Fi? What is it...?
Once upon a time, I thought I understood Fi. Now that I know about process/result and +/-, I'm not so sure. How does one actually increase Fi? I don't get it.
Fi is drive, right? I can see you increasing hormones to increase Fi. And if one hormone surpasses the intensity of another, then its drive dominates over that other. Is this Fi?
Then, where does ethics come in? Really, there must be more to Fi than just hormones and drives.
Fi dominant = hormones and drive?
What are you trying to say?
It sounds quite sexual at this point, but that does not seem like what you really wanted.
"Really, there must be more to Fi than just hormones and drives." - well, tcau, I am inclined to agree with you.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=15805
There was a bit of Fi discussion in this thread.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
Fi is SEX on the BEACH with HORMONES fizzing EVERYWHERE
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
tcaudilllg - why are you called that. Who is Tony Caudill? Why do you have 'lg' after your name?
He is Tony Caudill but I've always wondered about the extra "lg" too.Originally Posted by Ezra
Do tell us, Tcaudilllg. What do the extra L and G stand for?
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
It stands for 'Life's Good'.
Fi seems to be the more focused, internal energies that occur mentally based on one's interactions.
Yes but, how does a -Fi person (like an ESI) raise their level of perceived Fi? I don't understand. All these virtues associated with Fi seem to me static traits that have no measure of degree about them.
Jung depicted Fi as "harmonious feeling" in its best manifested form.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Think of Fi as:
- The opposite and antagonist to Ti. Ti being the function that comes up with ways of understanding situations apart from direct know-how. Ti types understand things in terms of rules. Fi/Te types understand them by seeing things happen in concrete ways. So Fi is what rejects the Ti and reminds us that the Ti is a bit of an illusion, something that is useful but not capable of directly providing security.
- the complement of Te. Te is the function of direct, concrete know-how. Fi is the attitude that overlooks the need for Te from a vantage point. It notices gaps in the understanding that need know-how to be bridged.
- the stuff that ties Extrovert Perception together. An understanding of definitions that emerges from their simply being given. Something self-evident in the description of a situation. However, one that is Undefined and Socially-Involved; eg. not the complicated kind of understanding, but simply that which everyone would know/agree with (though not neccesarily value of focus on).
I get the impression that you are as clueless about this as I, then.
(for those who were wondering about the "lg" thing, it stands for "Lord Galbalan". Galbalan was a monster from the game series Ys. In my youth, I had a habit of retreating into an imaginary world made up of various elements from the things I liked or found interesting, and Galbalan was one of its denizens. Later I began projecting him as a sort of darker side of myself, and my primary internet psuedonym. In essence, "Lord Galbalan" is my id.)
--
Last edited by krieger; 01-14-2008 at 08:00 PM.
I'm moving toward a position that Fi seeks normalization, a contrast to Fe which seeks a back-and-forth from one side to another, psychic compensation, etc..
If the Yin and Yang are Fe depicted, then the little circles within either are the Fi. Fi is impulse and the point of an Fi element is its regulation. (does that make sense?)
Would not any of the eight functions be Fi aspects in the context of an Fe psyche, always fighting with each other for expression? Fi says, "this Fi aspect (A) is conducive to the stabilization of the field, this one (B) isn't. Therefore A is good and B is bad."
Thinking about it, it would be bad for any function other than the base to be in control, because it would always have to reclaim its position by drawing on forces outside of itself, upsetting the situation outside the person. The base, on the other hand, always has what it needs to keep the psyche under control without disturbing the world around it. So -Fi means, "help the ego stay in control."
Whatever it is, I like it. It is the most calming thing.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
this is wrong. this is not a core description of Fi; it is a manifestation of Fi. anyone can have feelings towards people, morality, etiquette, or bias. Fi is none of these things. functions are about information processing; they are not superficial traits.
Fi's ability to understand others' feelings and relationships is being ignored. It's not always just about the individual's feelings.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
yeah, but it's still never superficial traits.
and bibliophile, you're correct.
Fi is a passive way of understanding definitions. It's a way of understanding definitions in non-arbitrary terms.
What do you mean by non-arbitrary terms?
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
it has nothing to do with Ti or Te. It is about accuracy. superficial traits never suffice.
I understood exactly what you meant by Te and Ti. you didn't list Te. you gave superficial characteristics. there is a difference between being factual and being generic. get it?
Last edited by strrrng; 01-16-2008 at 04:58 PM.
Dee,
I hardly think you are the only one trying to make tests. In fact, in the past week there have been three threads dealing with tests. Two actually being test ideas, the Third being ideas for tests.
Forum members have been working on tests as recent as…omg…this very month!!
1/13/08 Expat's "Mini Test": http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=16164
1/15/08 rmcnew's "Picture Test - Rmcnew is back into making tests!!!!": http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=16203
1/16/07 machintruc's "Developing an accurate test - put your suggestions": http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=16222
Hugo is still working on his, and his haven't been all that bad. But he still works on refining them.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
True, but my concept is different. My "tests" are more like individual interview questions. I don't really think that, alone, they would give the answer on someone's type, but they could be part of a longer process. In Duesseldorf, I realized that my "retirement" and "failure as monarch" tests were too-based, as was made clear when trying to use it to type an ESE girl. So I started to think of others.
I have now the "Expat^2 test" - meaning the concept of "A test by Expat where Expat is the test".
I wouldn't say Ti is generic, no. but w/e. yeah, ok, w/e, its cool.
Dee, I don't know if machintruc is actually wanting to create his own test, or was just gathering ideas for tests from others. However, some of the ideas listed (not just my own random thoughts in that thread) I think could be very good. Implementing them is a different matter altogether.
I'm not sure, though, I could be wrong. If you two get along and/or agree, then he might be good as a collabrator with you. It's a thought at least.
Expat, that sounds cute an "Expat^2 test: A Test by Expat where Expat IS the test."
I wouldn't take any results with more than a grain of salt, but the idea and concept title sounds way cute.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
it can become generic, especially if one does not use it thoroughly, I guess.
you're ISTp?
what I meant was that Ti is prone to generic categorizations if someone just uses it as a "shortcut," or doesn't care to give enough effort, only drawing a very general conclusion about something.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
