# Fi and feeling it in your body



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Copy from another thread:



Mimesis said:


> because as Jung states above, introverted feeling can also trigger bodily 'ennervations').


Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean and how it differs from Si body experiences? I am fairly certain that Si is something I feel in my gut but how would this experience differ to Fi, and how do xNFPs and xSTJs experience Si + Fi?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Copy from another thread:
> 
> Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean and how it differs from Si body experiences? I am fairly certain that Si is something I feel in my gut but how would this experience differ to Fi, and how do xNFPs and xSTJs experience Si + Fi?



Oops. Sorry @LeaT it's supposed to be Introverted _Intuition_, it was right in the original text above though. 

Jung does speak of feeling-intuition as undirected passive feeling, like being in love.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

mimesis said:


> Oops. Sorry @LeaT it's supposed to be Introverted _Intuition_, it was right in the original text above though.
> 
> Jung does speak of feeling-intuition as undirected passive feeling, like being in love.


This is interesting.. can you point me to some reading on this specifically? Well, both the body thing and what you just said about feeling-intuition?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Promethea said:


> This is interesting.. can you point me to some reading on this specifically? Well, both the body thing and what you just said about feeling-intuition?


Sure @_Promethea_...



The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject. The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject -- it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. *Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love.* This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition.* Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition*. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.

Jung Psychological Types Chapter 11 Definitions
Feeling, Apperception


Sensation, or sensing, is that psychological function which transmits a physical stimulus to perception. It is, therefore, identical with perception. Sensation must be strictly distinguished from feeling, since the latter is an entirely different process, although it may, for instance, be associated with sensation as 'feeling-tone'. Sensation is related not only to the outer stimuli, but also to the inner, i.e. to changes in the internal organs.

Primarily; therefore, sensation is sense-perception, i.e. perception transmitted via the sense organs and 'bodily senses' (kinaesthetic, vaso-motor sensation, etc.). On the one hand, it is an element of presentation, since it transmits to the presenting function the perceived image of the outer object; on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, because through the perception of bodily changes it lends the character of affect to feeling, (v. Affect). Because sensation transmits physical changes to consciousness, it also represents the physiological impulse. But it is not identical with it, since it is merely a perceptive function.

Jung Psychological Types Chapter 11 Definitions
Sensation


But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the. innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person. 

Jung Psychological Types Chapter 10 General descriptions of the type
Intuition


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think this is just one of those areas where the language gets misinterpreted because people confuse feeling from an evaluation standpoint, with feelings, affects, intuitions (which we often call gut-feelings), sensation (which might be a literal gut-feeling) and so forth. It's just confusing for everyone to conceptualize it all the same way because there are a million different ways to say the same thing and mean something different.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I think this is just one of those areas where the language gets misinterpreted because people confuse feeling from an evaluation standpoint, with feelings, affects, intuitions (which we often call gut-feelings), sensation (which might be a literal gut-feeling) and so forth. It's just confusing for everyone to conceptualize it all the same way because there are a million different ways to say the same thing and mean something different.


Then say what you think it is?


----------



## MyNameIsTooLon (Apr 28, 2012)

This is the best written description of Fi that I've seen on the web. Interestingly enough, it's written by an ENTP and I feel it captures Fi perfectly.

Guest article: Detective ENTP and the mystery of Fi * pleasebeniceto.me *


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I think this is just one of those areas where the language gets misinterpreted because people confuse feeling from an evaluation standpoint, with feelings, affects, intuitions (which we often call gut-feelings), sensation (which might be a literal gut-feeling) and so forth. It's just confusing for everyone to conceptualize it all the same way because there are a million different ways to say the same thing and mean something different.


I was thinking the same thing as you. 

My own interpretation of what Jung was describing is that when feelings attain a higher level of intensity, they produce bodily sensations, such as extreme nervousness results in 'butterflies in your stomach' or feeling sick for example. I understood that he was trying to make a distinction between such feelings (terming them 'affects' and placing them under Sensation) and Feeling as a rational evaluation function.

I believe that he was referring to such as feeling-sensation. Also, feeling-intuition as 'gut feelings', since they aren't a conclusion derived from rational, conscious evaluation, which he distinctly stressed that the Feeling function was exactly that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I was thinking the same thing as you.
> 
> My own interpretation of what Jung was describing is that when feelings attain a higher level of intensity, they produce bodily sensations, such as extreme nervousness results in 'butterflies in your stomach' or feeling sick for example. I understood that he was trying to make a distinction between such feelings (terming them 'affects' and placing them under Sensation) and Feeling as a rational evaluation function.
> 
> I believe that he was referring to such as feeling-sensation. Also, feeling-intuition as 'gut feelings', since they aren't a conclusion derived from rational, conscious evaluation, which he distinctly stressed that the Feeling function was exactly that.


Care to explain the differences? I kind of get what you mean I think, but then not really. I was thinking about what you wrote in some other thread about actions harmonizing with inner beliefs and how you can feel in your body whether it doesn't or not, because when it doesn't creates a sense of anxiety or discord or disharmony of sorts, that something isn't right?

And I was wondering if Fe types could experience this as well and it's not explicitly linked to Fi because I somehow think not every Fi type is going to experience it like that.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I think this is just one of those areas where the language gets misinterpreted because people confuse feeling from an evaluation standpoint, with feelings, affects, intuitions (which we often call gut-feelings), sensation (which might be a literal gut-feeling) and so forth. It's just confusing for everyone to conceptualize it all the same way because there are a million different ways to say the same thing and mean something different.


My bad. 
I agree, but in this case I started the confusion in another post, writing 'feeling', which had to be 'intuition'. I only noticed that mistake when this thread was created and it was quoted. 



*Feeling *is distinguished from affect by the fact _that it gives rise to no perceptible physical innervations_, i.e. just as much or as little as the ordinary thinking process.

Ordinary 'simple' feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking.

Jung Psychological Types Chapter 11 Definitions
Feeling


By the term *affect *we understand a state of feeling characterized by a perceptible bodily innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other [5]. I use emotion as synonymous with affect. I distinguish -- in contrast to Bleuler (v. Affectivity) -- feeling from affect, in spite of the fact that no definite demarcation exists, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. On practical grounds, however, it is advisable to discriminate affect from feeling, since feeling can be a disposable function, whereas affect is usually not so.

(...) I regard affect as a_ psychic feeling-state_ on the one hand, and as a _physiological innervation-state_ on the other; each of which has *a cumulative, reciprocal effect upon the other*, i.e. a component of sensation is joined to the *reinforced feeling*, through which the affect is approximated more to sensation (v. Sensation), and differentiated essentially from the state of feeling. Pronounced affects, i.e. affects accompanied by violent physical innervation, I do not assign to the province of feeling but to the realm of the sensation function (v. Function).

Jung Psychological Types Chapter 11 Definitions
Affect


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean and how it differs from Si body experiences? I am fairly certain that Si is something I feel in my gut but how would this experience differ to Fi, and how do xNFPs and xSTJs experience Si + Fi?


(Kinestetic/vaso-motor) bodily response can also be goosebumps, perspiration, lump in throat, shiver, blush, etc. 

They all represent a certain emotional body response to what is perceived, many of which have some repsonse in the gut-area. Distrust, digust, worry, feeling trapped, rejection, separation, threat, dazzling, overwhelming, etc. etc. 

Kinesthetic System Processing - Feeling as More Information - NLP Mentor


*Affectivity* is a concept coined by Bleuler. Affectivity designates and embraces "not only the affects proper, but also the slight feelings or feeling-tones of pain and pleasure." [7] On the one hand, Bleuler distinguishes from affectivity all sensations and other bodily perceptions, and, on the other, such feelings as may be regarded as inner perception-processes (e.g. the 'feeling' of certainty or probability) [8] or indistinct thoughts or discernments.

Jung Psychological Types Chapter 11 Definitions
Affectivity

With 'gut-feeling' people often mean 'certainty' or 'probability', and seem more 'intuitive' in nature, but other feelings (or inner perceptions/ evaluations) are represented in that area as well, so it may be mixed up with 'distrust' or 'suspicion'.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> (Kinestetic/vaso-motor) bodily response can also be goosebumps, perspiration, lump in throat, shiver, etc.
> 
> They all represent a certain emotional body response to what is perceived, many of which have some repsonse in the gut-area. Distrust, digust, worry, feeling trapped, rejection, separation, threat, dazzling, overwhelming, etc. etc.
> 
> ...


I see, although I still feel a little confused because how would that be separated from Si experiences of say, something being pleasant, feelings of nostalgia, discontent and so on? 

For example Han Solo's "I have a bad feeling about this" perfectly exemplifies what I am trying to say I think as there seems to be little discernable between how it would be Si, Ni or even Fi. I know Han Solo is now for the sake of argument usually typed as an ISTP type, but you get what I mean. 

That he's expressing it as a "bad feeling" seems to make it hard to separate from other bodily sensations in reference to the functions. Like for example, I can see a person and instantly think, I don't like this person. How do I know it's generated by feeing, sensation or even intuition? 

I think the only thing we can rule out here is actually T as I find that besides feelings of certainty, true or false, T doesn't seem to really generate "feelings" in my personal experience. T tends to want to depersonalize and remove such bodily experiences in general.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eh yea, feeling is not any more emotion-driven than any of the other functions - it just brings purpose to emotions in terms of what a person considers valuable about the emotional state their in in relation to their ideals/experiences - for Fi types, this evocation will be transmitted into an ideal from other ideals (rational ideals related to thinking, sensation, intuition, and feeling data - NOT YOUR MOST PRECIOUS VALUES necessarily, although it might, under willful conditions, reference these to operate - it's more influential when negative feelings about stuff are being referenced, since the person is striving with it to reach ideals, so comparing the lameness of something else to your ideals might be a common phenomenon), while for Fe types, this evocation will probably just translate into means/plans for action on grounds that coincide with traditional norms of agreeableness/social appropriateness (and how they want to convey their experiences with other people through feeling tones). It's just a matter of mentality. Some people are more consciously influenced by their "feelings" than others in terms of their rational aims and goals. I'm personally NOT at all convinced that this necessarily comes out to be a "type" (I mean, you have Carl Rogers identifying *5* levels of feeling (not 4), most of which sound more Fe oriented than Fi oriented I think). The extent I can see feeling taking on "typical" characteristics at all would come from, say, maybe an Fe dom needing to gauge how much they might think the other person would care about what concerns them personally before stating it (believe me, the "subjectivity" of these types definitely doesn't come from feeling, but instead, from Ti - their feeling aims are going to be the height of objectivity), or maybe an Fi dom being unwilling to budge when it comes to norms of action or just saying stuff for the sake of the other person present until the reach some kind of feeling of self guidance in a situation that is absolutely inaccessible to everyone around them, so that their ideal aims can prevail over the situation more (and others might be forced to recognize these on some level - they use Te to guide others toward these).


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I honestly have never gotten a "gut" feeling in my life... at least not one that I can recall. I've noted that those who regularly say they can feel it in their gut ... don't have the best reasoning to back up their claims... regardless of a gut feeling being involved or not. Take that as you will. Not trying to put anyone down. just an observation. 

I do, however, get feelings in my heart. It's bizarre. I will get pulsations which emminate from the heart area, and this may cause my whole body to start pulsating if I respond _correctly_. It seems my sympathetic nervous system will downregulate, and parasympathetic nervous system upregulate. I'm sure this has cascading effects biologically, in general, and neurologically/hormonally, more specifically.

I may even start to have a very altered perception of the world. Both external sensation may seem more... liquid or puffy... and internally the intuitions will become very strong... I can even have _pulls_ as if being directed by my soul as to where to look, where to move, whom to speak with, and what to say... mostly unconsciously. 

This only seems to happen during times of crisis. Either I've just reached a critical breaking point, personally, else there is a collective crisis which must be dealt with accordingly. 

No "gut" feelings, though. It definitely starts with my heart.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Feeling feeling in your body would probably be closer to Fi, I think (still, not necessary though). Fe, frankly, almost isn't feeling in the conventional understanding of the word "feeling" at all - it's pretty objective and sort of a stimulus for Ti (generally speaking, it makes self-expression on pure, non-emotionally calculated grounds a lot easier - sort of ends up putting the other person before the self - limits competition and makes contributing to circumstances of universally-held importance a lot easier and more relevant, since the person is restricted to their own thoughts that are aimed at something of undeniable influence). It helps to get information across without personal influences running the show that make one question the intentions of the other party. It's the feeling that is "at one" with the world in its manifestation. Competitiveness can arise though in terms of thinking with these types though, but I'm not so sure feeling would be that personally motivational in these types (unless maybe they are inferior Fe types who project Fe onto the motives and actions of others, and might end up reading competition into a situation from this). Often, you just get face value evaluations from these types that might be influenced by the person trying to sway others toward their subjective ideas of truth.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

@*JungyesMBTIno*

Fe is tribal. It's group oriented, but never about universality,. Universality of feeling is what Fi seeks to cultivate within their selves as an understanding of the human condition.



LeaT said:


> Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean and how it differs from Si body experiences? I am fairly certain that Si is something I feel in my gut but how would this experience differ to Fi, and how do xNFPs and xSTJs experience Si + Fi?


Some people have both Si + Fi! I think maybe that Si + Fi being in your first four functions of your stack may mean the sensation and feeling feed into each other and are amplified. Just a thought. Nothing to back this us, really.

Differentiating between the two: Si would be the physical sensation, and Fi would be the information received from the experience.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Nah, Fi is universal only in the way it considers* variables* for ideals. Fe is universal in how it considers *conditions* for feeling in an objective, meta-feeling kind of way. Understanding the human condition is not exactly the feeling function (that would come from largely just living among humans rather than, say, being the boy raised by wolves - I don't think you really need to consult feeling all that much to understand people (although personal referencing helps) - after all, the "human condition" is just a broad term for a ton of things that may involve sensing, intuition, and thinking. I think seeing people's motivations and underlying feelings would largely come from intuition (surface level feeling detection would definitely come from sensing - when vibes get involved, it would be intuition) - weighing the feelings of others against your own to evaluate your responses would come from feeling). Conditions are universal, variables are not (that's why they have to be considered to begin with). And remember, feeling is a rational function that operates like thinking - it's not anything from the gut or anything from sensory impact.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Feeling itself largely manifests as a phenomenon that overtakes a person - @_LiquidLight_ had a absolutely wonderful explanation of it a little while back (he's better than I am at describing phenomena down to their essence of accuracy).


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

> Conditions are universal, variables are not (that's why they have to be considered to begin with).


I think you've framed this in a way as to prove your point, but also see that it can be framed differently to disprove your point. I'm not sure one is valid over the other. 

Quite honestly, you lost me in the first sentence. We seem to have vastly different understandings of how these functions operate.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> I think you've framed this in a way as to prove your point, but also see that it can be framed differently to disprove your point. I'm not sure one is valid over the other.
> 
> Quite honestly, you lost me in the first sentence. We seem to have vastly different understandings of how these functions operate.



Well, I come from a pure (as much as possible) Jungian perspective on this stuff, not an MBTI one, so that's probably where we have totally different and mutually incompatible ideas. MBTI and Jung are full of totally different interpretations from each other (Jung was definitely more accurate though, because he was further defining terms that already existed in a fairly scientific sense (and definitely exist in philosophical texts), such as real intuition, real sensing, real feeling, and real thinking, not this iNtuition = creativity, sensation = conservatism, feeling = being human and emotional (wtf is "being emotional" anyway), and thinking = being Einstein silliness that often comes out of MBTI/Kiersey cult understandings online).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I think all the functions has its particular energy creating a particular feel.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Care to explain the differences? I kind of get what you mean I think, but then not really. I was thinking about what you wrote in some other thread about actions harmonizing with inner beliefs and how you can feel in your body whether it doesn't or not, because when it doesn't creates a sense of anxiety or discord or disharmony of sorts, that something isn't right?
> 
> And I was wondering if Fe types could experience this as well and it's not explicitly linked to Fi because I somehow think not every Fi type is going to experience it like that.


Yes, I can feel it but it's very subtle and not at a level of feeling that we associate with the feelings that we can name or reference. They also feel separate and I am often aware of my emotions at the same time as Feeling evaluations, which can oppose one another. I believe that Feelers in general are much more aware of their own feelings and emotions than Thinkers are, which makes sense because we couldn't empathize effectively if we wasn't used to experiencing emotions. Judging by Thinkers descriptions of how they experience feelings, it seems to be at the times when they'd be quite intense. I think this is why some can't comprehend the idea of making feeling judgements that are rational, because they only notice the experience of more intense personal feelings to view as an example. 

Feeling-sensation is a result of intense emotions and feeling-intuition just seems like a really fast version of evaluation, since it's done unconsciously. I trust it a lot and whenever I've experienced it very strongly, I've never regretted choosing the option that it presented as the 'right' one.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Yes, I can feel it but it's very subtle and not at a level of feeling that we associate with the feelings that we can name or reference. They also feel separate and I am often aware of my emotions at the same time as Feeling evaluations, which can oppose one another. I believe that Feelers in general are much more aware of their own feelings and emotions than Thinkers are, which makes sense because we couldn't empathize effectively if we wasn't used to experiencing emotions. Judging by Thinkers descriptions of how they experience feelings, it seems to be at the times when they'd be quite intense. I think this is why some can't comprehend the idea of making feeling judgements that are rational, because they only notice the experience of more intense personal feelings to view as an example.
> 
> Feeling-sensation is a result of intense emotions and feeling-intuition just seems like a really fast version of evaluation, since it's done unconsciously. I trust it a lot and whenever I've experienced it very strongly, I've never regretted choosing the option that it presented as the 'right' one.


Sigh, I think we're discussing functions at too abstract an level. Can you explain what you mean when feeling evaluations oppose your actual feelings? 

And I suppose I second that immature thinkers can put a bit too much emphasis on their thinking, thinking it's the end-all of all logic. But I think the same goes for immature feelers as well and that's why I've been thinking lately that the more developed the person becomes, the more abstract and advanced the T/F function, the more it would resemble it's T/F counter-part but I am not sure how that would work exactly. I also think an overall acceptance of feeling as a judging function for thinkers helps them to appreciate feeling as a judgement function in general. 

I suppose it's kind of hard to explain but to me it was more of a realization of accepting the validity of feeling judgement, that I one day could simply see the validity of its internal logic and even if I didn't have to agree with it on a personal level, I could accept how it made sense for the person in question. 

How do you explain the feeling of N + F feels like to you when you notice? I suspect that being natural it's not something you pay attention to just like I don't really pay attention to my intuition or thinking. It's just one of those things when I just know it's logical or not or whether it makes sense to me and it occurs so instinctively as a reflex I often don't really notice.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I see, although I still feel a little confused because how would that be separated from Si experiences of say, something being pleasant, feelings of nostalgia, discontent and so on?
> 
> For example Han Solo's "I have a bad feeling about this" perfectly exemplifies what I am trying to say I think as there seems to be little discernable between how it would be Si, Ni or even Fi. I know Han Solo is now for the sake of argument usually typed as an ISTP type, but you get what I mean.
> 
> ...


The body experience is not part of the perceiving function but are a response to it. Just because it is 'felt' doesn't necessarily mean it is connected with F, because T can have a similar bodily response to perception. If you like order and logic, you may 'feel bad' perceiving chaos and randomness. T may stress out perceiving danger that for F doesn't seem threatening. T has predispositions and assumptions upon which understanding is based, and disproofing them may shock the system, and make this person feel very dizzy. Trying to disprove or just disagree them, debating it, or just not 'get it', may cause feelings of impatience, frustration and anger all represented in a person's tummy. 

But also, some computer-programmers talk about code syntax in an 'aesthetic' sense (and according to Jung abstract sensation is aestetic), just like some speak of mathemathical 'beauty'. 
Processing fluency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

So I would say it has very much to do with congruity between (introverted) perception and judging, to the extend that perceiving incongruence, sometimes felt as cognitive dissonance, may distort perception, in the form of bias, denial/avoidance, compartmentalization, etc.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Sigh, I think we're discussing functions at too abstract an level. Can you explain what you mean when feeling evaluations oppose your actual feelings?


I just mean that there's more than one set of feelings experienced at the same time. I'm aware of the differences between each type of feeling. For instance, what I personally want to choose or what's best for me is often not the same as what I feel is the right thing to do. I usually choose the Fi evaluation of 'right' over what I think is right for myself. Fi is generally misunderstood as selfishly motivated or a result of what we personally like, because others seem to assume that we only have one set of feelings. 



> And I suppose I second that immature thinkers can put a bit too much emphasis on their thinking, thinking it's the end-all of all logic. But I think the same goes for immature feelers as well and that's why I've been thinking lately that the more developed the person becomes, the more abstract and advanced the T/F function, the more it would resemble it's T/F counter-part but I am not sure how that would work exactly. I also think an overall acceptance of feeling as a judging function for thinkers helps them to appreciate feeling as a judgement function in general.
> 
> I suppose it's kind of hard to explain but to me it was more of a realization of accepting the validity of feeling judgement, that I one day could simply see the validity of its internal logic and even if I didn't have to agree with it on a personal level, I could accept how it made sense for the person in question.
> 
> How do you explain the feeling of N + F feels like to you when you notice? I suspect that being natural it's not something you pay attention to just like I don't really pay attention to my intuition or thinking. It's just one of those things when I just know it's logical or not or whether it makes sense to me and it occurs so instinctively as a reflex I often don't really notice.


Can you be more specific about what you're asking? I notice a lot about N + F so it would be easier if you could narrow it down.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> The body experience is not part of the perceiving function but are a response to it. Just because it is 'felt' doesn't necessarily mean it is connected with F, because T can have a similar bodily response to perception. If you like order and logic, you may 'feel bad' perceiving chaos and randomness. T may stress out perceiving danger that for F doesn't seem threatening. T has predispositions and assumptions upon which understanding is based, and disproofing them may shock the system, and make this person feel very dizzy. Trying to disprove or just disagree them, debating it, or just not 'get it', may cause feelings of impatience, frustration and anger all represented in a person's tummy.
> 
> But also, some computer-programmers talk about code syntax in an 'aesthetic' sense (and according to Jung abstract sensation is aestetic), just like some speak of mathemathical 'beauty'.
> Processing fluency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


I kind of know what you mean but at least personally I can't say that T doesn't actually... care. If I get frustrated due to lack of logic, it's more of a sensation experience. It's my physical reaction to sensation stimuli. Hard to explain. And saying it must be located in the gut is not something I can say I think is correct insofar as to say that if so, then don't all feelings somehow seem to be experienced in the gut? 

More like this is probably better: I can feel betrayal and sadness in my heart but anxiety and loss in my gut and frustration and and anger in my head. Does that even make sense? It can be the same situation causing all that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I just mean that there's more than one set of feelings experienced at the same time. I'm aware of the differences between each type of feeling. For instance, what I personally want to choose or what's best for me is often not the same as what I feel is the right thing to do. I usually choose the Fi evaluation of 'right' over what I think is right for myself. Fi is generally misunderstood as selfishly motivated or a result of what we personally like, because others seem to assume that we only have one set of feelings.


By "right thing to do", do you think something like "is expected"? Because I feel you're making a distinction between "What I think is right to me" and "what others think is right in general" which if so seems to be an Fi vs Fe evaluation process?


> Can you be more specific about what you're asking? I notice a lot about N + F so it would be easier if you could narrow it down.


Well, since you're an INFP, Ne and Fi. Due to the lack of INFJs participating in this thread I don't want to assume they aren't included in this though, although I am also fairly certain their experience differ.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> By "right thing to do", do you think something like "is expected"? Because I feel you're making a distinction between "What I think is right to me" and "what others think is right in general" which if so seems to be an Fi vs Fe evaluation process?


Not what is expected, I do take what is expected into consideration, but more to evaluate the implications of going against the expectations. Living up to expectations is very low on my priority list, but I will begrudgingly do what is expected if it seems necessary or if the consequences of not doing it will interfere with the main objective. I think that's something related to maturity though, when I was young, I was much more stubborn about doing something I didn't agree with. Eventually, I had to accept that digging my heels in prevents me moving forward. 



> Well, since you're an INFP, Ne and Fi. Due to the lack of INFJs participating in this thread I don't want to assume they aren't included in this though, although I am also fairly certain their experience differ.


From what I've been told by INFJs, they seem to empathize more by the mirroring effect and 'feel the emotions of others as their own'. I would say I scrutinise my own feelings so I know exactly what situations create what sort of feelings. Like I'm unravelling them to discover exactly what causes what, until I find the root of each one. Then I can adjust it to individual circumstances and combine it with information about specific people and imagine being them in their shoes, rather than me in their shoes. 
So I can see the Fi vs Fe there, sometimes there's friction created because I would have a different conclusion than an Fe user as to how a person feels, so we would both see our own evaluations of that persons feelings as valid and different versions of the 'right' thing to do.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Not what is expected, I do take what is expected into consideration, but more to evaluate the implications of going against the expectations. Living up to expectations is very low on my priority list, but I will begrudgingly do what is expected if it seems necessary or if the consequences of not doing it will interfere with the main objective. I think that's something related to maturity though, when I was young, I was much more stubborn about doing something I didn't agree with. Eventually, I had to accept that digging my heels in prevents me moving forward.


I think I was perhaps unclear with my example as I came up with a better way to explain what I mean. Do you mean the difference between what you think seems to be logically correct and what you actually feel is right? As an example, when I was considering of buying my cats I was first pinning out the logical implications. Can I afford it? Do I have the time? Do I think I'm mature and capable enough of having an animal? and so on, and it really pointed me towards a conclusion that said I shouldn't have a pet right now because I'm not in a situation where I can financially. But in the end I just said fuck that and got my cats anyway. Is it something more like that that you mean?




> From what I've been told by INFJs, they seem to empathize more by the mirroring effect and 'feel the emotions of others as their own'. I would say I scrutinise my own feelings so I know exactly what situations create what sort of feelings. Like I'm unravelling them to discover exactly what causes what, until I find the root of each one. Then I can adjust it to individual circumstances and combine it with information about specific people and imagine being them in their shoes, rather than me in their shoes.
> So I can see the Fi vs Fe there, sometimes there's friction created because I would have a different conclusion than an Fe user as to how a person feels, so we would both see our own evaluations of that persons feelings as valid and different versions of the 'right' thing to do.


I'm trying to understand that but I don't quite either although I know what is meant by feeling the emotional atmosphere around you I guess, although to be honest, I'm terrible at feeling a response because others feel it or because they tell me to feel it. As an example, when my cousin invited me to her wedding I was happy but not happy to the point where I think I was expected to be and when her younger sister kind of reacted me to... well, call everyone out of happiness, I couldn't share that emotion with her and I don't think I've ever been able to summon an emotion and feel something because someone else expects me to, but I'm also wondering if that's just being a 5 in general making you kind of emotionally numb at times, even though I think my w4 and 4 fix outweights that a lot.

Then I'm also wondering about the overlap with the reaction triad within enneagram as well but wouldn't that then be the other way around, you want others to feel what you feel?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

?_? so...uhm let me get this strait Fi is not gut feelings and as I'd call it "navigating information by instinct / what feels like the corect answer". I considered Fi my ability to just "know" what is right or wrong in any given situation and to know this with a kind of certainty one feels in every fiber of one's body.

Like when a pirate knows that the government has to be opposed, not because it is convenient or easy, not because it is generally considered a good thing (because its not),...no..because it just feels like it needs to be done, because it goes against everything one's inner self stands for! ^^; there can be only one response to coertion and it is felt at a level much deeper the pure thought :crazy: with glee and exhileration, as if one is summoning a will strong enough to stand against whatever may come.

:ninja: I do no chose to feel this way I just do subconciously in a reactive way.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I think I was perhaps unclear with my example as I came up with a better way to explain what I mean. Do you mean the difference between what you think seems to be logically correct and what you actually feel is right? As an example, when I was considering of buying my cats I was first pinning out the logical implications. Can I afford it? Do I have the time? Do I think I'm mature and capable enough of having an animal? and so on, and it really pointed me towards a conclusion that said I shouldn't have a pet right now because I'm not in a situation where I can financially. But in the end I just said fuck that and got my cats anyway. Is it something more like that that you mean?


Not exactly, I'll try to give an example. This is part true and part 'improvised', just to make the distinctions clearer. 
My brother lives quite far away from me, he owns a car and hasn't got any kids. I have kids and don't own a car. So logically it makes more sense for him to visit me, he can pack a bag and drive over. Whereas, for me to go visit him, I need to mess about on trains and things, with 2 kids and a load of stuff. His place is smaller and obviously not child proof and he needs to accommodate 3 extra. 
My personal preference would also be for him to visit me, because I like being at home and it's easier for me all round. But occasionally, I'll go to visit him, even though it's neither the logical choice or my personal preference. It's a value judgement, because the effort shouldn't be continually one sided and I'm considering how he feels, because I wouldn't want him to feel like he's not worth the effort. 




> I'm trying to understand that but I don't quite either although I know what is meant by feeling the emotional atmosphere around you I guess, although to be honest, I'm terrible at feeling a response because others feel it or because they tell me to feel it. As an example, when my cousin invited me to her wedding I was happy but not happy to the point where I think I was expected to be and when her younger sister kind of reacted me to... well, call everyone out of happiness, I couldn't share that emotion with her and I don't think I've ever been able to summon an emotion and feel something because someone else expects me to, but I'm also wondering if that's just being a 5 in general making you kind of emotionally numb at times, even though I think my w4 and 4 fix outweights that a lot.
> 
> Then I'm also wondering about the overlap with the reaction triad within enneagram as well but wouldn't that then be the other way around, you want others to feel what you feel?


I'm also terrible at feeling something because I'm expected to, I don't usually actually feel the emotion, I just have a kind of inner reference to how someone might feel and how that might influence their actions, needs and thoughts. I don't know if it's a 5 thing or not.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Not exactly, I'll try to give an example. This is part true and part 'improvised', just to make the distinctions clearer.
> My brother lives quite far away from me, he owns a car and hasn't got any kids. I have kids and don't own a car. So logically it makes more sense for him to visit me, he can pack a bag and drive over. Whereas, for me to go visit him, I need to mess about on trains and things, with 2 kids and a load of stuff. His place is smaller and obviously not child proof and he needs to accommodate 3 extra.
> My personal preference would also be for him to visit me, because I like being at home and it's easier for me all round. But occasionally, I'll go to visit him, even though it's neither the logical choice or my personal preference. It's a value judgement, because the effort shouldn't be continually one sided and I'm considering how he feels, because I wouldn't want him to feel like he's not worth the effort.


Well ok, I can understand that and I kind of get the assumptive idea that what you did is probably what most people would not perceive an Fi dominant type to do but demand him to come over although honestly, I can see it going both ways as I think an immature Fi dom might do just that, on the other hand. Do you agree with that an Fi dom type when immature is more likely to be demanding of her environment and simply disregard other options and possibilities in favor of always doing what the Fi dominant type thinks lines up with her values? 

I was for example listening to two Fi types (one some IxFP and another ESTJ) retelling their childhood pranks when I saw them during a party and I was personally immediately struck by how I thought they were irresponsible and even amoral because they were so apparently unconcerned about the well-being of others. It didn't really occur to them nor did they consider the consequences of their actions. Of course, one could say that they were boys and boys tend to do what we teach them, but I was thinking how an Fe type would reason about it and whether what an Fe type would really do things because it was "fun". 

But again, I think enneagram plays quite a big role in this I suppose, but I personally didn't see the personal gain of peeing in the space between two windows at the school and it's not something that would've occurred to me nor is it something I would've done.


> I'm also terrible at feeling something because I'm expected to, I don't usually actually feel the emotion, I just have a kind of inner reference to how someone might feel and how that might influence their actions, needs and thoughts. I don't know if it's a 5 thing or not.


Think I know what you mean by inner reference like when at a funeral you're supposed to feel sad because that's what everyone else does but you don't. Or something like that.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I just mean that there's more than one set of feelings experienced at the same time. I'm aware of the differences between each type of feeling. For instance, what I personally want to choose or what's best for me is often not the same as what I feel is the right thing to do. I usually choose the Fi evaluation of 'right' over what I think is right for myself. Fi is generally misunderstood as selfishly motivated or a result of what we personally like, because others seem to assume that we only have one set of feelings.


This complete misconception as you speak of about how Fi users is portrayed a lot as selfishly motivated, among several other stuff. As an Fe user I am like wtf these people thinking that just because someone has Fi that they are automatically to be considered selfish immature A-holes or something. With no regard to other people...
I agree that immature people that have Fe or Fi can be that way to an extent of a slight difference.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I kind of know what you mean but at least personally I can't say that T doesn't actually... care. If I get frustrated due to lack of logic, it's more of a sensation experience. It's my physical reaction to sensation stimuli. Hard to explain. And saying it must be located in the gut is not something I can say I think is correct insofar as to say that if so, then don't all feelings somehow seem to be experienced in the gut?
> 
> More like this is probably better: I can feel betrayal and sadness in my heart but anxiety and loss in my gut and frustration and and anger in my head. Does that even make sense? It can be the same situation causing all that.


Yes the bodily innervations stay within the realm of sensation function. And I better rephrase it, what is 'felt' is not F or T (active judging), but undirected passive apperception of 'feeling-intuition' like 'in love', or 'intuitive thinking', like Han Solo (I guess, don't know the movies that well). These responses are not necessarily all felt in the gut or as intense. But this doesn't necessarily, or not always, mean awareness of bodily innervations and affects, for instance anger or jealousy.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@LeaT A mature Fi dom can do that too. I agree with @myjazz that both Fe and Fi types can be equally as selfish or equally as caring overall and it also depends on the perspective of the person judging. 

I believe in accepting others as they are and not trying to make them do what they don't want to do, _unless_ they're affecting others in a negative way. Of course, it's always circumstantial and I judge each situation by weighing them up as they happen, I sometimes continue to do something even though others tell me it's affecting them in a negative way. This is because I can't understand why it should affect them and again I weigh up the effects on each side. Most importantly, I see my judgements as fair because I live by the same values myself and not just when it suits me. I never expect others to do anything that I'm not prepared to do myself either. 

A good example I can think of is when I was about ten and it was inter-school sports. I point blank refused to wear those black canvas slip-on pumps with the elastic. I could run faster in my sports shoes. I was told by the principle/head that they would slow me down and if I didn't wear the,pumps, then I wasn't allowed to take part. So, I stubbornly told her that I'd sit on the grass and not take part. The other kids and teachers tried to encourage me to wear them and 'not let the team down over a pair of shoes' But weighing it up, I was thinking why should what I'm wearing be any concern of others? It's not affecting them. I 'knew' I could run faster in the sports shoes. 
I guess that I appeared selfish at the time, but I thought that they were being selfish, insisting that I wear what they wanted me to wear, for no good reason.
I'm less stubborn now of course, but I still work on the same principle 'If my actions aren't disrupting, affecting or hurting anyone else, then why should I stop doing it?' Like I said, I apply the same to myself and I don't expect others to stop something simply because I think so. 

I often notice a conflict of accepting vs sacrificing between feeling types, both have a different objective and different means of showing that they care, but both believes the other is selfish. I'm not sure if this is a common Fi vs Fe conflict, but appears so to me. 

Another point to consider is that since Fi doesn't accept objectively determined values, I guess they need to build up their value system by experiencing or witnessing the results of certain actions. If we can't personally connect to someone, then it's kind of easy to not think about the effects that our actions have on that person. Once the negative impact on someone is clearly understood, it's often set as value to live by. 

So, I guess selfishness is also often in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_LeaT_ A mature Fi dom can do that too. I agree with @_myjazz_ that both Fe and Fi types can be equally as selfish or equally as caring overall and it also depends on the perspective of the person judging.
> 
> I believe in accepting others as they are and not trying to make them do what they don't want to do, _unless_ they're affecting others in a negative way. Of course, it's always circumstantial and I judge each situation by weighing them up as they happen, I sometimes continue to do something even though others tell me it's affecting them in a negative way. This is because I can't understand why it should affect them and again I weigh up the effects on each side. Most importantly, I see my judgements as fair because I live by the same values myself and not just when it suits me. I never expect others to do anything that I'm not prepared to do myself either.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, I can understand that reasoning although if you had just refused without saying why, I would probably have been bummed too and feel like you let the team down if I had been on it, but only without an explanation. I am not too fussed about following rules for rules' sake if it is possible to achieve the same objective by breaking them. 

I should add that it does stem out of my personal selfish desire to win though, not because I necessarily want to see the team winning... I'm kind of egotistical that way. I only care about my team in the sense that caring about my team improves chances of winning but otherwise I'll dump all of them in a ditch right away unless they're people I actually care for which is unlikely in most cases. That's also probably because I'm introverted and a 5 though. I feel that other people are unreliable and cannot be depended upon to perform at the level I expect is required in order to win and then I just feel frustrated over having people on my team who held me back from winning lol. 

With that said, there are times I can be like that but I think I am more likely to find some kind of middle-ground that works for both and try to negotiate more but not always. Like for example, when I was playing LoL and I locked in a champion during selection and someone else then writes in the party chat that I should give it up in favor of that person, I am very likely to respond something along the lines of "first come, first serve" knowing fully well that rule applies to everyone and not just me. I won't make exceptions for anyone else because they had issues making up their minds before I did and they somehow want to play the same champion I wanted to play but were slower at selecting it than I was. In actuality, moaning about that pisses me off more than anything else because it somehow implies to me that they think they're special, that I should make exceptions for their sake. 

Same thing applies if I say call out to solo mid and then someone else comes and wants to play, I can become stubborn and inflexible and for example refuse to leave my lane at the expense of the other lanes even though I know that it doesn't work because of how the meta game works. Again, I don't like when people make claims as if they are special and exceptions to the rules if the same rules apply equally to everyone. Don't take someone else's lane if they called before you did but accept that you were slower. You had an equal opportunity to call it out first in theory so if you failed to be the first it's because of your own actions.



> I often notice a conflict of accepting vs sacrificing between feeling types, both have a different objective and different means of showing that they care, but both believes the other is selfish. I'm not sure if this is a common Fi vs Fe conflict, but appears so to me.
> 
> Another point to consider is that since Fi doesn't accept objectively determined values, I guess they need to build up their value system by experiencing or witnessing the results of certain actions. If we can't personally connect to someone, then it's kind of easy to not think about the effects that our actions have on that person. Once the negative impact on someone is clearly understood, it's often set as value to live by.
> 
> So, I guess selfishness is also often in the eye of the beholder.


Yes, I was kind of inferring to this, as I've been thinking that Fe types have a bit of an easier time picking up what's acceptable and works for most people naturally but this is something Fi types must learn through experience but I could be wrong. It was however something I observed listening to those anecdotes since I couldn't personally relate. My ENFP friend has essentially expressed the same thing and it seems that now when she's 23 she's learning to appreciate I suppose one could say are Fe values better, like she can sometimes see the usefulness of compromise even if it doesn't necessarily benefit her.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@LeaT I hope that I didn't give the impression that going against Fe values happens on a regular basis. I agree with a lot of Fe values anyway and even more I just go with, because I don't really care either way.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Here's some real deal progress of understanding on this topic going on on typology central: Getting the feeling function wrong [Archive] - Typology Central

Introverted feeling is indeed, what Jung considered, to appear not to be even worthy of the label "feeling" at all from an objective (extraverted) perspective. It's not that these types are selfish and cold individuals, but it's something Jung noted to be highly oriented to the unconscious mind so that it's influence on the outside world might register as something extremely cold and remote (after all, no one is just going to hand their unconscious over to influence - dangerous idea). I swear to god most people here wouldn't be able to identify an Fi dom if they were about to get shot in Russian Roulette. I tend to find the lower order Fi types (aux-inferior) a whole hell of a lot easier to identify, because they tend to come off as a lot more forward with expressing the influence of their feeling on them (although for the inferior Fi types, this can happen unexpectedly to them or be a little bit of an "all or nothing" situation). The "banal/childish mask" stuff has helped me unearth these people a bit. Ni is a bit like this also, where it seldom gets revealed to the outside world, so these people might come off as basic sensation types, or otherwise, the epitome of existential normalcy, even though they may be woefully oblivious to the normalcy of their relationship with the world. Ne is like this as well if these types end up being very quiet about their intuitions, which is quite common in a sensation dominated society like ours. On the other hand, Se doms are almost impossible not to recognize - they're everywhere.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Yeah, I checked out that discussion no offense but was kinda boring and nothing new to add. Was kinda interesting that the first post was talking about people getting "feeling" functions wrong. When it was he/she that seemed to have the wrong understanding from that post.

Where did Jung say,Fi- to appear not to be even worthy of the label "feeling" at all from an objective (extraverted) perspective?
Or even made an reference to that?

Side note I hope @LeaT and @Neverontime continue this topic, I have to admit I am not to intrigued but slightly so to join in the topic. Either way still intrigued by the discussion at hand and how it is put forth


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Yeah, I checked out that discussion no offense but was kinda boring and nothing new to add. Was kinda interesting that the first post was talking about people getting "feeling" functions wrong. When it was he/she that seemed to have the wrong understanding from that post.
> 
> Where did Jung say,Fi- to appear not to be even worthy of the label "feeling" at all from an objective (extraverted) perspective?
> Or even made an reference to that?
> ...


The discussion is lacking a strong Fe perspective :wink:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_LeaT_ I hope that I didn't give the impression that going against Fe values happens on a regular basis. I agree with a lot of Fe values anyway and even more I just go with, because I don't really care either way.


Absolutely not. I've dealt with many Fi types in my life, as I've said, I think most of my friends IRL have been on the Fi rather than Fe alignment XD So I'm very used to that kind of reasoning-process even though I may not always agree with it personally. As I said, I think being able to appreciate an Fe perspective might come with maturity as well though. Not because I want to point fingers but there are certain indivudals on PersC who are overly aggressive against Fe for no apparent reason more than for the sake of Fe opposing their Fi because they've decided so instead of realizing that Fe and Fi can very well overlap and do so harmoniously, but it's all about the perspective. If you think everything Fe is dangerous and out to get you, then there's no helping really. 



myjazz said:


> Yeah, I checked out that discussion no offense but was kinda boring and nothing new to add. Was kinda interesting that the first post was talking about people getting "feeling" functions wrong. When it was he/she that seemed to have the wrong understanding from that post.
> 
> Where did Jung say,Fi- to appear not to be even worthy of the label "feeling" at all from an objective (extraverted) perspective?
> Or even made an reference to that?
> ...


Well, I think what JungyesMBTIno is referring to is that feeling as a whole isn't about feeling in an actual sense of the word but more about a specific reasoning process which may be based on what one feels, but it is not feelings themselves. 



Neverontime said:


> The discussion is lacking a strong Fe perspective :wink:


I agree so I would like to see a more obvious Fe pespective because I would like to know 
whether Fe and Fi differ when it comes to bodily sensations for one, or how Fi and Fe differ when coupled with an N function.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Absolutely not. I've dealt with many Fi types in my life, as I've said, I think most of my friends IRL have been on the Fi rather than Fe alignment XD So I'm very used to that kind of reasoning-process even though I may not always agree with it personally. As I said, I think being able to appreciate an Fe perspective might come with maturity as well though. Not because I want to point fingers but there are certain indivudals on PersC who are overly aggressive against Fe for no apparent reason more than for the sake of Fe opposing their Fi because they've decided so instead of realizing that Fe and Fi can very well overlap and do so harmoniously, but it's all about the perspective. If you think everything Fe is dangerous and out to get you, then there's no helping really.
> 
> Well, I think what JungyesMBTIno is referring to is that feeling as a whole isn't about feeling in an actual sense of the word but more about a specific reasoning process which may be based on what one feels, but it is not feelings themselves.
> 
> ...


I said it before a short while ago, but times have changed much since Personality Types (1921) in western society, becoming more individualist. Back then it was unthinkable here for a protestant to marry with a catholic. Everyone belonged to a certain group or class, and everyone stayed with their own people much more. More than ever before, values can differ much locally, every place you go. We are also bombarded with values via media, which sometimes is mistaken for the real world. 

So yeah, Fe being more traditional, or 'objective values' (as if they were scientific facts), or supposedly more within a Ti framework, I think that is underestimating Fe a bit as a function. Consensus oriented is perhaps a better way to describe it. But consensus is not so much about an weighing different values, or what is most valued or preferred. Rather what the majority finds acceptable, doesn't object or can tolerate. And that is a more dynamic and fluid process. Consensus changes every time a new person enters a place/group or leaves it. 

I have 'objective values' too. I go to places where I like the consensus, e.g. the music and the people that come there. I think I accept most objective values of society, if it were just for the fact that some of those objective values have secured the opportunity for me and my Fi to live in relative freedom. If I go to another country I become aware of different customs, traditions and conventions. I use that to try and not get into conflict with the people who live there, even when they are not my values. My approach was more T in that aspect, in reading info about it, seeing it more as 'rules', where values are often contextual. 

My Fe gf at the time, was just aware of it, paying attention to her environment. I must say Fe-types in general seem to 'feel' remarkably well where consensus is; what is acceptable to the majority. Fe-types seem more able to adapt quickly to different environments. I think they are much more active gathering data, probably via sensation/feeling-intuition. Something that I am often more ignorant of, unless (or untill) it slapped me in the face. 
:laughing:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I said it before a short while ago, but times have changed much since Personality Types (1921) in western society, becoming more individualist. Back then it was unthinkable here for a protestant to marry with a catholic. Everyone belonged to a certain group or class, and everyone stayed with their own people much more. More than ever values can change much locally. We are also bombarded with values via media, which sometimes is mistaken for a real world.
> 
> So yeah, Fe being more traditional, or 'objective values' (as if they were scientific facts), or supposedly more within a Ti framework, I think that is underestimating Fe a bit as a function. Consensus oriented is perhaps a better way to describe it. But consensus is not so much about an weighing different values, or what is most valued or preferred. Rather what the majority finds acceptable, doesn't object or can tolerate.
> 
> ...


I think you nailed it on the head with the lines in bold. That's pretty much my impression as well, that Fe types can be... not shallow, I think is the wrong word, but extremely inconsistent in their behavior (I am not sure where I am going to place myself in the matter as my 4w5 fix essentially tells me all pretense is wrong no matter what XD). At one point an Fe type will say, "But I would like us to do this" but then do something else entirely if it turns out the context of socialization changed. An Fi type would, at least for most of the part, stick to their word because doing otherwise would probably be a betrayal of their inner values although of course, it's not that black and white either as it depends on _what kind of _Fi values we speak of to begin with. 

Fe types are not as rigid in this regard, because as you say, Fe is more about seeking consensus and always try to find some kind of logical middle-ground. For example, in the story @kaleidoscope wrote about the shoes, my immediate reaction was to find some kind of consensus of where she could have her will and where she wouldn't break the rules if possible, although in that very example, those rules seemed overly strict and unnecessary to me. Unless not wearing the shoes given out meant a disqualitification, I saw no reason why she couldn't wear her own shoes. Logically speaking, wearing your own shoes might even be preferred.

And about Fe being traditional, especially with Si, it's like saying all xSTJ types are conservative dictators too. I know Jung wrote quite a bit about the external behavior about types too in his type descriptions, but as you say, none of those things are really relevant anymore because today's society is so different. Heck, for all we know, what Jung thought was Fe and that women were more likely to be Fe types might just be his gender conception and personal bias at the time. 

One thing that does kind of annoy me with this board is how people tend to take what Jung wrote at face value and as if it's all truth, like the man himself possessed no personal flaws in his evaluation and analysis which I don't think is true at all. Jung definitely had many insights but I think we should question them since Jung himself will be prone to bias due to his type and gender. Jung even himself wrote that the inferior might often take the form of the anima/animus and be projected onto people of the opposite sex. How do we know this is not what he was actually doing? He didn't even write about the female animus until later. 

But I'm rambling off-topic.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Absolutely not. I've dealt with many Fi types in my life, as I've said, I think most of my friends IRL have been on the Fi rather than Fe alignment XD So I'm very used to that kind of reasoning-process even though I may not always agree with it personally. As I said, I think being able to appreciate an Fe perspective might come with maturity as well though. Not because I want to point fingers but there are certain indivudals on PersC who are overly aggressive against Fe for no apparent reason more than for the sake of Fe opposing their Fi because they've decided so instead of realizing that Fe and Fi can very well overlap and do so harmoniously, but it's all about the perspective. If you think everything Fe is dangerous and out to get you, then there's no helping really.


I agree, but to be fair, if a Fe type 'does the right thing' they get acceptance, support and validation. If a Fi type 'does the right thing' they are undermined, rejected and disapproved of. Neither is more 'right' than the other, both perspectives are of equal value, but only the objective version is valued by the outside world. 
Anybody who lives their life in that position is going to get pissed off at some point. Then when they do, they're regarded as selfish, unreasonable and narrow-minded. 
:shocked: 
It's a wonder that we go through life without committing mass murder. 
:tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I agree, but to be fair, if a Fe type 'does the right thing' they get acceptance, support and validation. If a Fi type 'does the right thing' they are undermined, rejected and disapproved of. Neither is more 'right' than the other, both perspectives are of equal value, but only the objective version is valued by the outside world.
> Anybody who lives their life in that position is going to get pissed off at some point. Then when they do, they're regarded as selfish, unreasonable and narrow-minded.
> :shocked:
> It's a wonder that we go through life without committing mass murder.
> :tongue:


Well, if you asked me how many times I've felt like murdering someone and I got a nickel for it, I'd be quite rich now... 

LOL, I just realized I wrote the wrong person in the previous post. But what you say, yes, of course, I think that's true regardless of type though. With maturity comes perspective and with perspective acceptance. You don't have to like it or agree, but you can respect and accept differences. 

I think that Fi types can be glorified in art though, where the Fi perspective of refusing to give in to peer pressure can often be seen as the unattainable ideal of individualism.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, if you asked me how many times I've felt like murdering someone and I got a nickel for it, I'd be quite rich now...
> 
> LOL, I just realized I wrote the wrong person in the previous post. But what you say, yes, of course, I think that's true regardless of type though. With maturity comes perspective and with perspective acceptance. You don't have to like it or agree, but you can respect and accept differences.
> 
> I think that Fi types can be glorified in art though, where the Fi perspective of refusing to give in to peer pressure can often be seen as the unattainable ideal of individualism.


*waits for Kalei to show up  wtf? Shoes? * 

:laughing:


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> *waits for Kalei to show up  wtf? Shoes? *
> 
> :laughing:


LMFAO right? 

Confused INFP is confused.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Well, I think what JungyesMBTIno is referring to is that feeling as a whole isn't about feeling in an actual sense of the word but more about a specific reasoning process which may be based on what one feels, but it is not feelings themselves.
> 
> I agree so I would like to see a more obvious Fe pespective because I would like to know
> whether Fe and Fi differ when it comes to bodily sensations for one, or how Fi and Fe differ when coupled with an N function.


 Thats kinda what I meant when I said the thread that was linked was kinda boring and nothing new to add. I mean anyone with a decent understanding of Functions should already know that Feeling functions has nothing directly to do with feelings such as emotions. Personally I have nothing against at all how Jung wrote and called the functions, he did so quit well I think. Also I think that just like Jung said that he wanted to bridge the gap of of understanding's among different different types (paraphrasing of course) that a lot of people take some of the stuff Jung said as face value rather than what he actually talked about. For example in another thread about Ni you can see how so many people get hung up on "mystical" because now days people think mystical is automatically related to some new age propaganda or "I see dead people" type of nonsense. Mystical in its non society influenced point of view is a very good word to describe Ni.

As far as Fe coupled with N (Ni) can cause empathic people, not just some sympathy or empathy. Many people who can't get over the difference between those words such as, sympathy, or empathy and try to understand what the difference between those an Empath really is. But this doesn't really go into the clean cut topics dissecting the functions in general.
Of course this requires normally for the Ni to be dominate and possibly overly strong just as much as Fe is to be strong. Also not saying without Ni-Fe one can not be in the group such as Empath. 
This doesn't relate to Functions in the way that all people with these Functions can be considered to be with. Just like Einstein no one can put his deepness into Function and growth and genius and relate that to INTP or INTJ ,whatever biased idea of type people think he was, in general at all. To even discuss Einstein in Function usage one has to dose it up with a strong mature dedicated function.

As far as Fe in INFJ's in general can cause sympathy and empathy on a normal constant bases. I think to get a better none influenced response maybe a Fe dom would be nice to step into this discussion, but it is rare to see Fe dom in these threads throwing out there views and ideas. This topic to me is perfect for them, maybe have to invite them over for some tea 
Or even an different INFJ or ISFJ would be nice, cause like I said it would be hard for me not to induce Ni-Fe along with just Fe while doing so.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> And about Fe being traditional, especially with Si, it's like saying all xSTJ types are conservative dictators too. I know Jung wrote quite a bit about the external behavior about types too in his type descriptions, but as you say, none of those things are really relevant anymore because today's society is so different. Heck, for all we know, what Jung thought was Fe and that women were more likely to be Fe types might just be his gender conception and personal bias at the time.
> 
> But I'm rambling off-topic.


Jung used women as reference point for Fe and Fi as a way to help describe the idea of Fe - Fi, just like he did with all of the functions. He tried to convey his idea at first with visual or common theme and followed by explaining in more detail. Kinda like how an INFJ would do a lot. Like you said people talk so much of Jung's metaphoric wording and expressing as face value.

You say going of topic like its a bad thing....


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@myjazz, I think I understood that was the point but I wanted to clarify either way. While you are mentioning sympathy and empathy, would you say that Fe types are more likely to be sympathetic than empathetic towards other people? I often find that at least with my ESFJ grandmother she's very likely to be sympathetic but it is rare that she appears to truly and genuinely understand why someone else might be upset for example. 

I am not saying Fe types cannot be empathetic, but I think they are perhaps more likely to strongly react to the emotional atmosphere around them without knowing why they are reacting at times? Maybe even more true for Fe dom types than aux. I think Fi types are more likely to be empathic but not necessarily show the sympathy in contrast but I may be wrong?

I've always considered myself much more of an empathic person but sympathy is not really in my nature but I don't think of myself as an F dom either.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Jung used women as reference point for Fe and Fi as a way to help describe the idea of Fe - Fi, just like he did with all of the functions. He tried to convey his idea at first with visual or common theme and followed by explaining in more detail. Kinda like how an INFJ would do a lot. Like you said people talk so much of Jung's metaphoric wording and expressing as face value.
> 
> You say going of topic like its a bad thing....


What I meant was that it's quite irrelevant to the topic whether Jung's descriptions of Fe dom was just his own personal gender bias or not XD


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> What I meant was that it's quite irrelevant to the topic whether Jung's descriptions of Fe dom was just his own personal gender bias or not XD


I meant if he described Fe and Fi wrapped up in conveying his idea, how can he be biased towards one or the other?
In a way is kinda biased towards men if you look at it in a biased way. Just like you clarified more into what I said, I also clarified more into what you said >.>
Like you said it is irrelevant in the first place another reason I enjoy this topic you two got going.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myjazz said:


> I meant if he described Fe and Fi wrapped up in conveying his idea, how can he be biased towards one or the other?
> In a way is kinda biased towards men if you look at it in a biased way. Just like you clarified more into what I said, I also clarified more into what you said >.>
> Like you said it is irrelevant in the first place another reason I enjoy this topic you two got going.


Yes, that's what I mean. I think Jung is a little biased towards linking certain functions depending on gender. Hardly anything new, but given the gender conceptions when he was creating his theories, I think it was easy for him to project some of his personal prejudices onto the functions.

That's what I mean. 

And I suppose going off-topic is just Ne in a nutshell.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@LeaT back to your off topic ramble XD 



> One thing that does kind of annoy me with this board is how people tend to take what Jung wrote at face value and as if it's all truth, like the man himself possessed no personal flaws in his evaluation and analysis which I don't think is true at all. Jung definitely had many insights but I think we should question them since Jung himself will be prone to bias due to his type and gender. Jung even himself wrote that the inferior might often take the form of the anima/animus and be projected onto people of the opposite sex. How do we know this is not what he was actually doing? He didn't even write about the female animus until later.


That's all well and good, but the problem with it is that everything kind of spirals until people don't know what belongs to what theory or whether it's just somebody's personal understanding/misunderstanding. Which is particularly inconvenient and frustrating for anyone new trying to understand the functions from scratch. 
It wouldn't be so frustrating if people understood well enough to know what actually can be altered and can't. 
For that reason, I do think people would be better to fully understand the original theory before they begin to make their own alterations, it just makes sense. For instance, the first things that tend to get altered are the more relevant parts, such as the idea of everyone switching between function attitudes. If we switch between Fe to Fi and back again whenever we need to, then what's the point of i and e? It would just be F. Another common misconception is that the introverted functions derive data from memory, if that were the case, then it's data that's been objectively given previously in the individuals past, therefore all the data has been objectively given and there's no introverted functions, which means no theory. Jung's whole idea was based on the introverted and extraverted function attitudes, yet people seem to throw those principles out of the window first of all. Doing so essentially invalidates the theory, people are then left with the scraps of an idea to work with, that we can't even apply, because without the foundation that they were built on, they couldn't even exist anyway. Would be as well scrapping the lot and starting a new theory.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_LeaT_ back to your off topic ramble XD
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL I know what you mean and I'm part guilty although I feel I'm a bit more open and fluid when it comes to the interpretations in general XD And it's not Jung, it's essentially everything I learn. It doesn't mean that I don't understand or don't respect the original theory but sometimes the original never makes sense to me even though it does in its own sense, but just not to me. 

And didn't Jung himself state that most people are more likely to be ambiverts anyway? 

Well, I think one of the original problems is that Jung himself is not always very clear on the concepts that he's using or what they pertain. Conscious unconscious is a perfect example to me, since Jung is clearly not using these terms in how most people understand them and even then it's not always clear what is meant. At least I can't always make logical sense of it if I just go by exactly what he wrote.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@myjazz will you come back and explain if you think I got the empathy/sympathy wrong by the way? And we need some more Fe types in here but I can't say anyone really comes to my mind besides @teddy[insertrandomlongnumberstringhere].


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Jung is clearly not using these terms in how most people understand them and even then it's not always clear what is meant. At least I can't always make logical sense of it if I just go by exactly what he wrote.


Thats it in a nutshell right there, a lot of people that do read parts or even all don't take the time to realize what Jung meant or how Jung idea of the conscious and unconscious is. If people don't know his theory then they probably going off of Freud's theory or something. In a way Jung didn't change Freud's theory he add onto to the levels within it.
Jung actually had a hard time expressing his ideas into an universal idea and whenever that became apparent like when he wrote his thesis or book. People criticized him but that just pushed him harder into elaborating his idea. Take "psychic energy" for example he was slammed for using that term, even though he tried to explain it. In his other book's he writes about how people criticized his work not because of his idea but his choice of words. 
I haven't read all of his work yet but from what I have read it is like Jung took this idea that he knew was true and while writing he starts the unraveling of how and why it is or can be true.
To be honest I truly believe by MBTI scale he was an INFJ there is so many things that points to this.

I Like what @Neveronime mentioned about the E/I attitude and everything that she said.
Of course I did make a metaphorical statement about memory once, which wasn't meant to be taken face value and I pointed that out after I realized I asked in such a way. wanted to add that in case she seen it...

( LeaT lets not get into a Fe-Fe moment we on #4 I think) which is an example of Fe also in applied sense.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I can't help but feel we all live in our own bubble, try to enter each others bubble, but if that ever comes to be, it means one must engulf the other, and rarely is this allowed by the surface tension of each. One of the bubbles is more likely to burst, and then it's spasticity spewing forth in every which direction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myjazz said:


> ( LeaT lets not get into a Fe-Fe moment we on #4 I think) which is an example of Fe also in applied sense.


Explain what you mean? I am terribly oblivious when it comes to Fe unless people tend to slam it in my face XD I find Fi so much easier to understand and predict for some reason, maybe simply because it doesn't try to alter things objectively.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

If we look at Empathy as being in the other persons shoes or feeling the other persons emotional state. I would say the Empathy would be more Fe.

If we look at Sympathy as acknowledging the other persons emotional state and and trying to consult them or help sooth their emotional state. I would say this would be FI

To me Fe is more than just acknowledging the other persons feeling also can put them selfs into their shoes by taking it in themselves in some way.

I am rushing this, got to go again. Be back later to add more


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myjazz said:


> @_mimesis_
> Humans Can't Be Empathetic And Logical At The Same Time | Popular Science
> This article in what it shows to me doesn't really consulate to me. If there was a link there I over looked it and if there is more to that research let me know. But as to what they provided they took 45 students and said eureka we got sold evidence.
> I would say that to say that empathetic and logic can not coexist is not so. I am not saying 100% of the time. But to say that this can not happen and is completely impossible is illogical.


I had a similar reaction as you when it comes to that article although what I think they are really saying from what I understood (which was shoddily expressed in the actual article) is that while you can definitely utilize both logic and empathy in decision-making, you cannot cognitively do so at the same time but will use either portion of the brain to evaluate the evidence in separate chunks depending on how it lines up.

So I think what the article is really saying is that instead of implying that we cannot use empathy and logic at the same time, we will have to switch perspectives in our problem-solving and decision-making.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I had a similar reaction as you when it comes to that article although what I think they are really saying from what I understood (which was shoddily expressed in the actual article) is that while you can definitely utilize both logic and empathy in decision-making, you cannot cognitively do so at the same time but will use either portion of the brain to evaluate the evidence in separate chunks depending on how it lines up.
> 
> So I think what the article is really saying is that instead of implying that we cannot use empathy and logic at the same time, we will have to switch perspectives in our problem-solving and decision-making.


 I get what you are saying, When it comes to the idea of using what portion of the brain is that are we to say that functions in its entirely is restricted to it its own room? Does this also say that the psychic energy is also to separated into it's own room also? Is this the end conclusion of psychic energy and physical energy? Or is this more of an in depth of what we know as to the physical energy of the brain, in which that is also not fully known.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Im drunk, but still realize while most people have a shitty corpus collosum, this doesnt mean everyone has shitty processing in distant regions of tye brain. Some individuals can near equally utilize several regions of the brain for processing information. I reject the idea that hukan beings cant jear equally process with both emotion and logic. I experience this and am of the species.

Drunkard out.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> @mimesis
> Humans Can't Be Empathetic And Logical At The Same Time | Popular Science
> This article in what it shows to me doesn't really consulate to me. If there was a link there I over looked it and if there is more to that research let me know. But as to what they provided they took 45 students and said eureka we got sold evidence.
> I would say that to say that empathetic and logic can not coexist is not so. I am not saying 100% of the time. But to say that this can not happen and is completely impossible is illogical.





LeaT said:


> I had a similar reaction as you when it comes to that article although what I think they are really saying from what I understood (which was shoddily expressed in the actual article) is that while you can definitely utilize both logic and empathy in decision-making, you cannot cognitively do so at the same time but will use either portion of the brain to evaluate the evidence in separate chunks depending on how it lines up.
> 
> So I think what the article is really saying is that instead of implying that we cannot use empathy and logic at the same time, we will have to switch perspectives in our problem-solving and decision-making.


Lol 
Illogical perspective shift it is then 
:laughing: 



Neverontime said:


> I understand the functions as perspectives, but I've just realised that inferior F and inferior T are probably brought into consciousness in different ways. When I focus on Thinking as a conscious choice to achieve a particular objective, I need to 'hold off' Feeling, in a similar sense to the way Jung portrayed in the Fi description.


Makes complete sense to me


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Lol
> Illogical perspective shift it is then
> :laughing:
> 
> ...


lol, well I can kind of understand what is meant by I wonder if that's not also determined by objective somewhat. I have extremely poor awareness of my Fe use so I can't comment how I really perceive my inferior besides becoming easily paranoid when a person I don't trust seems overly friend to me and I wonder what their motives are for doing so.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Neverontime
when you say this "I understand the functions as perspectives, but I've just realised that inferior F and inferior T are probably brought into consciousness in different ways. When I focus on Thinking as a conscious choice to achieve a particular objective, I need to 'hold off' Feeling, in a similar sense to the way Jung portrayed in the Fi description."
So let me ask you this. While you make this shift and holding off your dom Fi perspective to elaborate more into the Te side. Do you go against your Fi while doing so? I don't mean as not leaning on it totally. Also during this moment lets say someone or even yourself if you want, does go against one's Fi and to comply with more into the T side. During this T override of F, how is the F side affected? Is or can there be conflict between the two? Would the Te hold more importance on an subjective or even an overall objective purpose than Fi? When the T induced moment comes to whatever realization that was needed or wanted does the Fi always agree or is subject to whatever the Te purpose was? When it comes down to the final solution of what you feel right when it comes to your Fi in your life or the direction it chooses, whould your Te override your Fi?
When the conflict part happens who has the final say?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> lol, well I can kind of understand what is meant by I wonder if that's not also determined by objective somewhat.


What do you mean? 



> I have extremely poor awareness of my Fe use so I can't comment how I really perceive my inferior besides becoming easily paranoid when a person I don't trust seems overly friend to me and I wonder what their motives are for doing so.


I'm aware of my inferior in different ways. Aside from the way that I quoted above, when I feel like I need to express myself clearly, I can sense the shift in my mind. Usually, I can't access more complicated words in my normal state of mind, I often can't remember them without taking time to think of the word that I need. When I shift perspectives, therefore downplay the influence of empathy, more complicated words come quickly to my mind, I speak fluently and more direct than usual and can sound like a proper cold bitch, oops! Sometimes I use words and I didn't realise that I even knew them. Afterwards, I'm left wondering where the fuck it all came from.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@LeaT
Of course I haven't really indulged into the article with @mimesis that I assume was his topic of choice as to where Jung went wrong, In that mimesis believes the Psychic energy and or functions to be a closed system.
I did highlight some of the the points of discussion though in the meantime. Maybe if that discussion doesn't happen we can pick it up even thought in some way wont really be much of an opposing view topic to really enable the discussion to come to light any more realization I suppose. Of course I am sure Neverontime would jump in also along with a few others.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I'm aware of my inferior in different ways. Aside from the way that I quoted above, when I feel like I need to express myself clearly, I can sense the shift in my mind. Usually, I can't access more complicated words in my normal state of mind, I often can't remember them without taking time to think of the word that I need. When I shift perspectives, therefore downplay the influence of empathy, more complicated words come quickly to my mind, I speak fluently and more direct than usual and can sound like a proper cold bitch, oops! Sometimes I use words and I didn't realise that I even knew them. Afterwards, I'm left wondering where the fuck it all came from.


 This is almost explaining the difference between an F type and a T type preference, as to NF - NT , etc. Does this ever become into an agreement of some sorts? or do you just trash your typical Dom side to give way to the T side. Is the T side really just explaining more in a different way than the F side would normally?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> @Neverontime
> when you say this "I understand the functions as perspectives, but I've just realised that inferior F and inferior T are probably brought into consciousness in different ways. When I focus on Thinking as a conscious choice to achieve a particular objective, I need to 'hold off' Feeling, in a similar sense to the way Jung portrayed in the Fi description."
> So let me ask you this. While you make this shift and holding off your dom Fi perspective to elaborate more into the Te side. Do you go against your Fi while doing so? I don't mean as not leaning on it totally. Also during this moment lets say someone or even yourself if you want, does go against one's Fi and to comply with more into the T side. During this T override of F, how is the F side affected? Is or can there be conflict between the two? Would the Te hold more importance on an subjective or even an overall objective purpose than Fi? When the T induced moment comes to whatever realization that was needed or wanted does the Fi always agree or is subject to whatever the Te purpose was? When it comes down to the final solution of what you feel right when it comes to your Fi in your life or the direction it chooses, whould your Te override your Fi?
> When the conflict part happens who has the final say?


My Fi always has the final say, it feels more like it has Te on a leash and is still overseeing it and determining how far it will allow Te to go, which is usually just far enough to get my point across or objective achieved. Then it will slowly shift back, how long it takes to shift back depends on how intensely I needed to utilize Te.

Since I realised that I can do particular things easier in that state of mind, I've began to put myself into it, but because they aren't of utmost importance, it's a struggle not to shift back to Fi too soon.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> What do you mean?


What I mean is what the goal of your decision or action is supposed to be. Sometimes engaging both centers will be largely unnecessary, e.g. writing an academic paper on quantum physics.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I'm aware of my inferior in different ways. Aside from the way that I quoted above, when I feel like I need to express myself clearly, I can sense the shift in my mind. Usually, I can't access more complicated words in my normal state of mind, I often can't remember them without taking time to think of the word that I need. When I shift perspectives, therefore downplay the influence of empathy, more complicated words come quickly to my mind, I speak fluently and more direct than usual and can sound like a proper cold bitch, oops! Sometimes I use words and I didn't realise that I even knew them. Afterwards, I'm left wondering where the fuck it all came from.


That's very interesting because I've only experienced that as a conscious awareness with what appears to be perception and it seems to be shutting down Si in favor for more N, mostly which seems to be more of an Ni perspective based on my personal analysis but I am not entirely sure. That is what it felt like though and it seems to match Ni better description-wise than Si or Ne.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myjazz said:


> This is almost explaining the difference between an F type and a T type preference, as to NF - NT , etc. Does this ever become into an agreement of some sorts? or do you just trash your typical Dom side to give way to the T side. Is the T side really just explaining more in a different way than the F side would normally?


Care to explain what you mean?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LOL maybe that I don't even have some kind of awareness of my inferior maybe suggests that I haven't differentiated my Ji preference... It makes no sense because I am fairly sure I've differentiated Ne and Si to a degree, but with Ji it's just...


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Care to explain what you mean?


Sure I will in a moment I need to get ready to go.
But think of this for a second. Since Fi and Ti can have it's similarities. Wouldn't this also be logical for Fe - Te to have some similarities? Of course I did emphasize on think about about it...


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> This is almost explaining the difference between an F type and a T type preference, as to NF - NT , etc. Does this ever become into an agreement of some sorts? or do you just trash your typical Dom side to give way to the T side. Is the T side really just explaining more in a different way than the F side would normally?


The other difference between them, especially in a conflict situation, that comes up particularly as a result of defending someone else from a perceived injustice (like an 'underdog') is that I get a 'win at whatever cost' attitude. Ordinarily, winning anything is of little importance to me and I won't go against my own values or in any way allow myself to appear to have the upper hand if I don't think I really earned it. But from my Te perspective, at it's most intense, it's as though I believe that I'm right and I don't care how I get the other person to believe it. If necessary, I will withhold information, mislead, belittle, etc. all the things that I usually dislike to see happen and wouldn't do for the sake of winning a debate or argument or to get my own way. So even though it's my inferior Te perspective, the overall aim is still in the realm of Fi values, it's not actually directed by Te. I justify all this by concluding that the other person isn't caring about anybody else, therefore they're undeserving of empathy and fair treatment.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> The other difference between them, especially in a conflict situation, that comes up particularly as a result of defending someone else from a perceived injustice (like an 'underdog') is that I get a 'win at whatever cost' attitude. Ordinarily, winning anything is of little importance to me and I won't go against my own values or in any way allow myself to appear to have the upper hand if I don't think I really earned it. But from my Te perspective, at it's most intense, it's as though I believe that I'm right and I don't care how I get the other person to believe it. If necessary, I will withhold information, mislead, belittle, etc. all the things that I usually dislike to see happen and wouldn't do for the sake of winning a debate or argument or to get my own way. So even though it's my inferior Te perspective, the overall aim is still in the realm of Fi values, it's not actually directed by Te. I justify all this by concluding that the other person isn't caring about anybody else, therefore they're undeserving of empathy and fair treatment.


o.o boah! Yes exactly! :| have we met before? ?_? you seem to know me...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> o.o boah! Yes exactly! :| have we met before? ?_? you seem to know me...


Well, I have moments like that too so I can relate as well.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@LeaT
I had once again wrote out a lengthy detailed explanation and dam if wasn't deleted again. I am still slightly pissed using a different browser and as I am more in tuned to what I writing freaking think goes haywire. Time to stop using this one....
In brief neverontime mentioned that she had to downplay her F side to indulge more into the T side, The way she described it shows an preference of F over T, such as left wondering what the fuck, seems like coming of cold, speak more direct than usual.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, I have moments like that too so I can relate as well.


I think a T with inferior Fi apply judgement about people being undeserving of empathy much sooner. Such as people bring it on themselves through their own lack of effort or because they're careless or stupid. I think Lenore Thompson said something along those lines.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> The introvert abstracts value from the object because he won't accept the object as it's presented. He will only accept the objective as far as it appears subjectively true and correct. It doesn't matter if it's a 'proven objective fact' or a commonly held objective value, that's been scientifically or traditionally verified a thousand times over, if it doesn't appear correct to him, he'll dismiss it or devalue it, because he doesn't place the highest value on the objective facts. He will put it down to an objective error of some form or another.
> It's not that his ego won't allow him to let go of subjectively invested idea and so won't let him see it as the truth, it's because the vague inner vision from (according to Jung) the primordial images/collective unconscious, has much more power over his thoughts and determines his judgement. This can appear to him equally as true as any other known and established truth.


Thanks, it's a good summary! It's not exactly what I asked though, I got that picture all right, and I understand the model of opposing forces/attitudes. 

"The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated."



> *Abstraction*
> (...) 'Interest' I conceive as that energy=libido (v. Libido), which I bestow upon the object as value, or which the object draws from me, even maybe against my will or unknown to myself. I visualize the abstracting process, therefore, as a withdrawal of libido from the object, or as a back flow of value from the object to a subjective, abstract content. Thus, for me, abstraction has the meaning of an energic depreciation of the object. In other words, abstraction can be expressed as an introverting libido-movement.


In other words, the more he abstracts, the less libido flows back, right? This doesn't fit with the 'attempted ascendancy on the part of the object' which had to be 'continually frustrated'. 

Let's say the extrovert expends libido to the object. Where does it go? According to Jung he has a natural tendency to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject. Why is this different from former, libido-wise? 

On another note, in response to your writing, I have these considerations about the reason/motivation of abstraction.



> According to a study measuring the unprecedented level of information in our contemporary society, it was estimated that one weekday edition of today's New York Times contains more information than the average person in seventeenth-century England was likely to encounter in an entire lifetime.
> Technorealism - Understanding the Limits of Information





> Development in any domain is often characterized by increasingly abstract representations. Recent evidence in the domain of shape recognition provides one example; between 18 and 24 months children appear to build increasingly abstract representations of object shape (Smith, 2003). Abstraction is in part simplification because it requires the removal of irrelevant information. At the same time, part of generalization is ignoring irrelevant differences. The resulting prediction is this: simplification may enable generalization.
> Simplicity and Generalization: Short-cutting Abstraction in Children


My point, abstraction is necessary to process copious amounts of data in an efficient way, based on a mental framework of conceptual representations, experiences and evaluations of the world and ourselves as we know it. 

That childeren start at a young age, we had seen with little Albert, how he first abstracted common properties of the animals, and put them all on the 'like'-side of his Feeling-dichotomy, and when he associated his 'dislike' of the noise to the rat, he generalized his 'dislike' to all objects with the same abstracted properties. Without desensitization, he might have expanded this years later to horses, or any animal, maybe even an 'irrational' aversion of teddybears, and completely forgotten what truly is the cause of his distress. Then it would be easy to attribute this to collective unconscious. 



Neverontime said:


> Anyway, obviously I'll discuss it from my Fi perspective, so it'll refer more to judgement than perception.


Well, don't wanna nitpick, but you did forget to mention the attempts of "foreign influence" from within, the unconscious. xD


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

myjazz said:


> @_LeaT_
> Of course I haven't really indulged into the article with @_mimesis_ that I assume was his topic of choice as to where Jung went wrong, In that mimesis believes the Psychic energy and or functions to be a closed system.
> I did highlight some of the the points of discussion though in the meantime. Maybe if that discussion doesn't happen we can pick it up even thought in some way wont really be much of an opposing view topic to really enable the discussion to come to light any more realization I suppose. Of course I am sure Neverontime would jump in also along with a few others.


I don't believe it is a closed system. And I found this. 



> “Since our experience is confined to relatively closed systems, we are never in a position to observe an absolute psychological entropy; but the more the psychological system is closed off, the more clearly is the phenomenon of entropy manifest.”
> 
> http://www.eoht.info/page/Psychic+entropy


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@mimesis 



> That childeren start at a young age, we had seen with little Albert, how he first abstracted common properties of the animals, and put them all on the 'like'-side of his Feeling-dichotomy, and when he associated his 'dislike' of the noise to the rat, he generalized his 'dislike' to all objects with the same abstracted properties. Without desensitization, he might have expanded this years later to horses, or any animal, maybe even an 'irrational' aversion of teddybears, and completely forgotten what truly is the cause of his distress. Then it would be easy to attribute this to collective unconscious.


I believe Jung attributed introverted functions, etc. to the collective unconscious on account of them being ever present in each generation without them ever being taught. 
Also because they are required for any significant amount of change in the general consensus. If you imagine that everyone was Je, therefore all humankinds judgements are determined by the objective facts. Apart from accidental occurences, that could well be dismissed by Je, how would society ever move their judgements forward, beyond the general consensus? 



> Well, don't wanna nitpick, but you did forget to mention the attempts of "foreign influence" from within, the unconscious. xD


Yeah you do. 
And, eh?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@mimesis 
Why did you even mentioned anything about a closed system in the first place then? 
I thought we was going to have an discussion about something or the other, maybe you are actually just wanting to know instead as in what is Jung talking about. If I was wrong I apologize, my bad. 
I would like to discuss as what you believe where Jung went wrong though. Maybe he did but I don't see it so lets start the discussion and find out.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@mimesis 


> In other words, the more he abstracts, the less libido flows back, right? This doesn't fit with the 'attempted ascendancy on the part of the object' which had to be 'continually frustrated'.
> 
> Let's say the extrovert expends libido to the object. Where does it go? According to Jung he has a natural tendency to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject. Why is this different from former, libido-wise?


Because the introvert assimilates the similarities from the objective facts to the content already prepared and the extravert assimilates them to himself because there isn't any content to assimilate it to. The extravert accepts the ascendancy of the object as it's presented so the accepted object becomes the extraverts opinion. 

Example, back to values XD 
Take the general consensus value that celebrities are very important people. Apparently, the chance to meet them is very exciting, so when one stopped in my town unexpectedly for coffee, almost everyone that I spoke to thought that it was fantastic!  
Of course, I was odd because I don't place high value on celebrity status and therefore don't assimilate the objective consensus value to my own value system and make it my own value. 



> On another note, in response to your writing, I have these considerations about the reason/motivation of abstraction.


Yes, abstraction is necessary for focus, focus can only be achieved by ignoring the irrelevant, so Feeling ignores all the Thinking content and Sensing ignores all the Intuitive content and in turn select which of the external and internal content to ignore. A persons direction determines what's selected, which is why Jung said that a function has to differentiate in order to have direction, without direction, we're going by only instincts.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Collective unconscious refers to how one unconsciously orients their mind to the world. Personal unconscious refers to how one unconsciously orients their mind to their individuality. The 8th function would be very close to the collective unconscious - broad unconscious expectations or values held almost entirely instinctually by society - not where you have really any independent ideas related to your own person.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_mimesis_
> I believe Jung attributed introverted functions, etc. to the collective unconscious on account of them being ever present in each generation without them ever being taught.
> Also because they are required for any significant amount of change in the general consensus. If you imagine that everyone was Je, therefore all humankinds judgements are determined by the objective facts. Apart from accidental occurences, that could well be dismissed by Je, how would society ever move their judgements forward, beyond the general consensus?


I don't object the collective unconscious. There is enough scientific evidence of brain chemicals that influence social behavior, and not unimportant, in-group bias. Just because someone is objectively orientated doesn't mean they are always objective. 

And consensus doesn't mean they have the same ideas and values. It's the common denominator not the highest values. 

I think there will always be a dominance or status hierarchy under men and women. It's an order that usually establishes it by itself. Not without a little rumble but still. 



Neverontime said:


> Yeah you do.
> And, eh?


Haha of course, always when the sentence begins with 'I don't wanna be...' 
Anyway, just for the sake of symetry.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> Yes, abstraction is necessary for focus, focus can only be achieved by ignoring the irrelevant, so Feeling ignores all the Thinking content and Sensing ignores all the Intuitive content and in turn select which of the external and internal content to ignore. A persons direction determines what's selected, which is why Jung said that a function has to differentiate in order to have direction, without direction, we're going by only instincts.


I get your point on focus, yet don't fully agree with your example though.
I will use my self as an example to clarify why so, in a way yes focus to me is ignoring the irrelevant. I don't see Intuition and Sensing in total considering the other irrelevant quit the contrary sometimes. When I study martial arts I rely heavy on my Ni-Se focus and to be honest this has been one of the single most focused things that I can do, not meaning martial arts but yes that also I suppose. When my Ni-Se is focused together in one point of direction of course as was mentioned before my Ni still having its dominance. While doing this my focus is extreme with the intensity of Ni and of Se. I wont go into some of the other focus ones which deals with Thinking and Feeling also.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_mimesis_
> 
> 
> Because the introvert assimilates the similarities from the objective facts to the content already prepared and the extravert assimilates them to himself because there isn't any content to assimilate it to. The extravert accepts the ascendancy of the object as it's presented so the accepted object becomes the extraverts opinion.
> ...


Sure, schematas will be different for ST compared to SF. And some are better in abstracting than others. 
On the other hand, Introverted Intuition and Extraverted Thinking goes well together, that's two different directions right?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

myjazz said:


> @_mimesis_
> Why did you even mentioned anything about a closed system in the first place then?
> I thought we was going to have an discussion about something or the other, maybe you are actually just wanting to know instead as in what is Jung talking about. If I was wrong I apologize, my bad.
> I would like to discuss as what you believe where Jung went wrong though. Maybe he did but I don't see it so lets start the discussion and find out.


No I just found that quote. But not more than that quote so I don't know much more, and I don't know what he means with relatively closed system. Have to figure that out. I'm not an expert on thermodynamica. 
I also need to figure out in what extend my trancedental experience has influence on this. (directions, trancedental function). But more people say they can use more functions, and not instinctively, but differentiated. 

Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> No I just found that quote. But not more than that quote so I don't know much more, and I don't know what he means with relatively closed system. Have to figure that out. I'm not an expert on thermodynamica.
> 
> 
> I also need to figure out in what extend my trancedental experience has influence on this. (directions, trancedental function). But more people say they can use more functions, and not instinctively, but differentiated.


Oh okay sorry 
Jung did not think of the Psyche, libido or Psychic energy as an closed system. He was in rejection to this by apposing such a notion in some other peoples studies. Jung did say that the Psyche in a way can be regarded as an relatively closed system, but not an closed system. The big part not to over look is relatively , in a way this is saying mostly closed but yet not completely closed. He further adds that an closed system Psyche would lead to a form of neurosis in which he stated before also about his idea that the libido according to Freud view is absent in the case but he found it as the Libido is turning in on it's self like in reverse so to say. And that in some cases, maybe he said or thought all, that the primordial priori can or does start to become the persons new reality. I apologize if any of this is incorrect in some way, I will go over it later to make sure. But I believe its all there when I make reference's from more than one point of reference I sometimes doubt if I remember it all right on the spot.

The thing with that quote is they took a small part of it and can be taken out of context or without much more understanding as to what he was saying in general.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@_mimesis_ 

"Since our experience is confined to relatively closed systems, we are never in a position to observe an absolute psychological entropy; but the more the psychological system is closed off, the more clearly is the phenomenon of entropy manifest.”

I assume this is the quote right? Lets do a quick dissect of this quote then. 
At first it says relatively closed and then goes on to say but the more the psychological system is closed off. Which is meaning wasn't closed in the first place, how can you close a door when it is already closed? Then goes to say when this does become more closed the phenomenon of Entropy manifest.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I don't object the collective unconscious. There is enough scientific evidence of brain chemicals that influence social behavior, and not unimportant, in-group bias. Just because someone is objectively orientated doesn't mean they are always objective.


The extravert isn't always objectively orientated because there is a continuous influx into consciousness of the subjective content from the unconscious. But for the main part he is objectively orientated, because his dominant function isn't oriented towards the primordial images. 
Everyone easily accepts Se perceives external data, without adding subjective content to perception, so why is it not accepted that Te makes judgements by the external content without adding subjective content to the judgement process? 



> And consensus doesn't mean they have the same ideas and values. It's the common denominator not the highest values.


Consensus means that it's the generally held belief, since it's the generally held belief its taught as being correct. Extraverts consciousness accepts that what they are taught is correct until they are externally educated otherwise. 
I was taught the color red is red, I believe this to be correct because there has been no intervention from the primordial images pushing through into my consciousness telling me that red is green. If there were, I would be quite certain it's green, I accept the external education without that intervention from the collective unconscious. 



> The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral viewpoint. If the generally valid view were different, the subjective moral guiding line would also be different, without the general psychological habitus being in any way changed.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Sure, schematas will be different for ST compared to SF. And some are better in abstracting than others.
> On the other hand, Introverted Intuition and Extraverted Thinking goes well together, that's two different directions right?


Yes, because firstly perception isn't antagonistic to thinking and secondly, one is subordinate to the other because only one function determines the direction of consciousness anyway. That's why one function has to be differentiated to determine the direction of consciousness and another function of equal power in consciousness is forbidden. We make our conscious choices under the direction of our dominant function. If another function were equal in consciousness, two directions would be present. 

How would consciousness decide between the two different directions, without a dominant function determining direction in order to consciously choose? 

A simile to explain. 
A wolf pack has an alpha male, the alpha male makes the decisions for the pack and therefore determines the pack direction. There's an alpha female, who has some privileges and authority above the rest of the pack, but she is still subservient to the alpha male. The pack works because there is only one dog making the decisions and directing the pack, the rest have their place in the hierarchy, they have their roles under the alphas direction, but they don't each take their own direction. 

If a lower ranking male achieves equal status it wouldn't work. If there were two or more alpha males each making decisions as for direction, which direction would the pack take? Would it still be a pack? Probably not. Because one must lead and the rest must follow or the pack has no direction. If a lower ranking male achieves higher status, then he becomes the new alpha and the old one must step down and follow the new alphas direction. They can't have no alpha either, because again, they wouldn't have direction. 

In the same way, even though the functions are all present in the psyche, only one can and must be dominant to actually determine conscious direction.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> I get your point on focus, yet don't fully agree with your example though.
> I will use my self as an example to clarify why so, in a way yes focus to me is ignoring the irrelevant. I don't see Intuition and Sensing in total considering the other irrelevant quit the contrary sometimes. When I study martial arts I rely heavy on my Ni-Se focus and to be honest this has been one of the single most focused things that I can do, not meaning martial arts but yes that also I suppose. When my Ni-Se is focused together in one point of direction of course as was mentioned before my Ni still having its dominance. While doing this my focus is extreme with the intensity of Ni and of Se. I wont go into some of the other focus ones which deals with Thinking and Feeling also.


Yes, I see what you're saying. I was referring to the functions in a slightly different context, more towards abstracting data that each function prefers to work with. In the moment for example, when I decide what's happening in a given situation, I automatically value intuition, because it's presented to me as the 'facts' regarding what I'm perceiving. I don't even make a conscious decision in that moment, it's simply understood as. The only reason that I even realize this is from later listening to Sensors who perceived the same situation and realizing how they came to a different conclusion. We saw the same thing and yet I took the sensory impression a step further, therefore devaluing or ignoring the importance of the sensory impressions presented.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> Yes, I see what you're saying. I was referring to the functions in a slightly different context, more towards abstracting data that each function prefers to work with. In the moment for example, when I decide what's happening in a given situation, I automatically value intuition, because it's presented to me as the 'facts' regarding what I'm perceiving. I don't even make a conscious decision in that moment, it's simply understood as. The only reason that I even realize this is from later listening to Sensors who perceived the same situation and realizing how they came to a different conclusion. We saw the same thing and yet I took the sensory impression a step further, therefore devaluing or ignoring the importance of the sensory impressions presented.


I understand, just pointing it out if taken as face value as an whole. And giving an example in accordance to situations where the direction of purpose can be focused in pairing together or undifferentiated. After the situation has become clear or finished, the differentiated process will take place. Which leads it back to order of preferred dominance in the overall value. Which is why I made a reference to point out that my Ni was still in held to more regard, As you mention direction.In a way it is not just the fact that a function has to be differentiated but an undifferentiated functioning can and is also an importance as well. Kinda like when you mention the wolf pack, the male and female alpha can represent an undifferentiated attitude while the highest value is held for the survival of the pack. That the alpha male is also the dominate force but unable to fulfill the value alone. Also point out that the differentiation has to be possible in order for the undifferentiated to work together properly. As you mentioned two alpha males can impose a threat to the actual direction.
In my Ni-Se example I was mentioning how I still attained the dominance to my Ni while allowing my Se to step up but not take its place. This can happen in less extreme measures but in this one was a way to push them both or Se as much as I could while pertaining my Ni. One can say that in this I created my own Ni consciously while creating fake Ne, but to say fake Ne is a tad immature thinking to me. We can also go into the abstraction process of this as well.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> I understand, just pointing it out if taken as face value as an whole. And giving an example in accordance to situations where the direction of purpose can be focused in pairing together or undifferentiated. After the situation has become clear or finished, the differentiated process will take place. Which leads it back to order of preferred dominance in the overall value. Which is why I made a reference to point out that my Ni was still in held to more regard, As you mention direction.In a way it is not just the fact that a function has to be differentiated but an undifferentiated functioning can and is also an importance as well. Kinda like when you mention the wolf pack, the male and female alpha can represent an undifferentiated attitude while the highest value is held for the survival of the pack. That the alpha male is also the dominate force but unable to fulfill the value alone. Also point out that the differentiation has to be possible in order for the undifferentiated to work together properly. As you mentioned two alpha males can impose a threat to the actual direction.
> In my Ni-Se example I was mentioning how I still attained the dominance to my Ni while allowing my Se to step up but not take its place. This can happen in less extreme measures but in this one was a way to push them both or Se as much as I could while pertaining my Ni. One can say that in this I created my own Ni consciously while creating fake Ne, but to say fake Ne is a tad immature thinking to me. We can also go into the abstraction process of this as well.


How does Se operate when under Ni direction, what part of Se perception does dom Ni 'allow' and not allow?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> The extravert isn't always objectively orientated because there is a continuous influx into consciousness of the subjective content from the unconscious. But for the main part he is objectively orientated, because his dominant function isn't oriented towards the primordial images.
> Everyone easily accepts Se perceives external data, without adding subjective content to perception, so why is it not accepted that Te makes judgements by the external content without adding subjective content to the judgement process?


And that's a fact?



Neverontime said:


> Consensus means that it's the generally held belief, since it's the generally held belief its taught as being correct. Extraverts consciousness accepts that what they are taught is correct until they are externally educated otherwise.
> I was taught the color red is red, I believe this to be correct because there has been no intervention from the primordial images pushing through into my consciousness telling me that red is green. If there were, I would be quite certain it's green, I accept the external education without that intervention from the collective unconscious.


From a subjective<>objective standpoint I guess it don't make a difference.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> How does Se operate when under Ni direction, what part of Se perception does dom Ni 'allow' and not allow?


Depends on the situation , as I mentioned can by some people be called fake Ne. Cause while focusing on Se like that is almost like Ne I suppose. How does it operate was the question....as I was starting to go somewhere else. It is hard to explain almost, I mean the Se operates normally and with a good dominance as well and also so does Ni. Not getting carried away with symbolic subjectiveness but instead creating new symbolism I suppose. Maybe I can come up with a better was to express this.
I would say that it is not a normal thing to do or at least with as much enthusiasm. It does require a lot of focus and energy as well not to mention a healthy balance. Almost as if the personal unconscious and conscious isn't as much of a gap in between. I also had to be very conscious aware of this for a long time in regards as to what I learned through Ti as well, to make sure that the instinct that I created didn't pop out unintentionally. Cause I was aware that I took in a massive amount of data under the circumstance and took it in and absorbed it. 
I will try to put forth a more detailed explanation but idk how well I will be able to just yet. Tough to do without overlaying into multiple points more than just functions it self. I can see the big picture but unable to puzzle it together into an direct way.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Oh okay sorry
> Jung did not think of the Psyche, libido or Psychic energy as an closed system. He was in rejection to this by apposing such a notion in some other peoples studies. Jung did say that the Psyche in a way can be regarded as an relatively closed system, but not an closed system. The big part not to over look is relatively , in a way this is saying mostly closed but yet not completely closed. He further adds that an closed system Psyche would lead to a form of neurosis in which he stated before also about his idea that the libido according to Freud view is absent in the case but he found it as the Libido is turning in on it's self like in reverse so to say. And that in some cases, maybe he said or thought all, that the primordial priori can or does start to become the persons new reality. I apologize if any of this is incorrect in some way, I will go over it later to make sure. But I believe its all there when I make reference's from more than one point of reference I sometimes doubt if I remember it all right on the spot.
> 
> The thing with that quote is they took a small part of it and can be taken out of context or without much more understanding as to what he was saying in general.


Thanks for the info. It's of importance to me, because when he says something like 'the unconscious pushes back' I'd like to know why that is 'logical'. I hadn't thought of entropy, but apparently others did question this to him.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> And that's a fact?
> 
> From a subjective<>objective standpoint I guess it don't make a difference.


I'm failing to see what you want here, you don't appear too interested in the explanation that you asked for, but rather to nitpick at whatever I have to say. Nitpicking is not critical thinking or an informative discussion, it's just nitpicking. I really have better things to do with my time if that's the case.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Yes, because firstly perception isn't antagonistic to thinking and secondly, one is subordinate to the other because only one function determines the direction of consciousness anyway. That's why one function has to be differentiated to determine the direction of consciousness and another function of equal power in consciousness is forbidden. We make our conscious choices under the direction of our dominant function. If another function were equal in consciousness, two directions would be present.
> 
> How would consciousness decide between the two different directions, without a dominant function determining direction in order to consciously choose?
> 
> ...


But that is I guess where trancendence comes in. You become detached from the illusion of our perception. subjective and objective are no longer 'opposites'.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I'm failing to see what you want here, you don't appear too interested in the explanation that you asked for, but rather to nitpick at whatever I have to say. Nitpicking is not critical thinking or an informative discussion, it's just nitpicking. I really have better things to do with my time if that's the case.


Well what I say is that I guess it doesn't matter how you define consensus, from the subjective point of view. It's me versus them, no matter whether 'them' could also be, and most likely are Fi persons as well, no matter what their individual standpoint is, you think they all have the same opinion. It's not more than a common ground that apparently isn't your ground. But in many other things, maybe even most things, you share common ground and consensus.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I'm failing to see what you want here, you don't appear too interested in the explanation that you asked for, but rather to nitpick at whatever I have to say. Nitpicking is not critical thinking or an informative discussion, it's just nitpicking. I really have better things to do with my time if that's the case.


Then tell me what is consensus, is it social democrat or conservative? Smoking or non-smoking? Consensus is not about whether you smoke or not, but whether you mind smoking. 

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And mind you, the world was a lot simpler in the time he wrote it. General consensus is not absolute, it depends on what frame you take. They are perhaps 'objective' in the subjective-objective dichotomy, but relative in space and time.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Yes, because firstly perception isn't antagonistic to thinking and secondly, one is subordinate to the other because only one function determines the direction of consciousness anyway. That's why one function has to be differentiated to determine the direction of consciousness and another function of equal power in consciousness is forbidden. We make our conscious choices under the direction of our dominant function. If another function were equal in consciousness, two directions would be present.
> 
> How would consciousness decide between the two different directions, without a dominant function determining direction in order to consciously choose?
> 
> ...


I found this text that links spiritual transcendence with the transcendental function. I needed to find out more to what extend they were dealing with the same. Meditation is a practice, separated from daily activities, but it surely had transformed my overall perception, just like 'mindfulness' deals with awareness and perception. But I didn't think one necessarily needs to meditate or 'transcend', as I have met people with a similar mindset, without any meditation experience.

Perhaps it sounded demeaning when I said I am detached from 'the illusion of my perception'. I don't mean to offend you or anyone, and I apologize if I did, but that's the best way to describe my mindset. (and it's also the 'lingo' in the teachings of the practice, which I usually don't use myself, because I know it sounds vague to other people, actually not until just now and within this context) I'm not attached (or assimilated) to the subjective and neither to the objective, although I won't say I am completely detached, like a Buddhist monk. 

And detached doesn't mean you don't care. But I don't take things personally as much as I used to do, which could trigger aggression and hostility in me quite easily. I had a very short fuse (gut feelings), Ne could picture bad hidden intentions behind the other, and only a little violation of Fi was needed to detonate the explosive (inferior Te tyranny I guess). I was hard to handle. I couldn't even handle myself, which was why I started learning meditation practice. So, it had transformed me, and I can recommend it anyone, but I never made the connection when reading about these functions. I just thought it was different in my experience and I couldn't believe I was the only one. I'm special, but not that special. OK, I'm weird too, but not that weird. =)



> There is a second phase that Jung called the transcendental function. This function has the capacity to unify the opposite tendencies of the personality. The goal of transcendence is the realization of all aspects of the personality as they were originally concealed in the one’s center, and the development of the potential unity. The transcendence is the means to realize the unity of the archetype of the Self.
> The Individuation Process, the process of becoming aware of oneself.





> The mandala is a symbol of transcendence par excellence; it represents the achievement of the goal: the opposites are reconciled in a state of dynamic balance. In Buddhism mandalas are used in meditation to assist the spirit as it moves along its evolutionary course from a lower realm of the corporeal and the mundane to the higher realm of the spiritual and the sacred. The mandala is a symbol which combines both the journey and the destination and as such holds the paradox of the differentiation and oneness of all things, the unus mundus. Jung writes on this:
> 
> The transcendent function does not proceed without aim and purpose, but leads to the revelation of the essential man. It is in the first place a purely natural process, which may in some cases pursue its course without the knowledge of the individual, and can sometimes forcibly accomplish itself in the face of opposition. The meaning and purpose of the process is the realisation, in all its aspects, of the personality originally hidden away…. the production and unfolding of the original, potential wholeness. The symbols used by the unconscious to this end are the same as those which mankind has always used to express wholeness, completeness and perfection: symbols, as a rule, of the quaternity and the circle. For this reasons I have termed this the individuation process. (Jung 1953, p110)
> The Mechanics of the Transcendent Function


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Perhaps it sounded demeaning when I said I am detached from 'the illusion of my perception'. I don't mean to offend you or anyone, and I apologize if I did, but that's the best way to describe my mindset. (and it's also the 'lingo' in the teachings of the practice, which I usually don't use myself, because I know it sounds vague to other people, actually not until just now and within this context) I'm not attached (or assimilated) to the subjective and neither to the objective, although I won't say I am completely detached, like a Buddhist monk.
> =)


the illusion of my perception...Key word their is your illusion that your perception had but what is your non illusion or real perception now?
Because I have noticed within the matrix as well that you seem like an INFP but don't slightly then noticed it could be that your Fi is hindered and your Te can't be backed up properly and in support of vise versa. Anyway my intentions wasn't to mash your type or bring it up but since the events unfolded here I am.
I wrote some more useless stuff but changed my mind,


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

myjazz said:


> the illusion of my perception...Key word their is your illusion that your perception had but what is your non illusion or real perception now?
> Because I have noticed within the matrix as well that you seem like an INFP but don't slightly then noticed it could be that your Fi is hindered and your Te can't be backed up properly and in support of vise versa. Anyway my intentions wasn't to mash your type or bring it up but since the events unfolded here I am.
> I wrote some more useless stuff but changed my mind,


I have no 'non-illusion' or 'real perception'. For me it's 'illusion' which is why I don't cling to it (too dearly). For you, (I guess but correct me if I'm wrong), it's real. So, you may question my type, or judge my Fi or Te, that's fine.

Edit: Make that 'analyse my Fi or Te, 'judge' may sound like a verdict in this context.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I found this text that links spiritual transcendence with the transcendental function. I needed to find out more to what extend they were dealing with the same. Meditation is a practice, separated from daily activities, but it surely had transformed my overall perception, just like 'mindfulness' deals with awareness and perception. But I didn't think one necessarily needs to meditate or 'transcend', as I have met people with a similar mindset, without any meditation experience.
> 
> Perhaps it sounded demeaning when I said I am detached from 'the illusion of my perception'. I don't mean to offend you or anyone, and I apologize if I did, but that's the best way to describe my mindset. (and it's also the 'lingo' in the teachings of the practice, which I usually don't use myself, because I know it sounds vague to other people, actually not until just now and within this context) I'm not attached (or assimilated) to the subjective and neither to the objective, although I won't say I am completely detached, like a Buddhist monk.
> 
> And detached doesn't mean you don't care. But I don't take things personally as much as I used to do, which could trigger aggression and hostility in me quite easily. I had a very short fuse (gut feelings), Ne could picture bad hidden intentions behind the other, and only a little violation of Fi was needed to detonate the explosive (inferior Te tyranny I guess). I was hard to handle. I couldn't even handle myself, which was why I started learning meditation practice. So, it had transformed me, and I can recommend it anyone, but I never made the connection when reading about these functions. I just thought it was different in my experience and I couldn't believe I was the only one. I'm special, but not that special. OK, I'm weird too, but not that weird. =)


So then what? You get superpowers? What's the point?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> So then what? You get superpowers? What's the point?


For me there was a point because I didn't like not being able to handle myself. Like perceiving a friend for an enemy. I just wanted some peace of mind.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> I have no 'non-illusion' or 'real perception'. For me it's 'illusion' which is why I don't cling to it (too dearly). For you, (I guess but correct me if I'm wrong), it's real. So, you may question my type, or judge my Fi or Te, that's fine.
> 
> Edit: Make that 'analyse my Fi or Te, 'judge' may sound like a verdict in this context.


So, you detached from your illusion and yet kept the illusion?

Just trying to understand, another words I am asking for clarity in a way.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> For me there was a point because I didn't like not being able to handle myself. Like perceiving a friend for an enemy. I just wanted some peace of mind.


How do you know that this is what you experienced? Whatever made you feel that way about yourself, wasn't your Fi perspective because a lot of Fi doms don't feel that they can't handle themselves. Maybe you dealt with dealt with the issues surrounding the cause of your unsettlement, rather than actually merged functions together. Maybe you just matured, since recent studies have shown that the brains of young adults are still developing well into their twenties, at least. How do you know it's this?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Neverontime
Isn't that what transcendent function means anyway


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

myjazz said:


> So, you detached from your illusion and yet kept the illusion?
> 
> Just trying to understand, another words I am asking for clarity in a way.


It's not that one day I decided it is all illusion, initially that was a bit vague for me too, like 'nothingness'. It's more what I experienced and elaborated on, dealing with certain mental obstacles along the way, becoming aware of what you (ego) cling to, and need to let go of. In that sense, it's more about letting go. (this is bound to be vague I'm afraid, lol I can give you this link. )


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> How do you know that this is what you experienced? Whatever made you feel that way about yourself, wasn't your Fi perspective because a lot of Fi doms don't feel that they can't handle themselves. Maybe you dealt with dealt with the issues surrounding the cause of your unsettlement, rather than actually merged functions together. Maybe you just matured, since recent studies have shown that the brains of young adults are still developing well into their twenties, at least. How do you know it's this?


I didn't know anything about MBTI, or INFP or Fi or whatsoever. 

I had my own way of looking back at episodes in my life. And I looked at it again when I learned about MBTI. And I matched the unhealthy INFP descriptions from personalitypage pretty accurately. In fact, untill now, I thought this was how I healed to become a more healthy INFP.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> It's not that one day I decided it is all illusion, initially that was a bit vague for me too, like 'nothingness'. It's more what I experienced and elaborated on, dealing with certain mental obstacles along the way, becoming aware of what you (ego) cling to, and need to let go of. In that sense, it's more about letting go. (this is bound to be vague I'm afraid, lol I can give you this link. )


Letting go of what is attached to doesn't make reality an illusion just the desire of the attachment...

I did notice however that you did attempt to answer my question but yet didn't do so. Vague I can work with vague or any other form of expression feel free to go vague all you want.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I don't see what's to get with all this transcendence stuff. There is no illusion except what we create. Reality is. We perceive it as we wish, based more on our insecurities than anything else. After we accept ourselves, the world unfolds itself more as it is, than as we wish it to be. 

Reality is objective. If I look at an object and notice it's position, I can pick it up. My friend sitting next to me can see the same object I've picked up, now dropped back down, and pick it up himself. I'm not creating an illusion in these acts, and neither is he. Objective reality, defined. 

We will always be of the cosmos, and in the cosmos, but never the whole of the cosmos all the time, for we are but human beings. Transcendence as an attainable state while in the flesh? Denied. Putting the many faces that we wear back into our box of madness? Sure. We can do as much.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Cosmicsense said:


> I don't see what's to get with all this transcendence stuff.


As far as Jung and transcendent function it is a function usage that everyone uses for individuality. Basic the process for bringing the unconscious function conscious. An example my Ti is my third function in the stack and since my Fe is my main Extroverted function for usage in decision making and or outward thought. I use my Fe as an transcendental functioning point so I can make my Ti more upfront and conscious than usual, etc. etc. of course that is after the initial natural transcendent way of doing such.

I liked your cosmos part,


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Something seems off in that description. I take Jung to mean that the directions are united between the same function. That's what are truly "shadow" or unconscious functions, right?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> It's not that one day I decided it is all illusion, initially that was a bit vague for me too, like 'nothingness'. It's more what I experienced and elaborated on, dealing with certain mental obstacles along the way, becoming aware of what you (ego) cling to, and need to let go of. In that sense, it's more about letting go. (this is bound to be vague I'm afraid, lol I can give you this link. )


So when the conscious and unconscious functions are held together in consciousness for a long period of time, the conflict causes the energy to build up and creates a new function to bridge the gap between the two functions, because consciousness can't cope with two directions? 
We then see the world in a different way, we see separation was an illusion because the opposites all exist together? Like happiness and sadness always exist together?


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

@_Neverontime_

Kinda, sorta. . .

The way I see it, we aren't fully conscious of our state as a subjective being filtering reality through our limited awareness. 

We need a certain amount of "insanity", of thinking/feeling/doing the same thing over and over while holding two opposing views, until a breaking point forces a perspective shift. The shift is from viewing the internal or external to _being _the union viewing each and _choosing_ the integral. 

Imagine an off-axis center that has a tethered weight spinning around it, and the ability to pivot. It will fling out this weight in every which way until centrifugal force eventually smoothes out this off-axisness of the center. Eventually the madness will subside, and the curvature will thin out. What's left is a circle, or union between two opposing forces. 

The weight represents the tug from the objective world, the string represents the self moving towards introversion, and the center represents the pull of the Self. 

Not sure if that helps or not. I just made that up on the fly


----------

