-

[Dee]

-

[Phaedrus]

No.

[Mariano Rajoy]

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Ti

[bibliophile8]

I think understanding is too vague. Understand how or in what way? Internal workings? Functioning independently? Interacting with other objects? What?

[strrrng]

those are bad...like 99% of short, abstract phrases

[bibliophile8]

those are bad...like 99% of short, abstract phrases

I have to agree. They don't really help that much.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Ms. Kensington]

as a socially retarded (slow) T type yes I prefer to think of feeling types as preoccupied with people. Morality involves people in most cases. Feelings are exclusive to people right.. and maybe animals which people anthropomorphize. I don't think that Fi is about understanding in the traditional sense. Understanding sort of implies things that are mental to me. "sensing" something, "getting" something, even moral evaluation is not really understanding to me. Moral evaluation can involve rules but to me I don't think of it as utilizing the mind. i think Ti is about understanding in this sense.

[Minde]

yeah, i just thought to restate a view of Fi as an understanding function just like Ti, but directed towards people (e.g. INFJ that try to understand people, see Minde) instead of being directed at abstract mathematical or non mathematical concepts and their mental manipulation.

Just to clarify... did you just say I don't think?

Well of course. Just look at my avatar. Fi people don't think! God forbid! Their understanding clearly must be limited to people. It's the only reasonable thing to conclude.

Of course. What was I thinking? Oh, wait. I wasn't.

[Ms. Kensington]

dee, the way i see it, i dont think that Fi dominants try to understand people. I think Ti people try to "understand" people. We try to turn them into things in which their behavior can be explained by rules and understood. I see Fi dominants making evaluations about people's behavior or else assessing relationships.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Ms. Kensington]

IxFjs and ExFps are up a creek then. This would make us all simply grasping, feeling, sensing, without any real strength in or ability to evaluate or understand. No real usage of our minds. . .

This is a much better explanation, and holds much more true, imo:



BUT! The same thing is applied to things, not just people. A Fi person may have a better understanding of the nuances of a subject through their evaluations, while the Ti person a better grasp of the "nuts and bolts". A different focus, a different understanding, but by no means a lesser use of the mind.

Yes, the point is that it is of a different focus. i don't think an Fi person's focus is to "understand" things like a Ti person is focused on. Invariably the Ti person will go back to making it make sense according to a set of rules and, again to me, it seems like an Fi person will always go back to whether it feels right. It's probably not so connected with feeling with a dominant Fi, but I do know Fi people whose initial reaction is not mental. I'm not Fi, so I don't know what the Fi person is experiencing. Like, I don't totally understand what you mean by nuts and bolts. To me, nuances of something is not rules and saying, oh yeah this is why that happened, I understand it. This reminds me of a thread mikemex made about Fi being about nuance. Also, Carla referenced a thread in which she says you described Fi well, i'll walk over there right now. haha.

For everyone else, I had hoped not to have to say it ,but noone said Fi dominants don't think. Reasoning is not the same as understanding, mental processing is not the same as understanding. Intuitive grasp is not the same as understanding. Talking about it more seems moot.

EDIT: oh you expanded on the nuts and bolts. nm.

EDIT2: and yeah, you confirmed what i had perceived about Fi dominants in what you wrote about nuance. To me, it is very different from understanding, but of course Ti is not the same as Fi

My point was to modify dee's original post. It's wrong to parallel Fi and Ti the way that he (you are a he right dee? :/) did. They are probably parallel in other ways though.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

I think understanding is too vague. Understand how or in what way? Internal workings? Functioning independently? Interacting with other objects? What?

Ti is about understanding in contrast to Te knowledge seeking.

[munenori2]

Oh, but for rational systems with focuses of different kinds! Therein lies the difference, that you shall strive for what is true and I shall for what is important (though in their overlap we shall approach one another again).

I think that Fi views as the pinnacle of understanding the human being in isolation, the unceasing internal process of belief, action, and feeling (most of all). Then once one has furnished unto their own comprehension what they themselves are like, what those around them are like, this is when we move towards a society of individuals, the interaction of so many variegated minds. What does not strike keenly to the hearts and souls of human experience strikes not at all (though these other things may prove themselves highly useful).

So to each his or her own, for as you strive to understand the world we inhabit so too shall I attempt the same upon us who inhabit the world.

[hellothere]

^ what a masterpiece

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

To the OP: It's a good start, I think.

I think that Fi views as the pinnacle of understanding the human being in isolation,

VERY good point. I like that. I know some snobs will try to fanwank it and further add to it, but I like that.

[Ms. Kensington]

That thread is hilarious! I don't think I've ever sworn so much in my life. Maybe it's not the best thread on Fi discussion afterall.

yes i thought it was hot. but I missed the Fi defining.. could this be weak se?

[cracka]

To the OP: It's a good start, I think.



VERY good point. I like that. I know some snobs will try to fanwank it and further add to it, but I like that.

I like that word... but don't really know what it means.

[munenori2]

lol, I was wondering the same thing. Found a small blurb about all that fanwankery on wikipedia.

"The use of fan fiction to fill gaps or continuity errors in a canon is derisively called "fanwanking," or "fanwank." (The terms "fanon" and "fanwank" can apply to officially-licensed works, as well.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

[hellothere]

Perhaps you're looking in the wrong type of dictionary

edit: ah munenori got there before me

[cracka]

Now that I know it actually exists, it lost all humor to me.

I just like how it sounds.

[munenori2]

As they are "called"? What do you mean?

I hardly can regard many of my principles as abstract any more than the people to whom I apply them. They might not be susceptible to a closed set of definitions, but I'd would be hesitant to call them that.

Then again, what you posted below that made no sense to me at all, so maybe I'm missing the integral piece of what you have to say here.