I should have specified in my original post that I expected people to be decent and nice to others if participating.
> ...


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Your reply seems insightful, but all I'm seeing is "If the answers are not in a format I find acceptable, they are not valid." Ni is your tertiary function if you are an ISTP. This should make you much more open to metaphor and analogy as exaggerated examples. None of my ISTP friends have ever had any trouble following me or anyone else in this regard. 

Not to be offensive, but rather to be helpful...

Are you sure you're not a mistyped ISTJ? You really do seem like an Si dominant with such an insistence on how everything must line up with the details you have accepted, then using how you understand things to relate with Te to support this insistence. Most importantly, as an ISTP, you should have a much better inherent understanding of Fe. As a mistyped ISTJ, your tertiary function would be Fi, which could be causing a lot of this confusion about Fe. It is not uncommon for ISTPs and ISTJs to mistype as they have opposite attitudes in their dominant functions than their P or J would indicate. Being S types, this can become more clear.

Your Te seems very clear because your arguments and assertions remind me of those I've had with ESTJs, ISTJs, ENTJs and INTJs (but without the ability to step outside the box like an Ni use rather than the hard insistence of an Si dominant). This thread reminds me _a great deal_ of discussions I've had with ISTJs about pretty much any subject involving abstractions.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> Your reply seems insightful, but all I'm seeing is "If the answers are not in a format I find acceptable, they are not valid." Ni is your tertiary function if you are an ISTP. This should make you much more open to metaphor and analogy as exaggerated examples. None of my ISTP friends have ever had any trouble following me or anyone else in this regard. Not to be offensive, but rather to be helpful...


Maybe it’s your Fe feeling that anything I have posted is geared toward you. Whether you want to make your claims is up to you. This is how my Ni has worked all along in this dialogue. Too many times, people state their opinions in lieu of actuality and some readers take your statements as fact when they’re not. This leads to such statements become fact spreading like a wildfire over the forum that will be combated at a later date. The stated notions all of you have displayed generally lead to stereotypes, myths and type legends no different than claims of type rarity, that sensing (even Si) types have a propensity toward extraversion and intuiting (even Ne) types have a propensity toward introversion, claims of differences in sensing and intuiting in general when Jung shows that Ne/Se and Ni/Si are from the same makeup and to the contrary intuiting types use sensing, and feeling types use thinking (and vice-versa), that feeling is about emotions when everyone should know that all type related information is based solely on cognition, etc. No, I am seeing down the road that your claims here will spread and the actual facts will have to be addressed later on this forum.


Nobleheart said:


> Are you sure you're not a mistyped ISTJ? You really do seem like an Si dominant with such an insistence on how everything must line up with the details you have accepted, then using how you understand things to relate with Te to support this insistence. Most importantly, as an ISTP, you should have a much better inherent understanding of Fe. As a mistyped ISTJ, your tertiary function would be Fi, which could be causing a lot of this confusion about Fe. It is not uncommon for ISTPs and ISTJs to mistype as they have opposite attitudes in their dominant functions than their P or J would indicate. Being S types, this can become more clear.


This inquiry is only indicative of your thoughts, or lack there of, on how functions work. You should know that it is Ti that makes subtle distinctions and focuses on the principles of how something works.


> *Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles.* These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. *This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency.* In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. *We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what’s observed.*


Ti dominant types base their decisions on principles. Again you continue to make an argument of what Fe is. You can simply make your point by referring to a information on the cognitive function, instead of basing it on your perception.


Nobleheart said:


> Your Te seems very clear because your arguments and assertions remind me of those I've had with ESTJs, ISTJs, ENTJs and INTJs (but without the ability to step outside the box like an Ni use rather than the hard insistence of an Si dominant). This thread reminds me _a great deal_ of discussions I've had with ISTJs about pretty much any subject involving abstractions.


Again your perception that ISTP is anything but a thinking type only shows your claim of knowing how cognitive functions is suspect. ITJs are not thinking types, they’re intuiting and sensing types. It would be no different than you claiming to be an intuiting type when you’re a feeling type and ENFPs are intuiting types. But let’s not forget that you made a claim of something Jung said in your previous post which was completely untrue and we’re still waiting for you to refer us to where he ever mentioned that. Again it was obvious based on what you said was completely untrue since he focused on the most differentiated function in his descriptions.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> The reason I use this analogy is because at one point in creating his definitions of the various Personality Types, Carl Jung himself stated that INFJs (Ni + Fe users) are like unicorns. He believed that they can't actually exist because the two functions should not be able to support each other.





Functianalyst said:


> Please show the forum where Jung said this.


I'm curious to know where Jung said that as well.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Been searching INTJ Forum for the quote. Can't find it. /shrug 
It was from another person who lived by the quotes of other people. 
Ironic.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> Been searching INTJ Forum for the quote. Can't find it. /shrug
> It was from another person who lived by the quotes of other people. Ironic.


I have been a member of that forum for a couple of years. I can ask. Who was the member?


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> I have been a member of that forum for a couple of years. I can ask. Who was the member?


I honestly can't remember their name. If I could, I'd have probably found it by now. As you can see, I'm not one who lives by quotes or has a mind for them - I have enough trouble remembering names. For me, quotes simply illustrate principles - and it is the understanding of the principles that is important. This is why I use metaphor, analogy, and hyperbole in my responses - to illustrate principles which do not seem clear to my audience.

The principle I was trying to illustrate was that as we make discoveries, definitions change, expand, adapt, and refine. Most of your argument for the way Fe operates is based on Thomson's definitions. We've come a long way since then. She was a pioneer, but she didn't finish exploring this area. I'm not saying Thomson was wrong, just that there is a lot more to it than she was able to define... especially when you consider that she was an INTJ (I have no quote for this other than it is obvious and generally understood) and based much of her understanding of Fe on her interviews with ESFJs (also obvious because of the way she describes Si based Fe with emotional currency, politeness, etc.). 

It is clear that I'm not going be able to get you to accept my perspective with metaphor, analogy, and illustrating principles. I'm tempted to go dig up quotes to help make this more clear, because my Fe feels this is how it should be and therefore is trying to make it so (more proof that Fe has much greater capacity than just dealing with people), but I'm not any good at tracking down quotes. If you'd rather orient from an outdated perspective than accept this volume of first hand accounts to the contrary, that's certainly your right. I don't speak S well enough to get this point across in text.

So while my Fe - which is a Feeling function and an Extroverted function and therefore simply feeling oriented outwardly - wants very much to make this clear for you and help you understand it, my Ti can see it just isn't going to work. I don't have the means.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

I can't remember either. I have heard that same unicorn comparison, though, I know I recognise it.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> I honestly can't remember their name. If I could, I'd have probably found it by now. As you can see, I'm not one who lives by quotes or has a mind for them - I have enough trouble remembering names. For me, quotes simply illustrate principles - and it is the understanding of the principles that is important. This is why I use metaphor, analogy, and hyperbole in my responses - to illustrate principles which do not seem clear to my audience.





lirulin said:


> I can't remember either. I have heard that same unicorn comparison, though, I know I recognise it.


The only problem with both your notions of not using principles is that you create the type of discussions here in claiming something that is simply untrue. Fe users have no more an interest in unicorns than Te which will be discussed later. I find it interesting that you write a statement claiming Jung said it. Then when challenged to produce the origin you then admit you never read for yourself that Jung claimed it, and that it was taken from someone at INTJF, but conveniently forgot who said it? I post at INTJF and other than myself, I have never observed anyone quoting Jung on that forum, except me.


Nobleheart said:


> The principle I was trying to illustrate was that as we make discoveries, definitions change, expand, adapt, and refine. Most of your argument for the way Fe operates is based on Thomson's definitions. We've come a long way since then. She was a pioneer, but she didn't finish exploring this area. I'm not saying Thomson was wrong, just that there is a lot more to it than she was able to define... especially when you consider that she was an INTJ (I have no quote for this other than it is obvious and generally understood) and based much of her understanding of Fe on her interviews with ESFJs (also obvious because of the way she describes Si based Fe with emotional currency, politeness, etc.).
> 
> It is clear that I'm not be able to get you to accept my perspective with metaphor, analogy, and illustrating principles. I'm tempted to go dig up quotes to help make this more clear, because my Fe feels this is how it should be and therefore is trying to make it so, but I'm not any good at tracking down quotes. If you'd rather orient from an outdated perspective than accept this volume of first hand accounts to the contrary, that's certainly your right. I don't speak S well enough to get this across in text.
> 
> So while my Fe - which is a Feeling function and an Extroverted function and therefore simply feeling oriented outwardly - wants very much to make this clear for you and help you understand it, my Ti can see it just isn't going to work. I don't have the means.


This whole notion above merely shows the depth of how far you are willing to take a point even when you know what you are saying can be easily discerned. Contrary to your assertions of pretending to know what Thomson says, you’re again making things up Nobleheart. This is why I was so adamant for you to finally refer to specifics, otherwise all of you would continue your charades. Anyone who has not read “Type Personality: An Owner’s Manual” by Lenore Thomson, it can be located *here*. Do not take anyone's word when you can read and understand yourself. You can start reading what she has said about Fe on or about page 318. But here are some quotes from Lenore on Fe:


> *As discussed in previous chapters, the left brain prefers to focus on one thing at a time. Its global limit seems to be about seven pieces of information. For this reason, left-brain functions always encourage us to define boundaries. When we use them, we’re deciding that some perceptions are more important than others and restricting our attention accordingly….
> 
> Because Feeling involves personal relationship, it’s easy to assume that using it is a matter of emotional preference. But like all left brain functions, Fe is conceptual and analytic. It encourages us to make rational choices, to measure our options for relationship against external standard of behaviors. What distinguishes this function from Te is the fact that relatedness involves human beings, not impersonal abstractions…..
> 
> ...


By now it should be apparent to everyone that simply accepting analogies, metaphors or anything other than a point of reference or reference site should be met with suspect. As I have said all along, Fe is not a cognitive function that anyone would use while stranded on a deserted island alone. It does not fit the circumstances at the least. In fact I have struggled to determine what Fe would be used for and the only scenario that I could ascertain is writing a letter to my family, friends and others.... That is to say I have the tools to write and a water-proof container to put it in. Nevertheless you can call me selfish and inconsiderate, but if I had those materials I would be attempting to convey my exact location to be rescued. If either of you or your cohorts would like to provide another description of Fe to review, I think we would look at it as well.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

So, if you had a book that was written by a white guy about what it meant to be black, would you go so far as to tell me I was making things up if I told you what it was like for me to be black, if it disagreed with your 'expert'? More importantly, would you take the pieces you like from that author to support your own view as fact? That's exactly what you're doing here with this argument about Fe. Everything we are saying about Fe is conducive to the theories laid out by Thomson, because they include Thomson's assertions. The point of contention is that you're insisting that Thomson's assertions are the extent of the capacity of Fe. That's shortsighted and foolish. 

The simplest version is this: Fe is emotional reasoning oriented outwardly. 

Yes, this_ includes_ what you are stating. Obviously outward emotional reasoning includes dealing with people. The problem here is that you keep insisting that this is the _extent_ of Fe, and that is simply not the case. 

I also find it interesting how many times you've said things like "this is another example of how far you are willing to go to win an argument". You seem familiar with Jung, do you also know his buddy Freud? 

This is how far my Fe is willing to go to make you see the truth. I care that you understand it enough to keep trying to put this simple concept in different formats so that at some point you will open the lid of this box you insist upon locking your mind in on this subject. Clearly, Fe is rooted in something deeper than just dealing with people. It is based on a clear sense of how one's environment should be. My staying in this argument proves my stance on Fe, and yet you're still picking out quotes from a book to support your stance that does nothing other than deny a larger picture.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> So, if you had a book that was written by a white guy about what it meant to be black, would you go so far as to tell me I was making things up if I told you what it was like for me to be black, if it disagreed with your 'expert'? More importantly, would you take the pieces you like from that author to support your own view as fact? That's exactly what you're doing here with this argument about Fe. Everything we are saying about Fe is conducive to the theories laid out by Thomson, because they include Thomson's assertions. The point of contention is that you're insisting that Thomson's assertions are the extent of the capacity of Fe. That's shortsighted and foolish.


Back to the analogies I see, but this is a good one and relative in that you, lurilin and the others have only been giving your subjective perceptions on what Fe is not what it actually is or does. Do you understand the difference, because that is what all of you have been arguing all alone is a subjective perception and claiming it as fact when it's not. 

The point to your analogy is there is accepted objective generalities in being Black that no one can understand unless they are and there are subjective beliefs that if you poll a multitude of Blacks would say does not fit them. You are clearly referring to the latter and ill attempting to say what you perceive as being Black or Fe is the objective truth when it's not even close. You referred to Lenore Thomson, not me. If you would prefer to refer to another Fe description then go for it. But you can’t do that because it will close the door on your argument since a reference point speaks for itself. 

Instead of using a term that already exist (Fe), you can easily create your own system and claim whatever you choose. But as long as you are going to use Fe, then there is a definition for it. It's universally understood what the function does. So giving it other attributes is silly. I gave two other Fe descriptions that do not agree with you and your cronies assertions so what now; You write something claiming it’s a description until challenged, then come back and say well you heard someone say that is what it was, but you conveniently forgot who and where you heard it?


Nobleheart said:


> The simplest version is this: Fe is emotional reasoning oriented outwardly.


Fe or any cognitive function is not about emotions, they're about cognition. Even someone with a rudimentary understanding of type realizes this.


Nobleheart said:


> Yes, this_ includes_ what you are stating. Obviously outward emotional reasoning includes dealing with people. The problem here is that you keep insisting that this is the _extent_ of Fe, and that is simply not the case.


Still not getting it are you?


Nobleheart said:


> I also find it interesting how many times you've said things like "this is another example of how far you are willing to go to win an argument". You seem familiar with Jung, do you also know his buddy Freud?


LOL, here is what I know that you and the others have done. You did a quick research of Fe, realized it was nowhere close to what you were describing and then came back to continue your argument. That puts your integrity into question. Or you continue you to make your argument in lieu of the actual descriptions and never made a point to read anything. That creates a deluded arrogance. I will let you and Lurilin decide which you did. But the fact remains, you and your cronies know, and now the readers know, what you’re claiming is a subjective perception of what you consider Fe is and can do. However the description of Fe is out there for everyone to read and they know better. ?


Nobleheart said:


> This is how far my Fe is willing to go to make you see the truth. I care that you understand it enough to keep trying to put this simple concept in different formats so that at some point you will open the lid of this box you insist upon locking your mind in on this subject. Clearly, Fe is rooted in something deeper than just dealing with people. It is based on a clear sense of how one's environment should be. My staying in this argument proves my stance on Fe, and yet you're still picking out quotes from a book to support your stance that does nothing other than deny a larger picture.


The point is the concept is simple which baffles me to why you have to make much of nothing in claiming that Fe can manifest itself into something else. If the other 8 functions did not exist then I would accept your notion as plausible. But they do exist and they all do something different to meet every circumstance that can arrive. The point is it can’t motivate you since motivation calls for emotions and cognitive functions (hence the name) have no bearing on our emotional state. You referred to Lenore Thomson and she says that. Fe is Fe, nothing more and nothing less. Saying clearly seems to mean nothing in your vocabulary since you have been making this claim all along and now it’s clear to the readers it was all your subjective notions because you fail to understand how functions work.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Wow! I just went back and read everything you've repeated based on your interpretation of everything that has been written on the subject and all of a sudden I realized that I've been using my mind completely wrong all these years. Thank you for clearing it up for me! I'll start using my mind correctly now and stop having feelings about anything other than other people, or myself in those rare moments when my Fi is allowed to work. Everything else that could possibly be part of my environment other than people will now be free of feeling and subject to logic (Te), assumption (Ne), or empirical observation (Se). And to think... all of these years I thought I was having feelings on the subject of how things should be, or with anything in my environment other than a person. Wow. What would I do without your ability to misunderstand years of cognitive research and quote it to me?!

Thanks Funky! You're teh awesomest!


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nobleheart said:


> Wow! I just went back and read everything you've repeated based on your interpretation of everything that has been written on the subject and all of a sudden I realized that I've been using my mind completely wrong all these years. Thank you for clearing it up for me! I'll start using my mind correctly now and stop having feelings about anything other than other people, or myself in those rare moments when my Fi is allowed to work. Everything else that could possibly be part of my environment other than people will now be free of feeling and subject to logic (Te), assumption (Ne), or empirical observation (Se). And to think... all of these years I thought I was having feelings on the subject of how things should be, or with anything in my environment other than a person. Wow. What would I do without your ability to misunderstand years of cognitive research and quote it to me?!
> 
> Thanks Funky! You're teh awesomest!


Clueless to what you just said, but having feelings for others is...? And cognitive functions are...? Ergo feeling as it relates to type does what...? I am not saying it, Jung, Myers-Briggs, your reference to Lenore Thomson and anyone who has published on the subject are saying it. Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

I don't see why it is so hard for you to understand that we are using the exact same definitions. Nothing you have quoted is actually in conflict with what the others have said.

I would_ love _a quotation that specifically states "Fe cannot work without people in the immediate vicinity and shuts off entirely when an Fe-user is alone." Because this assumption, this interpretation you are touting, *has not been explicitly stated in anything you quoted*. Descriptions of Fe only say that other people are relied on or used, not that they have to be right in front of a person for it to function.* That is your individual addition*. One which, moreover, does not accord with how Fe-users see it. Your quotations *do not actually prove that assumption of yours*, nor do they conflict with the analyses others are offering.

Not that a quotation of an individual person's opinion would count as proof - including Thompson - but I find it interesting that according to your own ideas of what proof is, you haven't supported your own ideas.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

This thread is hilarious. Because, _seriously_ ...?

I'm not sure Fe users understand Fe. Please dictate to them in the most condescending and insulting way possible. And of course, intuitives only talk bullshit. Thank you for your ability to search out definitions - of course, someone writing in a book about something makes it a thousand times more valid than any of us small minded bullshitters could ever come up with.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Isn't it that the point, that in certain situations in order to 'use' certain cognitions to adapt (i.e. se) you have to push out or 'repress' other functions, i.e. ni? i've seen you mention something akin to this elsewhere, functionanalyst. 

if you accept this premise, that being in a survival situation demands greater use of thinking and sensing functions, that in order to use these functions efficiently, you must lessen your usage of others, how can you not accept that fe may be utilised less?

It surprises me people can accept shadow theory, whereby a intp for instance "turns into" an esfj or entj based on what theory you follow(and heaven forbid switches functions completely) yet cannot accept this one single example of function fluidity, where being a hermit may lessen the effect of Fe in order to adapt. If one changes based on stress and environment in order to adapt for that experience (and if someone can provide a reason why cognition would not adapt, please do), wouldn't being a hermit be stress inducing for a fe type (eventually and to varying degrees)? i'm sure there's a degree to which one could distract theirself with other means (talking to oneself) but I don't think we are all completely in conscious control of our functions.

It's external judgment after all. Doesn't this make it a special case, where a specific situation is needed for it to be necessary in the first place? what about Te in a perfect place where everything was efficent, compared to one where nothing was efficient. Clearly in this example, the latter would be a situation where Te would demand more attention from the user, than the former.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

It is more the black and white attitude that is problematic. Saying usage will lessen as the situation demands it less, is one thing. Saying it disappears the instant one is not surrounded by humans, that it is fundamentally incapable of happening even slightly in this situation is rather more than flexibility re function usage. I think most people will agree that one gets less mileage out of it. The point is that it doesn't stop existing in a person the moment they are alone.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I don't see why it is so hard for you to understand that we are using the exact same definitions. Nothing you have quoted is actually in conflict with what the others have said.
> 
> I would_ love _a quotation that specifically states "Fe cannot work without people in the immediate vicinity and shuts off entirely when an Fe-user is alone." Because this assumption, this interpretation you are touting, *has not been explicitly stated in anything you quoted*. Descriptions of Fe only say that other people are relied on or used, not that they have to be right in front of a person for it to function.* That is your individual addition*. One which, moreover, does not accord with how Fe-users see it. Your quotations *do not actually prove that assumption of yours*, nor do they conflict with the analyses others are offering.
> 
> Not that a quotation of an individual person's opinion would count as proof - including Thompson - but I find it interesting that according to your own ideas of what proof is, you haven't supported your own ideas.


Since it is clear I am doing Fe wrong, and I need to find another type, I definitely want to be an INTJ. You guys are so amazing at putting into words what it is I'm trying to say.

You're my Hero, Lirulin!



heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> This thread is hilarious. Because, _seriously_ ...?
> 
> I'm not sure Fe users understand Fe. Please dictate to them in the most condescending and insulting way possible. And of course, intuitives only talk bullshit. Thank you for your ability to search out definitions - of course, someone writing in a book about something makes it a thousand times more valid than any of us small minded bullshitters could ever come up with.


You too, Heart!



Nova said:


> Isn't it that the point, that in certain situations in order to 'use' certain cognitions to adapt (i.e. se) you have to push out or 'repress' other functions, i.e. ni? i've seen you mention something akin to this elsewhere, functionanalyst.
> 
> if you accept this premise, that being in a survival situation demands greater use of thinking and sensing functions, that in order to use these functions efficiently, you must lessen your usage of others, how can you not accept that fe may be utilised less?
> 
> ...


I'm very much under the impression that Fe (or any cognitive function for that matter) will manifest differently depending on the Enneagram type of the individual. For example, Enneagram 2s and 9s are more likely to fit the 'traditional' definition of Fe, while an 8 or 3 will lean more of their outward feeling in the direction of controlling their environment and a 1 will manifest their Fe more as idealism and focus on the 'shoulds'. While all of these possibilities are within the scope of Fe, Enneagram type will have a strong effect on which parts of it are more of a priority for the individual.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> I don't see why it is so hard for you to understand that we are using the exact same definitions. Nothing you have quoted is actually in conflict with what the others have said.
> 
> I would_ love _a quotation that specifically states "Fe cannot work without people in the immediate vicinity and shuts off entirely when an Fe-user is alone." Because this assumption, this interpretation you are touting, *has not been explicitly stated in anything you quoted*. Descriptions of Fe only say that other people are relied on or used, not that they have to be right in front of a person for it to function.* That is your individual addition*. One which, moreover, does not accord with how Fe-users see it. Your quotations *do not actually prove that assumption of yours*, nor do they conflict with the analyses others are offering.
> 
> Not that a quotation of an individual person's opinion would count as proof - including Thompson - but I find it interesting that according to your own ideas of what proof is, you haven't supported your own ideas.


Now you’re desperate in presenting your argument using circular reasoning. I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand that everything you’re alluding to is already the nature of a function. It’s called introverted function (Fi). Apparently authors should have been redundant in stating specifically what a function does, by repeating what it does not do. Shame on them for overestimating the ability for readers to comprehend.


heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> This thread is hilarious. Because, _seriously_ ...?
> 
> I'm not sure Fe users understand Fe. Please dictate to them in the most condescending and insulting way possible. And of course, intuitives only talk bullshit. Thank you for your ability to search out definitions - of course, someone writing in a book about something makes it a thousand times more valid than any of us small minded bullshitters could ever come up with.


I am not sure what to say to this. Us…..Us? If you’re going to argue a point at least remove your tag as INFP or go read some basic information on type to know that INFPs are not intuiting types, they’re feeling types.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

lirulin said:


> It is more the black and white attitude that is problematic. Saying usage will lessen as the situation demands it less, is one thing. Saying it disappears the instant one is not surrounded by humans, that it is fundamentally incapable of happening even slightly in this situation is rather more than flexibility re function usage. I think most people will agree that one gets less mileage out of it. The point is that it doesn't stop existing in a person the moment they are alone.


What would be the function or point of extraverted feeling judgment, if a fe user were in a situation where other human beings weren't around? (i've just reiiterated the op, but the point is, not "how would fe sustain itself by trying to find connections" but rather, "how would fe manifest in the first place" how would this kind of external judgment work?). 

Obviously there is more to human cognition than jungian functions, so other human cognition would be affected too in such a situation. Other psychological mechanisms would still be operating. Clearly you wouldn't lose the ability to empathise or sympathise, they come from various parts of the brain (along with human psychology).


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Now you’re desperate in presenting your argument using circular reasoning. I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand that everything you’re alluding to is already the nature of a function. It’s called introverted function (Fi). Apparently authors should have been redundant in stating specifically what a function does, by repeating what it does not do. Shame on them for overestimating the ability for readers to comprehend. I am not sure what to say to this.


You could provide the "proof" that you are convinced exists. Like say, something that states Fe works only in the presence of people. _Any_ positive quality of the function that genuinely implies the exclusivity you so fanatically believe in. Anything at all. I do agree though - it _is_ a shame that they overestimated the ability of readers to comprehend. Maybe if it were clearer, you could read all those quotations and understand what Fe actually is.

And I explained before how different it is from Fi. Extremely different. I would elaborate if I thought it would accomplish something, but clearly you would rather be condescending than actually try to understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nova said:


> Isn't it that the point, that in certain situations in order to 'use' certain cognitions to adapt (i.e. se) you have to push out or 'repress' other functions, i.e. ni? i've seen you mention something akin to this elsewhere, functionanalyst.
> 
> if you accept this premise, that being in a survival situation demands greater use of thinking and sensing functions, that in order to use these functions efficiently, you must lessen your usage of others, how can you not accept that fe may be utilised less?
> 
> ...


Sanity at last.... Thanks Nova.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> You could provide the "proof" that you are convinced exists. Like say, something that states Fe works only in the presence of people. _Any_ positive quality of the function that genuinely implies the exclusivity you so fanatically believe in. Anything at all. I do agree though - it _is_ a shame that they overestimated the ability of readers to comprehend. Maybe if it were clearer, you could read all those quotations and understand what Fe actually is.
> 
> And I explained before how different it is from Fi. Extremely different. I would elaborate if I thought it would accomplish something, but clearly you would rather be condescending than actually try to understand what you are talking about.


Or since you're making the argument, you can point out where Fe doesn't do what Jung, Myers-Briggs, Thomson, Berens or any other author says it does. How funny.... I am not fanatically believing anything other than you guys are hilarious with your assertions, opinions and continued argument, expecting someone to actually buy into it just because you say it. As for Fi, you have been attempting to explain, but we really don't need your explanations since we know what Fi does. Again you're either alluding to Fi or you're not referring to type at all, instead emotions. But what everyone knows for a fact that you're not alluding to Fe. Simple as that.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Nova said:


> What would be the function or point of extraverted feeling judgment, if a fe user were in a situation where other human beings weren't around? (i've just reiiterated the op, but the point is, not "how would fe sustain itself by trying to find connections" but rather, "how would fe manifest in the first place" how would this kind of external judgment work?).
> 
> Obviously there is more to human cognition than jungian functions, so other human cognition would be affected too in such a situation. Other psychological mechanisms would still be operating. Clearly you wouldn't lose the ability to empathise or sympathise, they come from various parts of the brain (along with human psychology).


Oh, there wouldn't be a lot of point if you took it literally. But people tend to take their dominant functions seriously and find meaning and identity through them - it would have some psychological benefits for an Fe user to still think in relation to others - just as they can get pleasure by thinking about nice things to do for someone IRL and don't lose that focus if that person isn't directly in front of them. &They would still be oriented outwardly rather than having everything related through an internal set of subjective ideals which is what Fi is. Fe-users in this thread have_ already _demonstrated how they can use Fe to relate to personified or meaningful objects and to absent people. They have given a number of examples of Fe working when they are alone - and they do not sound remotely like Fi, not the same principles, orientation, goals, or perspective. I mean, you may as well ask 'how does Fe manifest itself when others leave the room?' if you think it is a magical disappearing act. Clearly an ENFJ wouldn't suddenly develop Fi the moment they were shipwrecked for all their Feeling-based judgements. Even when one is alone, _other people still exist in this world_, something I expect Fe-users would attach a lot of meaning to. _People_ don't disappear when you're not looking, so why would Fe? It couldn't be so direct, but the arrow still goes outwards.

Long-term consequences the usage may well drop. Other functions would be more useful. But it is neither instantaneous or complete and there is no real reason to think so.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Or since you're making the argument, you can point out where Fe doesn't do what Jung, Myers-Briggs, Thomson, Berens or any other author says it does. How funny.... I am not fanatically believing anything other than you guys are hilarious with your assertions, opinions and continued argument, expecting someone to actually buy into it just because you say it. As for Fi, you have been attempting to explain, but we really don't need your explanations since we know what Fi does. Again you're either alluding to Fi or you're not referring to type at all, instead emotions. But what everyone knows for a fact that you're not alluding to Fe. Simple as that.


It _does_ do what they say it does. That's the point. You have a single interpretation you took from their words - an individual, subjective interpretation you claim is objective truth through arrogance. You have no proof it is their meaning as other interpretations jive completely with their words - as well as actually matching the experience of those who use the function.

And I entered this discussion when you misdescribed Fi. Since I know what it does and you clearly got it wrong.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Us…..Us? If you’re going to argue a point at least remove your tag as INFP or go read some basic information on type to know that INFPs are not intuiting types, they’re feeling types.



Yes, Fi is my dominant function, but I do use Ne. I think I can claim to be an intuitive as opposed to a sensor.

Besides, slightly imprecise language doesn't negate the point I made.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> It _does_ do what they say it does. That's the point. You have a single interpretation you took from their words - an individual, subjective interpretation you claim is objective truth through arrogance. You have no proof it is their meaning as other interpretations jive completely with their words - as well as actually matching the experience of those who use the function.
> 
> And I entered this discussion when you misdescribed Fi. Since I know what it does and you clearly got it wrong.


How am I wrong in how Fi works? Get the description and show that I am wrong, or are you going to make that function up as well? I have a single interpretation? Please feel free to take whatever description and interpret it. I have said that more than once. Interpreting Fe is not a problem. Claiming Fe manifests into another type function is the problem. Where are you getting that from?


heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> Yes, Fi is my dominant function, but I do use Ne. I think I can claim to be an intuitive as opposed to a sensor.
> 
> Besides, slightly imprecise language doesn't negate the point I made.


And I have a greater use of Ni than any type using Ne, so what’s your point? There’s no us here… If you did say something other than that, I did not stop to read it since I wasn’t sure you were being serious with the “us” thing. But if you have something to offer in how Fe works differently than being claimed, please share it. Otherwise, go back a read the thread thoroughly to know that it was an intuiting type that too the first shot at sensing types, which like you did not realize I am not a sensing type, I am a thinking type….


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> How am I wrong in how Fi works? Get the description and show that I am wrong, or are you going to make that function up as well? I have a single interpretation? Please feel free to take whatever description and interpret it. I have said that more than once. Interpreting Fe is not a problem. Claiming Fe manifests into another type function is the problem. Where are you getting that from?


Well, there was the whole thing where all the Fe-users were talking about how they relate to other people and relate things to other people and the ideas of other people. And you claimed this is Fi unless the people are standing directly in front of them, even though it is clearly directed outwards either way, rather than inwards, like Fi would be. Nothing close to, for example, this definition (since apparently you rely on citations rather than rational thought to believe anything).

Introverted Feeling

Se and Si work more the way you describe as Se genuinely is tied to concrete reality in a way other functions are not.

And _of course _you have a single interpretation. We all have interpretations - your problem is you don't even realise you are interpreting so that you think all of your opinions are objective reality and get anal and extraordinarily judgemental and insulting about anyone using the same data, same ideas, and thinking about them. Your interpretation is so taken for granted that anyone who thinks at all differently to you is wrong. You think all your assumptions genuinely are part of what you are quoting - things the rest of us can read without finding the narrow meaning you are claiming. You _say_ interpreting Fe is not a problem - but everything else you say implies the caveat "iff you come to the same conclusions I do." If you used Ni, like you claim to, you would be able to deal with multiple interpretations.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Where are you getting that from? And I have a greater use of Ni than any type using Ne, so what’s your point? There’s no us here… If you did say something other than that, I did not stop to read it since I wasn’t sure you were being serious with the “us” thing. But if you have something to offer in how Fe works differently than being claimed, please share it. Otherwise, go back a read the thread thoroughly to know that it was an intuiting type that too the first shot at sensing types, which like you did not realize I am not a sensing type, I am a thinking type….


First of all ... I doubt you have more than a drop of Ni given your basic rejection of abstract reasoning to move beyond 'facts.'

Given that the 'us' was used at the end of my paragraph, I highly doubt that you managed not read the beginning of paragraph. Or do you start at the end and work your way back? :laughing: 

I'm also using the word 'us' to also describe not just intuitives but also the people in this thread who are not dogmatic in their faith in 'facts' and can move beyond them into interpretation.

Nope, I have nothing useful to say in the thread - just came here for the show. In fact, I'm about as useful as you are, as far as I'm concerned.

I gather the vast majority of my external information using Ne and I use it a lot. I honestly don't care about your semantics. Ne is my secondary cognitive function - I am an intuitive. You are a sensor.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Well, there was the whole thing where all the Fe-users were talking about how they relate to other people and relate things to other people and the ideas of other people. And you claimed this is Fi unless the people are standing directly in front of them, even though it is clearly directed outwards either way, rather than inwards, like Fi would be. Nothing close to, for example, this definition (since apparently you rely on citations rather than rational thought to believe anything).
> 
> Introverted Feeling
> 
> ...





> 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.


That is exactly what the person on a deserted island is doing. The people aren't in front of them. They're hundreds or thousands of miles way. Any thoughts of those people left behind are based on internal thoughts, not actually being in front of them. Are you saying the person on the deserted island is valuing what they left behind? Are you saying the person is not wanting to be back with their friends and family? Are you saying the person is not motivated in getting off the island because those people left behind are worth it? If not then what were you and Noble claiming the motivational reasons were? Geez are you serious? 

I am interpreting? Fine, but you are making up things claiming a manifestation of a function. Everyone can look at that description and interpret it how they see it. But it seems quite apparent.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> That is exactly what the person on a deserted island is doing. The people aren't in front of them. They're hundreds or thousands of miles way. Any thoughts of those people left behind are based on internal thoughts, not actually being in front of them. Are you saying the person on the deserted island is valuing what they left behind? Are you saying the person is not wanting to be back with their friends and family? Are you saying the person is not motivated in getting off the island because those people left behind are worth it? If not then what were you and Noble claiming the motivational reasons were? Geez are you serious?
> 
> I am interpreting? Fine, but you are making up things claiming a manifestation of a function. Everyone can look at that description and interpret it how they see it. But it seems quite apparent.


Every person alive is interpreting. If you had good usage of Ni you would get that. And sure it seems apparent to _you_ - doesn't make it real. The equally reasonable interpretations seem just as apparent to us. They accord just as much with the words. And rather more with the experiences of the people who live with it.

You are ignoring the word filter and the direction, the orientation. Fi is a system of values and everything _coming in _is compared to it. The system exists internally, the outside world is valued according to it as it comes in and is judged. The Fe users were describing ways of reaching outwards, of creating a value system using their environment, of applying their value system to their surroundings as a way to feel connected to it. Reaching outwards, again. Not a filter at all. And not Fi.

Also...in your particular system, Fi-users do not use this filter for other people? Because that would be the corollary to your assumptions about Fe. and I can tell you flat-out that this is wrong.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

lirulin said:


> You are ignoring the word filter and the direction, the orientation. Fi is a system of values and everything _coming in _is compared to it. The system exists internally, the outside world is valued according to it as it comes in and is judged. The Fe users were describing ways of reaching outwards, of creating a value system using their environment, of applying their value system to their surroundings as a way to feel connected to it. Reaching outwards, again. Not a filter at all. And not Fi.
> 
> Also...in your particular system, Fi-users do not use this filter for other people? Because that would be the corollary to your assumptions about Fe. and I can tell you flat-out that this is wrong.


As a dominant Fi user, I definitely agree with this interpretation. But since subjective experience apparently doesn't count for _anything_, oh well ... :tongue:


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> That is exactly what the person on a deserted island is doing. The people aren't in front of them. They're hundreds or thousands of miles way. Any thoughts of those people left behind are based on internal thoughts, not actually being in front of them. Are you saying the person on the deserted island is valuing what they left behind? Are you saying the person is not wanting to be back with their friends and family? Are you saying the person is not motivated in getting off the island because those people left behind are worth it? If not then what were you and Noble claiming the motivational reasons were? Geez are you serious?


So according to the statements you've made, this means as an Fe user, I *don't* have the capacity for determining "what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in", because I don't have Fi. And more importantly, I can't make an assessment of philosophical or ideological value without someone else to tell me how I feel about it, and the instant they are removed my my presence I am suddenly unable to make any such discernment.

Are you honestly not aware of how ridiculous this 'logic' is? It means that Fe users can't make a value assessment without an Fi user to tell them how they feel.

It's like saying "When your foot is not on the gas, the car *immediately* stops moving forward, because the definition of the gas pedal is to make the car go." Or to be more specific, the definition of the gas pedal is to "accelerate the vehicle", therefore the gas pedal cannot possibly be used to maintain a constant speed by holding the pedal at a steady pressure, and certainly cannot be applied to slow the car down by slowly letting back on it because the definition of the brake is to "decelerate the vehicle" and there are only two options - accelerate or decelerate, each with their own pedal. Yet somehow, I make use of these other two functions of the gas pedal every day (as does anyone who knows how to drive with one foot) - in addition to the standard definition's function. That shouldn't be possible since we live in a world that cannot possibly exist beyond the bounds of literal definition.

Seriously, apply reality to these definitions and think for yourself rather than regurgitate quotes that you don't even understand.



Functianalyst said:


> I am interpreting? Fine, but you are making up things claiming a manifestation of a function. Everyone can look at that description and interpret it how they see it. But it seems quite apparent.


Are you serious? This entire thread has been nothing but an argument over interpretation - ours versus yours. Do you honestly suffer from so much hubris that you missed this? Really? 

Wow.

Just, wow.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Nova said:


> Isn't it that the point, that in certain situations in order to 'use' certain cognitions to adapt (i.e. se) you have to push out or 'repress' other functions, i.e. ni? i've seen you mention something akin to this elsewhere, functionanalyst.
> 
> if you accept this premise, that being in a survival situation demands greater use of thinking and sensing functions, that in order to use these functions efficiently, you must lessen your usage of others, how can you not accept that fe may be utilised less?
> 
> ...


I don't think anybody here is disagreeing that under a survival or adept situation that one can't use other functions. I do disagree if anyone is implying that "hermit" is the same as survival even though some may use hermit to help keep there sanity or better indept there functions. 
To say Fe cannot be used unless someone is physically around is like saying Fe can't be used online. There is not a single Fe user in PerCafe that has is directly physically dealing with people. Only a keyboard and a computer screen. If hermit mood is stress inducing for an Fe type then why do so many Fe users hermit such as INFJ's, which I am using because a lot of INFJ's hermit and I am one and I am not going to speak out of my ass and put words in other's mouths.
True though if a Fe user stays hermit for to long this can cause some diverse reactions. Unless that person is focused enough and hermit for a reason. Lets say Fe induced reasons or something like that.
Like you said a specific reason or situation for the external judgment to be necessary. This does not rule out the scenario but gives a plausible reason for the scenario, which is why I added the story of the Monk.

Thank you Nova for not insulting other members on here and not making an ass of your self.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

I tend not to like to get involved in quarrels, however I would like to help this matter as it seem to be perpetuating without any end in sight.

I am an Fe user who hermit-ed himself for a year. I can tell you that, yes, Fe tends to shut down. Not at first, it takes a while, but it does slowly shut down. After coming back to society, I had to learn to adjust. Unfortunately I adjusted on a group of primarily Fi users, so this did not go so well. Its been over a year since I have came out of solitude and I am only now feeling like myself. I had my faith in Jesus to help me through as well.

Being alone most of my life I have never had a really well developed Fe comparatively to my peers. Because of this, I have been able to develop my Ti a lot more, but at a cost. I am awkward with some, and charming to others.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> I tend not to like to get involved in quarrels, however I would like to help this matter as it seem to be perpetuating without any end in sight.
> 
> I am an Fe user who hermit-ed himself for a year. I can tell you that, yes, Fe tends to shut down. Not at first, it takes a while, but it does slowly shut down. After coming back to society, I had to learn to adjust. Unfortunately I adjusted on a group of primarily Fi users, so this did not go so well. Its been over a year since I have came out of solitude and I am only now feeling like myself. I had my faith in Jesus to help me through as well.
> 
> Being alone most of my life I have never had a really well developed Fe comparatively to my peers. Because of this, I have been able to develop my Ti a lot more, but at a cost. I am awkward with some, and charming to others.


Thank you for offering this information. 

I'm not trying to get you involved in the quarrel, but rather am sincerely interested in your experiences. When you say Fe shuts down, are you saying that it completely shuts off or begins to fade into the background with a lack of use? You've stated that Fe does not instantly turn off when you are away from people, do you feel that your Fe has more capacity than simply interacting with other people? Does it apply to things like your faith, how you feel about animals, your possessions, objects in your environment?

You've also mentioned that you feel that your Fe is under developed. Does the following description of Ti + Si dominance resonate with you?



> I see this most commonly in INTP dom/tert loops (Ti+Si), resulting in totally giving up on attempting to obtain the social/interpersonal connections that inferior Fe drives them to unconsciously desire. Such people typically see themselves as having such unusual thoughts and behaviors that widespread social acceptance is nearly impossible. Ti thinks, "I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals" and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: "Remember how badly this went last time you tried?" If Ne were doing its job, it would remind the user to continue experimenting to find a new approach. In the ISFJ version, Si becomes ultra risk-averse and refuses to try anything new or unfamiliar. If Fe were doing its job, the ISFJ would learn that some risk is necessary in order to uphold obligations to others and avoid living in total solitude. Deep down, these types really do want social connection and ritual (Fe), but have found themselves so poor at it that they simply give up trying.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Thank you for offering this information.
> 
> I'm not trying to get you involved in the quarrel, but rather am sincerely interested in your experiences. When you say Fe shuts down, are you saying that it completely shuts off or begins to fade into the background with a lack of use? You've stated that Fe does not instantly turn off when you are away from people, do you feel that your Fe has more capacity than simply interacting with other people? Does it apply to things like your faith, how you feel about animals, your possessions, objects in your environment?
> 
> You've also mentioned that you feel that your Fe is under developed. Does the following description of Ti + Si dominance resonate with you?


There was a point at which Fe completely shut down. I don't know when it happen, I just realized one day it had happen. Then I began to want to desire social interactions and what not, but I did not have those desires yet. I had to metaphorically crawl out of myself. Not until I came to the group mention previously did I begin to have those desires again.

I have read the Ti+Si loop before. It does not really convey how it was while I was a hermit. When I came into the group of mostly Fi users, and received a lot or resistance and there was a lot of miscommunication, I kind of retracted into myself, not knowing how to deal with it(before I was a hermit, generally people liked me, even if it was just surface level, and the few people who did not like me, I was able to avoid). It slightly resonates with me more during that time, because my wanting to seek interactions with people were rejected continually and a false(in some cases negative) image of myself was bore in the mind of the group. I could not figure out how to overcome that and so I stop trying. I stop putting myself in harms way.

I still have communication problems and others have some residual false ideas about me, but for the most part it has gotten better. I had one INFP, who fortunately(even though it much pained him) took the time to get to know me. He still does not really understand me, but he had come to appreciate me more. He even said himself recently that it took him a very long time to finally get a non-caricature view of me.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Since this is going to have to be settled with quotes, as nothing else is deemed acceptable... I'll debate this on your level, Funky.

If Feeling is defined as...



> Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are *both used to make rational decisions*, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. *Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.*


And extroverted is defined as...



> Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them, and preserves the original spelling of extraversion. *Extraversion means "outward-turning"* and introversion means "inward-turning."[17] These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.
> 
> The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called as attitudes. Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can *operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extraverted attitude)* or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall preference for one or the other.
> 
> ...


Clearly, the extroverted factor in Fe is applied to objects, the environment, and most importantly urges action. All of these things are in addition to interacting with people, but are included in the definition of extroversion. Most importantly, these definitions clearly prove what all of us have been telling you over these many posts of debate. Fe is* not limited* to interaction with people. Sure it's a primary focus, but that by no means is the extent of it. 

To go back to the desert island metaphor - Fe *would* prompt the user to take action and interact with the objects and environment, as extroversion also gains energy from time spent in action - and focuses not only on people, but also objects and their environment. This Fe inspired urge to take action would mobilize the individual to do all sorts of things like build a hut, organize their living space (even though no one else was around to see it), and get to know their desert island by interacting with it.

The problem with your argument is that you're only quoting the specific refining definitions of Fe, which are meant to be an *addition* to the basic definitions of Feeling and Extroversion. Go flip a few pages back in Thomson's book, and you'll see them. Her definitions of Fe are not meant to be taken unto themselves, but as a refinement of previously established principles of Feeling and Extroversion to distinguish it from Fi or any other extroverted function like Se, Ne, or Te. 

Just as with many of the points in this debate that have been refuted, you're so focused on the details that you're missing the big picture.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> There was a point at which Fe completely shut down. I don't know when it happen, I just realized one day it had happen. Then I began to want to desire social interactions and what not, but I did not have those desires yet. I had to metaphorically crawl out of myself. Not until I came to the group mention previously did I begin to have those desires again.
> 
> I have read the Ti+Si loop before. It does not really convey how it was while I was a hermit. When I came into the group of mostly Fi users, and received a lot or resistance and there was a lot of miscommunication, I kind of retracted into myself, not knowing how to deal with it(before I was a hermit, generally people liked me, even if it was just surface level, and the few people who did not like me, I was able to avoid). It slightly resonates with me more during that time, because my wanting to seek interactions with people were rejected continually and a false(in some cases negative) image of myself was bore in the mind of the group. I could not figure out how to overcome that and so I stop trying. I stop putting myself in harms way.
> 
> I still have communication problems and others have some residual false ideas about me, but for the most part it has gotten better. I had one INFP, who fortunately(even though it much pained him) took the time to get to know me. He still does not really understand me, but he had come to appreciate me more. He even said himself recently that it took him a very long time to finally get a non-caricature view of me.


Can I ask if you feel that when your ability to interact with people shut down, you also lost your value system, your ability to have feelings for the objects in your possession, and your ability to achieve harmony in your personal environment? Or were you able to retain these things, and your ability to make value judgments about the world around you? Did you ever begin to feel that God didn't exist because you were no longer around other people? Or were these things simply less important to you in that time?


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Can I ask if you feel that when your ability to interact with people shut down, you also lost your value system, your ability to have feelings for the objects in your possession, and your ability to achieve harmony in your personal environment? Or were you able to retain these things, and your ability to make value judgments about the world around you? Did you ever begin to feel that God didn't exist because you were no longer around other people? Or were these things simply less important to you in that time?


Objects did not have any value to me. They were merely a part of the background. My value system was not to be found; I did a lot of stupid things. I definitely was not able to bring harmony to my environment. It was merely me, and space. I did tasks, and I thought. My belief in God is not based on my feelings, so that never waned, but because I focused too much on myself, I was not focusing on God. It was not til I snapped out of it, and realized what I had been doing that I noticed I was not focusing on God like I should.


----------

