# ISF? - Just one missing piece to my personality puzzle



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> I'm not sure what to say about this thread. There's no real typology left in it. For example, Si has nothing to do with routine, and the websites being mentioned clearly don't know anything about typology.


By all means, I'd appreciate your input. I came to this forum for help from people who might have a better understanding of typology than I do. Not trying to offend, but this type of response is very unhelpful, since it offers very little in the way of improving understanding, which I feel is this board's purpose.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

huhman said:


> Well, to be sure, since I'm not doing anything else at the moment, here's some explanations. I'm hoping if I got something wrong, that someone will be kind enough to point me in the right direction.
> Fi is a subjective values system. It's about defining what's right, what's wrong, or even if defining things through right/wrong dichotomies is what you want to do. Fi doesn't care about what others have to say about the ideals it builds. Perhaps it wants to care but the strength to be individualistic in this regard far surpasses the notion of having to belong to society.
> Fe is objective in comparison. It's not about what one wants, but about what is right or makes sense. It understands things like feelings in that way, in rather generalizing terms instead.
> Ti is a subjective logic system. Ti users are likely going to identify with the phrase "if it makes sense then that's enough" and oftentimes don't bother check with reality (especially intuitive Ti users) because they become attached to their Ti understandings.
> ...


One of the best post I read lately


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I would say isfj because you are focused on completing project. A perceiver is more fascinated by the process of the project. The completion is just bonus (or icing on the cake) for us.


----------



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

myjazz said:


> One of the best post I read lately


This is where I get super confused, because @Fried Eggz argued many of the points made in that post, and had very valid reasoning behind it. I'm afraid I'll never understand the functions at this rate! :laughing:


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

PennyLane4 said:


> This is where I get super confused, because @*Fried Eggz* argued many of the points made in that post, and had very valid reasoning behind it. I'm afraid I'll never understand the functions at this rate! :laughing:


Have you ever read my Signature 
"“The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.”
Lao Tzu

One way to put this in logical terms. Just because someone makes a statement that long and presumably right or logical. Doesn't mean it is right nor logical. When someone takes something like that as to be the truth then confusion sets in or they just take in a bunch of nonsense. That later someone will have to help sort out, kinda like crappy stereotypes when people absorb them to be truth.

Based on what he said he himself is a Te user and Inferior Fi

He used several reference points according to him that is Te

He also twisted the truth or false evidence for his Te as he mentioned that's Inferior Fi.

Of course I am not saying the post I mentioned to be 100% on the money I didn't dig deep into. But for the most yeah seems pretty good


----------



## huhman (Nov 29, 2016)

myjazz said:


> Have you ever read my Signature
> "“The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.”
> Lao Tzu
> One way to put this in logical terms. Just because someone makes a statement that long and presumably right or logical. Doesn't mean it is right nor logical. When someone takes something like that as to be the truth then confusion sets in or they just take in a bunch of nonsense. That later someone will have to help sort out, kinda like crappy stereotypes when people absorb them to be truth.
> ...


Definitely twisted definitions more than his wording suggested, but eh I'm not here to argue.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mizz said:


> Hmmmm, well that changes things a bit. I either: a) intend to make a shopping list and forget, b) make the shopping list but forget it at home, c) toss out the list once I get to the store because I want completely different things. lol
> 
> I get your confusion, now.


Thats about how I would imagine the scenario 

Myself I hate list, I hate even being told to make a grocery list...not that I would listen and do it.


----------



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

I appreciate the insight from both of you. :happy: I see what you're saying... It's easy to take people's word as gospel when I'm so new to the subject. As I stated before, I have lots of learning to do.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

PennyLane4 said:


> I appreciate the insight from both of you. :happy: I see what you're saying... It's easy to take people's word as gospel when I'm so new to the subject. As I stated before, I have lots of learning to do.


I am leaning towards ISFJ as well.

Also do you think my post was rude or inappropriate where I mentioned my Signature?
And why or explain the reasons of what you considered it to be


----------



## huhman (Nov 29, 2016)

Not just learning on its own, self learning in particular. That's the hardest part because typology becomes a lot about seeing what you find cool and it's easy to tell yourself that that's what you are instead of paying attention to what you really are. Learning what the functions each are takes just reading about them. Learning which you prefer? You gotta look inside and that's not easy. When you've lived with yourself long enough, it's not easy seeing the good in your ways anymore.


----------



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

myjazz said:


> I am leaning towards ISFJ as well.
> 
> Also do you think my post was rude or inappropriate where I mentioned my Signature?
> And why or explain the reasons of what you considered it to be


It started off that way, before I really knew what you were getting at. My immediate reaction was to get defensive, probably due to the wording. I think when people approach me as though I'm not sharp enough to understand what they're saying, whether that's their intent or it's just what I've inferred, I feel offended, and my emotions peak quite quickly. But in this instance,once I read the rest of your post and understood where you were coming from, I was able to see the constructive criticism for what it was, and that you were meaning to be helpful.

That's something I'm more readily able to understand via the internet. In person, it's harder for me to calm down from those initial emotions, especially with my husband.


----------



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

huhman said:


> Not just learning on its own, self learning in particular. That's the hardest part because typology becomes a lot about seeing what you find cool and it's easy to tell yourself that that's what you are instead of paying attention to what you really are. Learning what the functions each are takes just reading about them. Learning which you prefer? You gotta look inside and that's not easy. When you've lived with yourself long enough, it's not easy seeing the good in your ways anymore.


That's very insightful, and I recognize those patterns in my learning process. It's hard to really see the difference between what I _want_ to believe is true about myself, and what actually _is_.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

PennyLane4 said:


> It started off that way, before I really knew what you were getting at. My immediate reaction was to get defensive, probably due to the wording. I think when people approach me as though I'm not sharp enough to understand what they're saying, whether that's their intent or it's just what I've inferred, I feel offended, and my emotions peak quite quickly. But in this instance,once I read the rest of your post and understood where you were coming from, I was able to see the constructive criticism for what it was, and that you were meaning to be helpful.
> 
> That's something I'm more readily able to understand via the internet. In person, it's harder for me to calm down from those initial emotions, especially with my husband.


I think this shows more Fe than Fi as well as more Ti than Te.

usually when Fi (Dom) thinks or perceive something to be more more critical or attack like and becomes defensive. Most of the time they stay in the defensive mode and overlook the overall purpose. Especially Fi/Ne


----------



## huhman (Nov 29, 2016)

PennyLane4 said:


> That's very insightful, and I recognize those patterns in my learning process. It's hard to really see the difference between what I _want_ to believe is true about myself, and what actually _is_.


Everyone has trouble with this however. It is in the rejection of conformity that we acquire grander things. The problem is we do that with everything, even stuff like this where you can't just figure out a way to get something better because there aren't better things than what already is.

About what @myjazz said, well, I would add that if you are wondering more about what the other person's intention is than about how you feel about what you were told... that's indicative of Fe over Fi. Especially if you then try to reason out their intentions using Ti.


----------



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

myjazz said:


> I think this shows more Fe than Fi as well as more Ti than Te.
> 
> usually when Fi (Dom) thinks or perceive something to be more more critical or attack like and becomes defensive. Most of the time they stay in the defensive mode and overlook the overall purpose. Especially Fi/Ne


I will say, it's definitely more difficult for me to see the overall purpose past my emotions in person. In the heat of the moment I tend to be more explosive, but only with those I'm closest to (so basically my husband and my mom). With others, I tend to bottle up those emotions and shut down externally to avoid the explosion, but I still feel the emotions raging inside.



huhman said:


> Everyone has trouble with this however. It is in the rejection of conformity that we acquire grander things. The problem is we do that with everything, even stuff like this where you can't just figure out a way to get something better because there aren't better things than what already is.
> 
> About what @myjazz said, well, I would add that *if you are wondering more about what the other person's intention is than about how you feel about what you were told... that's indicative of Fe over Fi. Especially if you then try to reason out their intentions using Ti.*


Hm... That's a hard one to discern for me. Am I defensive because I think the person's intention is offensive, or do I _feel_ offended, hurt or disrespected? I think, at a deep level, it's more based on the person, because I don't want them to see me as inferior.


----------



## Shroud Shifter (Sep 9, 2015)

I think you are clearly more Fe. Your every answer seems to point it out.


----------



## PennyLane4 (Dec 14, 2016)

Shroud Shifter said:


> I think you are clearly more Fe. Your every answer seems to point it out.


Probably even down to me needing to be _told_ that, even when it's probably fairly obvious, right? :wink: The more research I do, the more I agree with you here.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

myjazz said:


> Based on what he said he himself is a Te user and Inferior Fi
> 
> He used several reference points according to him that is Te


I said that is what Te values and a healthy type will use both sides of their dominant function. I am introverted. I do not have inferior Fi.

"We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.
In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim—in so far, of course, as he is a pure type—is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas." - Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921) Chapter X

Read the book if you don't believe me.



huhman said:


> Definitely twisted definitions more than his wording suggested, but eh I'm not here to argue.


If you have any reason for your claims, then by all means, explain it. I told you what Carl Jung - the founder of cognitive functions - says on the matter. And his work is still used and valued by typology experts today.

You two have quite clearly never read a book on typology and don't even know the basics, and yet you slander my input and act like you know better? You two are anti-intellectual.


----------



## huhman (Nov 29, 2016)

@Fried Eggz if you use the word anti-intellectual as an insult, then that's pretty expository of your priorities and honestly, intending to come off as smart just screams insecurity. As for those sources you cited, you can easily look around and find plenty of examples of Fi users also "wanting a dark, handsome and tall partner" so even if Jung himself said that it makes no fucking sense. As such, if a source doesn't make enough sense and can be proven wrong by looking outside, then it lacks validity. Just grabbing sources and pointing to them and saying "you're wrong, cause X said so!" is pretty much the opposite of being intellectual.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

huhman said:


> @Fried Eggz if you use the word anti-intellectual as an insult, then that's pretty expository of your priorities


You are the definition of an anti-intellectual and the reason the word was coined. You scorn expert opinion in favour of your own.



huhman said:


> honestly, intending to come off as smart just screams insecurity.


I don't care how bad you are at reading my motives. I'm calling you out for going against the actual theory of typology.



huhman said:


> As for those sources you cited, you can easily look around and find plenty of examples of Fi users also "wanting a dark, handsome and tall partner" so even if Jung himself said that it makes no fucking sense. As such, if a source doesn't make enough sense and can be proven wrong by looking outside, then it lacks validity.


"If I look around"? WTF are you talking about. I can't go out and find a "Fi-user" who is the definition of a Fe user because that would prove that they're not a Fi user. Do you understand what a definition is? You don't even comprehend the source because you haven't even read it. And you're assuming you know who Fi users are before you've even learned what Fi is.

If you reject Jung then why are you even talking about cognitive functions? He was the one who invented the idea.



huhman said:


> Just grabbing sources and pointing to them and saying "you're wrong, cause X said so!" is pretty much the opposite of being intellectual.


You are entirely self-validating. That is actually the opposite of being intellectual.


----------

