# Fi mislabeled a "value system"



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Khys said:


> So...@Bumblyjack have you read up on Ti as an Auxiliary function? Just wondering, because I can see threads of Ti in your posts. I mean, I haven't seen that much from you, but you appear to have a taste for things that are exact and empirically absolute.
> 
> But yeah i don't want to derail your thread. Or question your type. I was just curious.


Its already been pointed out to him. He clearly uses Ti, not Te. He clearly uses Ni, not Ne. He clearly uses Fe, not Fi. It was explained to him in detail, but he hasn't come to accept this yet. People get so attached with the 4 letters they use they can go into denial with the functions. This is a problem all across PerC.


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

@Khys
The point of including an action component is that it alludes to the fact that, according to Carl Jung, both "thinking" and "feeling" functions are rational functions.

Oftentimes, people misinterpret the feeling functions and feeling dominant or auxiliary types as "irrational" or "illogical". This is an incorrect understanding of the functions, but the simplified terms we use do not make this clear.





Alysaria said:


> If I have a set of notecards all dictating what is important to me, what I value....isn't that a system? >.>


Yes, that is a system but a system differs from a process in that a process has action involved with it (i.e. systemic action).



> Fi processes and applies subjective value.


Yes, Fi processes...it doesn't system, because system isn't an action.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Maybe I'm just used to all the Ne in the business world where all those silly rules about "nouns" and "verbs" don't apply :tongue:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Alysaria said:


> I have an analogy for you that I have used for Fi before.  People create associations based on experience....
> 
> Let's say you're walking down the street and you see a man who is about to throw a puppy against a wall. Fi is the initial reaction of anger and a sense of injustice. However, there are so many experiences tied up into the concept of puppy, pain, and torture that it's almost impossible to untangle them and find exactly which values are being violated.
> 
> ...


You're describing Fi/Si not necessarily Fi with Se. 

Apparently NFPs, from what I understand, know exactly what they'd do morally in any given situation. While SFPs have particular moral hot-buttons (mine are things like greed and unwarranted cruelty toward innocents), supposedly Fi/Se morality is more contextual, like I don't know what I'd do if i were in that situation.

That has to do with both Se and Ni. You never know what happens until you're deep into it (and I can get so deep into it I can't see out of it) ...I used to think it was gross for a 30 year old man to date an 18 or 19 year old woman until I experienced the opposite myself, then I was confronted with the reality of the situation, and have experienced it in terms of my own Se and had to shift my value system in terms of Ni perspective.

If Fi/Si can force you to go around demonizing children for throwing lemons carelessly because your friend got accidently caught in the eye once, I want no part of it.

BUT I do understand the "instinctive" nature of Fi that is like that...Fi is SOOOO personal. Whether it's here, now, in the moment what I'm experiencing (you don't get it because you've never been here, et al) or in the past of what happened to your friend, there is something that is ultimately subjectively subjective about Fi, though in maturity we tend to gravitate toward universal values and understanding individual perspectives.


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

@Khys @MuChApArAdOx

You only see my posts after I've submitted them. 

I have to deliberately force my speech and writing to come out orderly and with its sole focus on the exact and the empirically absolute. I've gotten used to this because my whole life I have been in environments where any statement not of this ironclad nature is immediately torn up, dismantled, and then disregarded. Consequently, when other people attempt to make objective claims I treat them in a such a manner: they must make logical sense and bear the burden of objective proof.

My problem with the way many people debate on here is that they make subjective claims...and then treat them as objective facts. Subjective claims can make suggestions and seek to reach a consensus. They also can communicate an opinion or describe personal experiences. However, they contain no objective truth.

Back to the what I was saying...
My father is an INTP and he speaks and writes this way naturally. I do not. What he can do in one step, I need 3 steps to do. I brainstorm and come up with ideas, sort through them and toss out the illogical or irrelevant ones, and then I go over everything again and make revisions and adjustments. Then I submit my post and that's all you see.



On a somewhat related note, I display two different personas to the world: a driven but eccentric xNTP and a quirky, laid back, romantic dreamer ENFP. The first I use in professional settings or anytime I'm trying to make claims or arguments. The second I use when I relax and have fun. A lot of the time on forums, I play the xNTP because we are discussing theory. When discussing personal experiences or relating to and/or giving support to others, I show my ENFP self.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Khys said:


> hmmm I've more understood the differences between Fe and Fi as such:
> 
> Fe is a judgement based on external and ETERNAL information.
> 
> ...


I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but that's probably what Fi looks like to Se types and what Fe looks like to people who have it in the tertiary or inferior.

I think that Fi comes from an internal place within, like I just FEEL STRONGLY that THIS IS WRONG OR RIGHT. It's a very strong internal sense of *knowing* good, bad, beautiful, ugly, right, wrong, etc. 

Fe would think this is irrational, certainly. Fe says, well if we can make the maximum number of people in this room content, then this is best, despite how *I* feel. Fe focuses on external harmony and external values, "well in my family we strongly value avoiding conflict by not calling people names, even when we are upset." 

Jung describes the Fe dom literally and truthfully seeing thing as beautiful because they are "appropriate" or because they provide maximum social harmony. 

On the other hand, the Te type thinks that logic is external, and that saying that logic could be an internal thing is absurd, in immaturity, Te even probably thinks Ti borders on detachment from sanity it its assertion that logic would not be an externally proven thing. Obviously, being rational and reasonable and logical comes from the external, factual world and ethics come from inside the internal feelings of each person.

The Ti/Fe type is opposite, but I've learned to appreciate them more. For some bizarre reason, I'm capable of appreciating this more in SFJs and ISTPs than NTPs (with ESTPs and NFJs being a hazy middle) and I don't know why.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Jung explains it better than I think most definitions do.

Thinking:


> Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection.
> 
> The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one's intention or not.
> 
> Thinking that is regulated by feeling, I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as thought dependent upon feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle, but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favor of the aims of feeling.


Feeling:


> Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ('like' or 'dislike'); but it can also appear, as it were, isolated in the form of 'mood', quite apart from the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations.
> 
> But even the mood, whether it be regarded as a general or only a partial feeling, signifies a valuation; not, however, a valuation of one definite, individual, conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.
> 
> ...



Introverted Feeling:


> Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined—they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defense.
> 
> Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling.
> 
> A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanor, into denying all feeling to this type. (someone should explain this to the INFP wanna-be's)


This is Berens' Definition


> It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words. As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, “Sometimes, some things just have to be said.” On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions. It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.


A synopsis of Lenore's Fi


> Introverted feeling is judgement with an emotional slant that causes the individual to view the object on a Subjective level. It is primarily a silent inaccessible function that is difficult to conceptualize. Therefore, unlike its extraverted counterpart, Extraverted Feeling, it is entirely individualistic, with a leaning toward the mystical. Introverted feeling is generally disconnected with typical external stimuli. Introverted feeling is only concerned with the external to the extent that the object has some relevance to a deep, internal value. Its primary objective is to harmonize ideologies, concepts, relationships etc. with the internal guiding force.
> 
> Whatever the individual values the most will dominate the motivations, goals and chief objectives of the individual. For example, if the primary value is God, then all other values will find themselves inexorably subjugated to this primary one. Often, unbalanced introverted feeling will create in the individual dramatic mood swings and decisions based on illogical rationales. However, at its best, introverted feeling provides a navigational quality that creates in the personality tenacity, idealism, honor, relationship wisdom and a unfaltering value system that is seldom compromised.


There are two ways in which you can judge: impersonal technical means, or humane (personal) evaluations. Depending on the supremacy of preference both can produce a positive emotional response. In fact all functions produce an emotional response. It is this emotional response positive or negative that leads to the habituation of type preference. 

I think though that while you might not be able to say that Fi _is_ a value _system_, a value system is definitely a manifestation of Fi, to the point where it may become indistinguishable in everyday practice. Furthermore Fi would create the value system. 



> Another important thing to realize is that Fi doesn't just take values into consideration. It takes everything into consideration: values, logic, data, ad infinitum...and so does Ti. This is not where the difference lies between the feeling and thinking functions.


I think Jung is pretty specific here about Feeling only referring to values. If logic or concepts or data is being considered it is only being considered based on the relative evaluative weight the feeling function has given these things. Feeling is not considering what is logical for it's own sake (that's is Thinking's job) in fact quite the opposite -- logic would be an antithetical method of evaluation.



> They also assign priority and "weight" to each thing considered, which is done by relevance and importance. The difference between introverted and extroverted judging functions comes down to what information is most readily available to them. The introverted functions judge primarily based on stored data while the extroverted functions judge primarily based on external context.


I don't know if I'd go as far as to say introverted judgment works off stored data (you might be able to make that argument for introverted perception), but the person doesn't have to actually have anything in his head for the introverted functions to reference in order to do their job. The purpose of the judgment functions is to evaluate in ways that the promote the goals of the ego and to that end many of these other reference points (logic, memories, etc) are somewhat secondary. Depending on the differentiation of the functions this can get sorta complex because influences from the unconscious (for lesser differentiated functions) may also be at work coloring these evaluations. A type with Extraverted Judgment as the inferior function, for example will manifest it in a very archaic, raw and unpolished way more influenced by the unconscious than conscious (ego), meaning the individual may not be consciously accessing all of the things you spell out here as the function operates largely out of conscious control. Inferior Fi types would probably be touchy about the function as 1) its a less-preferred function and 2) its the closest thing to the person's shadow (meaning any emotional response may be negative as it represents the farthest thing from the more comfortable Extraverted Thinking mindset). But this negative emotion doesn't mean all value judgments will perceived negatively, just that the appeal to their value system might be awkward. 

Even though Extraverted Feeling is the function of appealing to externally set evaluations (the how), the manifestation of this to the individual becomes a sort of value system (even if the genesis of the evaluations is external. With Fe, the person doesn't recognize the values aren't their own, so the affect of Fe is that the person adopts external standards as their own -- the function and its manifestation become symbiotic feeding off each other) The process of appealing to values (whether the libido is focused outward or inward) and acting/living off those values become one in the same. In order for feeling to arrange anything according to its value subjective or otherwise, the judgment has to have been made (with Feeling by emotional response). 



> The difference between thinking and feeling functions lies in what they do after assigning priority and weight to everything taken into consideration. The two judging functions labeled "thinking" are described as linear, because they rule out all considerations whose level of relevance and importance was deemed to fall below a certain acceptable threshold. This is done in order to promote objectivity and clarity in the judgment process.


I think Feeling and Thinking are getting intermingled here. Relevance and importance are value judgments. Not conceptual frameworks. As I understand it thinking really doesn't deal with whether or not a concept is important or relevant on its own (especially introverted thinking). Now Jung clearly says that you can think based off your feeling judgments (so a Ti type might have placed more importance or value on arguing Cognitive Functions than say trying to understand his Calculus homework) but Introverted Thinking itself did not make this evaluation. It's only concerned with what makes sense to the individual (regardless of whether the concept is worth thinking about or not).


This is sort of my interpretation. I would be interested to hear someone like @Eric B give an opinion on this because it's all sort of grey to me.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Khys said:


> hmmm I've more understood the differences between Fe and Fi as such:
> 
> Fe is a judgement based on external and ETERNAL information.
> 
> ...


Khys, that's all good. You're a bad ass genius! :happy: Your description of Fi is how I consider it to be used in auxiliary position. 



> The outer considerations that Fe would fret over are no concern to Fi.


 However for me as an Ne-Fi user, the rules that must fit in with the "context of the moment' may also include taking into considerations that which an Fe user would fret over. Depends on what I'm dealing with at that moment. Ne along with Si takes in everything: past, present (which includes motivations of all whom I'm around), and future. Fi may be an "in the moment judgment". But "being in the moment" for a person like me means I'm beyond what is presented to me _at that moment._





Alysaria said:


> *So let's change it up to something that most people don't already have an association or emotional investment in. *
> 
> You're walking down the street and notice a child throwing lemons. There might be a mild response....it's wasteful, it's messy, it might get in someone's eyes, etc....but there isn't going to be a strong reaction. UNLESS you have a previous association with someone throwing lemons. If, when you were a child, you saw your best friend get hit in the face with a lemon and vividly recall their screams of pain as the acid burned their eyes and turned their face red. Fi has a value judgment for that as being very negative.


Actually, if I don't already have an association or emotional investment in it, my Ne allows me to _imagine what *I'd* feel like in that situation and within that context._ I'd come to the conclusion that I'd feel like shit and it would be humiliating so I must teach these idiots how to behave so they don't make other people feel as awful as I just imagined how I would feel. I can _feel imagined subjective pain from imagined scenarios_ _at that moment_. This allows me to know the next steps I should take in regards to the victims or the aggressor. I wouldn't jump to going from a friend's pain or someone else's pain in order to relate to the kids with lemons in faces. It would be easier for me to know how to go from my imagined pain _in that situation._. 

However, when something (like mugging) happens to me. I also try to get into the perp's heads to know how to deal with them. But unfortunately, it takes me a very long time to come to the conclusion about how I feel about the situation. When I try, I can't imagine the motive.:sad: I can't relate to the assholes. My Ne has failed me. My Si fails me too because I can't remember anything I can relate to. An incident like this _forces_ me to go to straight to Fi, but it lacks a context. How do I imagine how I feel like in that situation when I'm going through it? I don't go straight to feelings, I'm used to first going to pictures in my head (Ne) and reviewing them. Eventually, Si might come to the rescue but it might take me a very long time to come up with the decision that "I'm angry" because it "just wasn't right". 



fourtines said:


> You're describing Fi/Si not necessarily Fi with Se.
> 
> Apparently NFPs, from what I understand, know exactly what they'd do morally in any given situation.


 I know what to do and the actions I'd probably take, but I certainly wouldn't know how I _felt_ about it for a very long time. Many feelings are felt within the body and I so rarely live in mine. 

But I constantly think ahead (too much) that I can be extremely oblivious to the moment. But even looking ahead, and taking everything in from various data, I can only imagine subjective scenarios that I can relate to. So when something unexpected happens, it completely rocks my world. 



> While SFPs have particular moral hot-buttons (mine are things like greed and unwarranted cruelty toward innocents), supposedly Fi/Se morality is more contextual, like I don't know what I'd do if i were in that situation.


 Mine is contextual too, but I'm sifting through all kinds of shit, including the movie I saw 15 years ago and perceived future after all of us are now dead. I'm not afraid to assign judgment to it either. In my mind the decision is made: "You are just evil. You are what I've always considered evil. It's clearly been exposed that you took advantage of innocent people for your own selfish gain. The world can't function or continue if we were all like this, you selfish, insecure, negative attention getting prick. I will do whatever it takes to hold you accountable but also GO FAR AWAY from me because I don't want your slime on me. " Or in another situation, my Ne-Fi can also conclude "Relax, it's was just a joke. I agree with stereo-types because it's a short cut for my brain."

Te often pipes up too, but the reality is that every function of mine is still a bitch to my Ne. I know that's not _ideal_ and I'm totally working on that. But perhaps Fi is why it is very hard for me to deal with people who seem to lack morals _or who have no idea how they would feel if placed in other's shoes._ I think they flat out suck. Or perhaps having Ne-Fi sucks. :dry:

This post's style was totally written with the intent of having you all take a ride on my brain. Ne and Te had an arm wrestle and guess who won? :tongue:Thanks!


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

If I let you all know that _all_ of you are wrong, can we all snap out of the confines of what we think must be true, and get to an actual understanding?

Okay, that is going too far  There is a lot of truth here, but none of it is being heard because it's like we've all stormed off and locked up in our own rooms and still trying to scream out their answer to the other person. 

(Yes this is also horribly overgeneralized, but I'm trying to make a point here!)

I'll probably write up a more lengthy clarification of this issue, but for now, I'm pretty sure the tl;dr version will be:

This is the OP argument-

Fi=/=the actual value system (a static value "reference book")
Fi (maybe) = a process that invokes value, that might lead to a value system

Anything other than this argument is another part of this oh-so-lovely picture we are painting, not the same part. Simply throwing black paint over someone else's part = lame.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

ElectricSparkle said:


> If I let you all know that _all_ of you are wrong, can we all snap out of the confines of what we think must be true, and get to an actual understanding?


 How can I be wrong if I'm not stating anything? I mean, really....


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

@pinkrasputin:
Sorry if it looked at all like that was directed to you, I was talking about the heated semantics argument that took over most of the thread, and picking at the claims on how it's impossible for each of us to be wrong and stuff 

I'm glad to see some more _perspectives_ on this, such as yours, now.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Bumblyjack said:


> The two judging functions labeled "feeling" are described as holistic, because they do not rule out any considerations, regardless of their relevance and importance. These low priority and low weight considerations may have only a small impact on the evaluations being made, but they have an impact nonetheless. Including all considerations is done in order to promote subjectivity and perspective in the judgment process..


Lets forget that we are talking about Fi and Ti and just say, we are talking about X and Y, being a different dichotomy that could be looked at separately.

You seem to be differentiating between "being efficient and not considering all data" to "considering all data."

The problem is that T isn't actually more efficient than F.

We simply say that because many people have a bias against focusing on the emotion center of the brain to use as the value logic you mentioned in order to make decisions.

Simply put, if you remove some emotional consideration, T will just replace this void of data with other data.

A human mind can interpret many things at once, like playing chess, or it can focus on one thing.

All of the 8 functions can focus on one thing, or focus on many things.

Se for example, might be used while juggling, or idk.. looking in someones eyes.

I think the dichotomy you are speaking of is simply one of "awareness."

Using the flashlight metaphor, awareness can be spread out or can be focused into a singular point.

Some people might argue that some functions are spread out and some are focused to a singular point.

But I disagree, I think maybe there are tendencies for such, but that we certainly can have both ends of awareness with all function attitudes.

So good attempt bud, and this can be used along with the MBTI.

Its not scary or anything. Its easy for this to happen in fact. We get a great idea and run with it, but just I guess remember that there are many great ideas, and the F/T is just one of them, that they happen to have picked for the MBTI, which doesnt make it better, or worse.. than another.

Everyone relax.


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

Fi and Fe are both value systems. Fi is an internal one, while Fe is an external one (which is based on groups). Think of Fi as being a single entity, while Fe is part of a larger entity, and going against the external values you're going against the other parts of yourself. However, both Fi and Fe could have the same values, it's just the way they reach their conclusions are different.


----------



## Hammerhand (Jul 24, 2010)

Bumblyjack said:


> Fi is not a value system. A value system is a collection of values. That's not a cognitive function, it's just an assemblage of stored data. Fi is a function (a cognitive process) in which the values in our value system, as well as a lot of other information, are taken into consideration when making a judgment.
> 
> Here's an analogy: a library. A library is a collection of books, microfilm, magazines, newspapers, videos, etc. These things represent values, accepted facts, opinions, and data. The library is your mind and a certain section in that library is your value system, another section is childhood memories, opinions, and so on. So what is Fi in this analogy? Fi is a person in the library accessing the books. It isn't the library itself, a bunch of books, or any specific book but rather a process of referring to them.


(trimmed your post)

Hello there! I'm sorry for that shitstorm you got, but more important stuff abound.

I'd say you are correct in that Fi cannot be a 'library', that would rather be Si, right? (Unless one says that the library is a PART (not whole) of Fi, which I could accept)

In my experience (unless I'm another misguided Intp/infj/intj/Enfj/whatevers, heh) Fi, tries to weigh the content of the library towards the current context. (Which seems to be in accord with your view)
That should mean there is some sort of judgement, ergo Fi can be called a judging function. 

Therefore calling it a system is incorrect. A system is a set of regulations unless I'm mistaken, aka static and inactive. Fi in my experience is pretty fluid with what is correct/appropriate/right depending on what the current situation is.

All in all, I agree with most of it.
This would be my attempt to conclude this a bit, thanks for the post!

I've been meaning to make a rather long article on just this subject, looks like you did before me =)


----------



## huiwcleon (Dec 30, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Its already been pointed out to him. He clearly uses Ti, not Te. He clearly uses Ni, not Ne. He clearly uses Fe, not Fi. It was explained to him in detail, but he hasn't come to accept this yet. People get so attached with the 4 letters they use they can go into denial with the functions. This is a problem all across PerC.


Someone mentioned he perceives in a linear way so Ni, but in what ways he clearly uses Ti and Fe? I'm trying to learn more about the expression of different functions.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

I wish it wasn't too early for popcorn.


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

Action Potential said:


> I wish it wasn't too early for popcorn.


It's never too early for popcorn. Can I get you another beer?


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Bumblyjack said:


> "Process" is a much more accurate term than "system".


Yeah, let's just use "value _process_" from now on, shall we? 




MuChApArAdOx said:


> Your totally delusional if you think you can convince people who use Fi that it isn't a internal value system.


People who use Fi sure do usually have internal value systems. This is an _effect_ of Fi. No one is saying you are delusional because you think your values have something to do with your type 

This mistake is made a lot with the judging functions, making Fi=value reference book, Ti=chart of logical fallacies, Fe=code of manners and conduct, Te=chart of scientific method.... it leads down a road of making the functions way more concrete properties than they are (or, arguably, they were intended to be), which leads to a whole lot of the usual initial type confusion like "I use logic and I use value, does this mean I am two types?"



> Please go back to the cognitive functions and actually do your homework.


And I thought one thing we could all learn from this is that there are (at least) two things at work here that could be flawed: information collecting/collected, and the individual judgements and decisions made.



> Where does feeling come from, our Ne, Te, Si....just *give it up*. You're wrong, *end of story*.
> 
> LMAO, see if you lead with Ne you could read between the lines, but you simply can't. You don't grasp the concept whatsoever.


Is Ne really reading between the lines (in the very deep mysterious flavor that you characterize it)? Connecting the lines, yes. There has to be things to connect, and something always more to discover. The bolded has an almost anti-Ne jive to it.




Khys said:


> Fi is a value-centered introverted judging function
> Fi uses a system of values to make judgements.
> Fi is a systemic process that uses internal values
> Fi is a values-based systemic process.
> ...


Seeing the similar thread weaving in these is not the same as _deciding_ that they all mean the same thing though. The similarity is obvious and doesn't need stating (or because it involves the dominant function it seems obvious  )



Khys said:


> hmmm I've more understood the differences between Fe and Fi as such:
> 
> Fe is a judgement based on external and ETERNAL information.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting, I almost see these as reversed a lot of the time. It might be that the Fe description is Pi influenced and the Fi one is Pe influenced.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Bumblyjack said:


> It's never too early for popcorn. Can I get you another beer?


At 10AM? :laughing:

For the record, I don't think you're necessarily incorrect, but it seems to me that a lot of the other people in this thread are working with much, much broader conceptions of Fi, based on their own and observed use. As for semantics, I can kind of see where you're coming from, but then I kind of can't, if only because I'd automatically interpret the use of "system" in this case to mean "processes"-- as in, processes carried out by said system. IMO, Fi and Fe function both as value systems on their own (if one is examining the use of them independently) and processes otherwise (if one is examining their interaction with other cognitive functions.)

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> There are two ways in which you can judge: impersonal technical means, or humane (personal) evaluations. Depending on the supremacy of preference both can produce a positive emotional response. In fact all functions produce an emotional response. It is this emotional response positive or negative that leads to the habituation of type preference.
> 
> I think though that while you might not be able to say that Fi _is_ a value _system_, a value system is definitely a manifestation of Fi, to the point where it may become indistinguishable in everyday practice. Furthermore Fi would create the value system.
> 
> ...


That was very good! I think you've nailed it!

As far as "relevance", that would be more about an introverted function. They sort out what is relevant according to the subjective standard or blueprint.
In a broader sense, any differentiated function deals in relevance. When we speak of tangible, conceptual, technical or humane, that is the type of data that is relevant to each function. More specifically, either the external object or the internal subjective framework are what's relevant to the particular "attitude" variants of those functions.


----------

