Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Fi and Taboo

  1. #1
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Fi and Taboo

    Hey, I'm starting a new topic to talk about this, because my thoughts on the subject aren't really germane to the thread in which they arose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    It seems a bit of stretch to say that societal and cultural taboos are solely the product of Fi. If anything it's more just the result of human beings being irrationally superstitious and fearful of the world around them, something any type can be. Ti valuers are just as easily capable of making those sorts judgments too, they simply find that meaning in a more explicit context; I'm sure that even Fi PoLRs can be revolted by incest.
    That's my point. In the thing about taboo and the thing about zeitgeist I was trying to point to the ways that we all use each IM in a fundamental way... maybe... what part of reality it covers. My point was not to say that Fi is limited to taboos or that the use and recognition of taboos is exclusive to Fi-valuers. Rather, I'm arguing that something associated with Fi (a system of judgment that is emotional rather than logical in nature) is used by everyone, and is a necessary part of the psyche/life/society. I'm interested in the part of reality that each IM covers; Fi covers the "irrational" (in a non-socionics sense) judgments that we all make by nature, and that is how all of us experience Fi in a crude way.

    To put it another way, Fi (and Ni) often provides some of the first principles from which Ti reasons.

    On the other hand, from a quadra progression perspective, it's pretty easy to see that a big difference between delta and beta is the observation of conventionally accepted ways of life. And my point in bringing up taboos is to say that there is nothing at all wrong with following conventionally accepted rules that you can't "prove" logically; everybody does that, naturally and necessarily.

    Nevertheless, you see a very beta "in the abyss" moment, for instance, in the Oresteia where the accepted rules of life (don't kill your own kin) are broken, first in the social/citizen sphere by Agamemnon, and then (more importantly) in the domestic/personal sphere by Clytaemnestra and then Orestes. Then you start questioning the logical validity (Ti) of those accepted ways of life (an alpha phase), and then you go into this beta phase where abstracted and personified principles war against one another (Ni) until a new truth is arrived at (Gamma phase).

    The point is, in the beta phase, you have to suspend the taboos, open them up to Ti questioning (based on Se: what will get us the desired outcome), and then change something in how you look at the world, so that can be reified into new traditions of "how we do things here".

    So yeah, summary, I'm not saying that Fi valuers think in terms of taboos. I'm saying that taboos are a fundamental part of every society, and are one of the areas of reality that we all need Fi for, whether we value it or not. Taboos are good examples of the sort of judgments that we need Fi to make, of the necessity of reactions that come from an internal place that we cannot justify or derive.


    Also: taboos in the sense of social etiquette is NTR. But taboos in the sense of "judgments about the quality of a thing that are not derived (explicitly/logically) from experience or other postulates" are related to Fi. Fi IS the voice that says "we don't do that because we don't do that." Ti is the voice that says "we don't do that because action y goes in category x and category x is undesirable." Maybe a subtle difference, and they can certainly feel equally arbitrary, but there's a difference nonetheless.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  2. #2
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    My response to this is the same as I said in the the thread:

    At best, an valuer might have their own personal ideas of what's taboo to them, which may or may not be in sync with whatever is sanctioned by society at large. And may or may not be in contradiction to your own sense of what's taboo to you.

    Point being, that in and of itself isn't intrinsically related to the establishment of 'taboo norms' or what have you.
    Yes, I agree with that. But I tried to emphasize the point that I'm not concerned with Fi-valuers individually, but rather some of the necessary things that we all use Fi for, or how Fi is part of the fabric of reality/life/what-have-you. I'm just saying that broad-based social consensus on certain judgments is a result of how we all use Fi.

    Nevertheless, any individual Fi-valuer might be in sync or out of sync with these consensuses. But most Fi-valuers, and most people, are in sync with the really fundamental ones, such as "don't have sex with your cousin" or something. And I do think iconoclasts tend to be Ti-valuers---not that iconoclasm is always a good thing.


    Also, everyone has things that are unacceptable to them. Ti-valuers will tend to have an explanation derived from other principles (even if they won't give you one: SeTi pride of place; I'm too high up to have to give an explanation to you), Fi-valuers will tend to lack an explanation, and will often feel offended when you ask for one, because it seems like you're questioning something that is a) obvious, and b) intimately tied to their personal 'core'.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  3. #3
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can definitely see Fi being related to taboos, IF we're talking about emotional reactions from the taboo that lead someone to disconnect from whoever partakes in it, reject a bond to them. Now, from there to associate this to "Fi-valuers" is too big of a jump, because we're talking about a person who can make use of all IEs, even though they will be under the influence of Fi focus more so than other types. Even saying "Fi-valuer" I don't find accurate, because it's disregarding other types such as XEIs, who even though bitch about how much they might not like Fi, will undoubtedly use it without realizing. Even Fi-polr people reject people based on taboos that go against their principles. Ultimately, I do see how Fi has to do with the "ew get away" factor of taboos, but it's something that all types are capable of, regardless of what they value.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that a good means through which to understanding the nature of Fi in the context of taboos is to contrast its fundamental nature to that of Ti.

    My best friend down here in Florida is EII, also a devout Christian, and he and I playfully pick at each other's Super Egos. He doesn't know about Socionics, so he isn't privy to the informational metabolic conflict that is occurring, but what frequently happens is that he will make some Fi statement, usually relating to religion, about what he thinks is right, and I will gently ask him to justify his belief. What invariably follows is a confused, sort of muddled reaction on his part, then a kind of flustered aura of defiance in which he asserts that his position is simply how he feels.

    Conversely, I will, in a sort of frazzled, half-serious childlike way, as I often do, make some harsh statement regarding something I don't like, using stiff, rigid logic as the primary justifying element. His response to this is usually a kind of soft Delta Fi rebuke of my bitchy Beta Ti, uh... asseveration: "Peter, why did say that? That's not nice," and my inevitable answer is a narrow, overly linear A + B = C kind of defense that, even though possesses logical coherence and kind of ascetic definitiveness, is obviously too harsh to be considered reasonable.

    Taken too far, both Fi and Ti exculpations can result in calamity: Ti through detachment from humanity; Fi through detachment from coherent thought.

    But anyway, what I am saying is that, whereas Ti is basically core sentiment justified by logic, Fi is core sentiment justified by some kind of preternatural instinct. I think taboos are essentially a product of Fi, because they amount to something ignoble, reprehensible, etc., adjectives whose continuances aren't justified logically.

    (Fe types are aware of taboos, but seem to prefer reading between the lines of statements and actions which violate their core tenets, only enforcing them when they deem it necessary to not ruin the atmosphere/piss on the parade, etc. I find that Fe seems to enjoy it when Ti types come in and bend the rules, as it were, regarding what is and isn't permissible, based on arithmetical computations, as it were.)

    Another parenthetical aside: (Tam's Christian friends are all much nicer people than the non-Christians I know, by far.)

  5. #5
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think of taboos as being things that are considered objectively wrong by everyone within a society. I think of Fi as being more about subjective ideas of right and wrong.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    If we're going to make asinine suggestions that taboos are somehow proprietary to , we might as well muse other things too like, "are EXTps more likely to play with their own feces and sleep with their cousins?" or "is redneck cannibal culture ESTp?" and so forth. You know, PoLR and all.
    You're so suave and well-mannered, nothing asocial about you.

    The problem with your approach is that you insist that only via the scientific method can any practical value be gained from socionics, and that there's no way for us to establish for ourselves the verity of our observations. It's an absurd position for anyone not attempting to empiricize socionics to take, so trying to wrangle us all into your particular avenue of intellectual approach, just to satisfy your preferences, is objective to the point of being unproductive.

    It doesn't matter if our insights are hazy and indistinct to you; they can be perfectly useful and fulfilling to us.

  7. #7
    Creepy-female

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    If we're going to make asinine suggestions that taboos are somehow proprietary to , we might as well muse other things too like, "are EXTps more likely to play with their own feces and sleep with their cousins?" or "is redneck cannibal culture ESTp?" and so forth. You know, PoLR and all.
    I think you're missing the point here. The point is describing the way information is organized and progresses. Do you see silverchris postulating that "EXTps are more likely to play with their own feces and sleep with their cousins?" because I don't. He's not exactly taking this new idea to idealogical extremes and as far as I can tell you are projecting the hypothesis here. Following his hypothesis to its most extreme outliers and then ridiculing them subtly isn't Science, it's a slippery slope for the fucking win. Types of cognition can lead to various thought structures that are more congruent to Ti or Fi is not an unreasonable or extreme hypothesis. I'm glad that he can present new material with interesting logical associations. I'm sure anyone with the ability to search and click a couple links can find a detailed page with your slightly reworded views on this subject; it isn't necessary to exhume them constantly.

    Rather, I'm arguing that something associated with Fi (a system of judgment that is emotional rather than logical in nature) is used by everyone, and is a necessary part of the psyche/life/society.
    This is a fair conjecture. I think that my main idea about this issue is that if you compare Fi and Ti, Fi more intuitively grasps markers or points that Ti has to externally reason towards. Of course, as long as Ti is supplied with Fe related information that balances it, whatever system it creates should have legitimate ethical value, but I believe you are right in that there is not quite the unquestioning "don't go there" quality that is present in Fi/Te related exchanges, and I thought that the way you described your Fe/Ti thought process in your previous thread astutely covered a concept that I've observed in my (limited) observation of Beta individuals.

  8. #8
    Creepy-female

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    I understand just fine what he was getting at and he wasn't unclear about it. Whether it's eating people or sleeping with your cousins, those baseline more or less universal taboos most of us see as wrong/shameful/etc.
    No, I don't think you understand the point. The point is he's not driving his idea to absurd conclusions. The point is that he's using organization patterns and an external manifestation of an aspect of humanity to detail the workings of cognitive processes that can only be guessed at, and you are absurdly isolating terms of the subject he is broaching in order to disprove him.

    Except that didn't appear to be quite the hypothesis. Maybe you should re-read?
    I am familiar with his hypothesis, and it veers away from the non-essential aspects you blow out of proportion to disparage his idea.

    I'm trying to be clear about the POV I'm coming from, instead of assuming prior familiarity. Typically I haven't been clear about where I'm coming from when I say certain things.
    Your clarity borders on being obtuse.

  9. #9
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But taboos in the sense of "judgments about the quality of a thing that are not derived (explicitly/logically) from experience or other postulates" are related to Fi. Fi IS the voice that says "we don't do that because we don't do that."
    Interesting...

    So you're saying that ALL types would hear/react to this voice, but the only difference is in the way that it is processed.

    In listening to the "we don't do that because we don't do that" voice...

    An ESTp (Fi-PoLR) would hear a whispered voice...But they wouldn't be as confident at making judgments from this since they can barely hear the voice.

    Whereas an Fi-Valuer would hear a loud shout...They'd be more confident in making judgments from this because the internal stir is so obvious to them.

    So despite what type you are, you'll hear some kind of voice... (because having sex with cousins is considered so outrageous in this society)

    I think that's what you're saying?

    ---

    So what kinds of other things besides taboo would do the same?
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 01-25-2011 at 10:17 PM.
    If you can't get a miracle, become one

  10. #10
    star stuff April's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chatbox
    TIM
    NG human sorcerer
    Posts
    917
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I didn't like really agree with OP at first, but I'm trying to let it settle in a bit with this...

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Fi IS the voice that says "we don't do that because we don't do that." Ti is the voice that says "we don't do that because action y goes in category x and category x is undesirable." Maybe a subtle difference, and they can certainly feel equally arbitrary, but there's a difference nonetheless.
    Often times, I'll get a quick gut reaction about a situation (e.g., "I don't like this for some reason"), but then I must back it up with some sort of evidence or reasoning. "Because we don't do that" is not a sufficient reason for anything, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this relates to what you said about Fi leading to Ti, but I don't know.

  11. #11
    Creepy-male

    Default

    here is what jung said about Fi

    Quote Originally Posted by Introverted Feeling
    3. Feeling

    Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feelingjudgment
    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 [p. 490] 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-defence.

    Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God,
    freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. 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 [p. 491] 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. In order to communicate with others it has to
    find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying
    expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel
    process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity
    of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is
    extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of
    primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows

    unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to create
    an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid
    self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an
    abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite
    empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness,
    which merely feels itself. This is the mystical, ecstatic stage, which prepares the way over into
    the extraverted functions repressed by feeling, just as introverted thinking is pitted against a
    primitive feeling, to which objects attach themselves with magical force, so introverted feeling is
    counterbalanced by a primitive thinking, whose concretism and slavery to facts passes all
    bounds. Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a
    freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may
    even renounce all traditional values. But so much the more [p. 492] does unconscious thinking
    fall a victim to the power of objective facts.

    4. The Introverted Feeling Type

    It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. The proverb
    'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard
    to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their
    temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the
    control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain
    concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful
    repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress,
    influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a
    suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to
    a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of
    feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when
    the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only
    so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no
    attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the
    object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a
    negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and
    harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of
    responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness. [p.
    493]

    One may even be made to feel the superfluousness of one's own existence. In the presence of
    something that might carry one away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent
    neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind
    out of the sails of a sensitive object. But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with
    murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e.
    unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In
    which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due
    course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The
    relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling,
    where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore,

    remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his
    undervaluation. Such, however, is not always the case, since very often the deficit remains
    unconscious; whereupon the unconscious feeling-claims gradually produce symptoms which
    compel a more serious attention.

    A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into
    denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her
    feelings are intensive rather than extensive. They develop into the depth. Whereas, for instance,
    an extensive feeling of sympathy can express itself in both word and deed at the right place, thus
    quickly ridding itself of its impression, an intensive sympathy, because shut off from every
    means of expression, gains a passionate depth that embraces the misery of a world and is simply
    benumbed. It may possibly make an extravagant irruption, leading to some staggering act of an
    almost heroic character, to which, however, neither the object nor [p. 494] the subject can find a
    right relation. To the outer world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this sympathy looks like
    coldness, for it does nothing visibly, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in
    invisible forces.

    Such misunderstanding is a characteristic occurrence in the life of this type, and is commonly
    registered as a most weighty argument against any deeper feeling relation with the object. But
    the underlying, real object of this feeling is only dimly divined by the normal type. It may
    possibly express its aim and content in a concealed religiosity anxiously shielded, from profane
    eyes, or in intimate poetic forms equally safeguarded from surprise; not without a secret
    ambition to bring about some superiority over the object by such means. Women often express
    much of it in their children, letting their passionateness flow secretly into them.
    Although in the normal type, the tendency, above alluded to, to overpower or coerce the object
    once openly and visibly with the thing secretly felt, rarely plays a disturbing role, and never leads
    to a serious attempt in this direction, some trace of it, none the less, leaks through into the
    personal effect upon the object, in the form of a domineering influence often difficult to define. It
    is sensed as a sort of stifling or oppressive feeling which holds the immediate circle under a
    spell. It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly
    fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious. This power is derived from the
    deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon
    the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is
    identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into
    banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and [p. 495] petty tyranny. This produces a type of woman
    most regrettably distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty. But this
    change in the picture leads also to neurosis.

    So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject,
    and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. The
    unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in
    compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject. But, whenever this
    does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products,
    the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects.
    Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the

    depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel 'what others think'. Naturally, others are
    thinking, all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues,
    etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and
    sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours, he must make convulsive
    efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret
    rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be
    disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card.
    Such a development must lead to exhaustion. The form of neurosis is neurasthenic rather than
    hysterical; in the case of women we often find severe collateral physical states, as for instance
    anæmia and its sequelæ.
    You can download Psychological Types from Socionix.com

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    What does that matter if the insights are misplaced, wrong, and promote false stereotypes?
    But they aren't always. You know they're not, and you know they can be beneficial and are an important part of human experience. I don't know why you're so unreasonably anal about this.

  13. #13
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    If we're going to make asinine suggestions that taboos are somehow proprietary to , we might as well muse other things too like, "are EXTps more likely to play with their own feces and sleep with their cousins?" or "is redneck cannibal culture ESTp?" and so forth. You know, PoLR and all.
    I don't know that you're necessarily recognizing the distinction I'm making here between Fi and Fi-valuers. Proprietary to Fi =/= proprietary to Fi-valuers. But if you do see it, then perhaps we have a more fundamental disagreement (which you pointed to already) about the nature (ontologically) of functions. I'm concerned with the kind of information content of each function, and I think that since taboos are (to my mind) an example of the earliest stage of Fi, Fi at its purest (i.e., most undeveloped/1-dimensional), it's a good jumping-off point for what is at the core of Fi: these good/bad reactions that come from some place in the self and are underived (consciously anyway) and irreducible.

    And also, Fi-valuers... you're saying your reactions *aren't* black-and-white? I know you don't base your actions on black-and-white things (well... deltas don't anyway), but I'm willing to bet there are some things that you would say "that's just wrong" (in a moral sense) to, and I'm also willing to bet you'd hit that threshold of the "irreducibly wrong" sooner than Ti-valuers. Now, Fi-valuers might use Te reasoning to back up the fundamental "this is bad" reaction (classically, this is the onslaught of statistics given to us by humanitarian organizations: "300,000 children died today," "this economic policy has caused over 400,000 people to get AIDS"), but I think that the "this is bad" reaction is prior to and supersedes the reasoning that supports it.

    Often times, I'll get a quick gut reaction about a situation (e.g., "I don't like this for some reason"), but then I must back it up with some sort of evidence or reasoning. "Because we don't do that" is not a sufficient reason for anything, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this relates to what you said about Fi leading to Ti, but I don't know.
    What about murder, killing children, incest, etc. Workplace inequality. Persecution of homosexuals (or homosexuality, depending on which side of that particular debate your fall on). The fact that men get paid more than women for doing the same job. The fact that whites get paid more than blacks for doing the same job. Are all of these things wrong for some reason that can be derived, or are they wrong because they're just wrong?
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  14. #14
    Nothing in the cage of my ribcage
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We all have taboos... and all taboos are subjective experiences based on what we accept or reject in ourselves. One person may find incest repulsive, while another may find it totally acceptable. One person may have a taboo on "weaknesses" as a thing to be avoided, while another may have a taboo on showing any kind of aggression. So we can see that they are subjective and differ from person to person. What is repulsive to one is desirable to another. Not to mention... people's taboos on things may change over time. We can also say that all taboos are based on our belief systems. We more or less arrive at a conclusion on why incest might be repulsive or desirable, and then maybe an emotional reaction is generated. Or maybe it's the opposite? (Most people are repulsed by incest... because we are genetically disposed to be repulsed by it).

    It's fairly easy for us to get angry, "enraged", repulsed, etc, when we see disagreeable or repulsive actions (to us) in others. But instead of merely reacting to these emotions and feelings, we can also examine and analyze them to see where these feelings are coming from. We can then see that we might have had secret or hidden beliefs that we weren't quite aware of.

    I REALLY don't think that Fi is some sort of a cosmic, supernatural element where it just somehow "knows" what is wrong from right... (which presupposes a universal knowledge of right or wrong). There's no rhyme or reason in that...

  15. #15
    Creepy-female

    Default

    Attention dolphin: you may not involve yourself in this thread. You are discouraged by patterns that do not resolve and thus will refrain from further engagement. I understand that you had to vent. Now it is time to let the anger go and move on. This will be a reminder to you. You are capable of growth and wisdom. Socionics hath endeth and a new dawn doth ariseth. Love, your conscience.
    Last edited by female; 01-26-2011 at 08:51 AM.

  16. #16
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Hey, I'm starting a new topic to talk about this, because my thoughts on the subject aren't really germane to the thread in which they arose.



    That's my point. In the thing about taboo and the thing about zeitgeist I was trying to point to the ways that we all use each IM in a fundamental way... maybe... what part of reality it covers. My point was not to say that Fi is limited to taboos or that the use and recognition of taboos is exclusive to Fi-valuers. Rather, I'm arguing that something associated with Fi (a system of judgment that is emotional rather than logical in nature) is used by everyone, and is a necessary part of the psyche/life/society. I'm interested in the part of reality that each IM covers; Fi covers the "irrational" (in a non-socionics sense) judgments that we all make by nature, and that is how all of us experience Fi in a crude way.

    To put it another way, Fi (and Ni) often provides some of the first principles from which Ti reasons.

    On the other hand, from a quadra progression perspective, it's pretty easy to see that a big difference between delta and beta is the observation of conventionally accepted ways of life. And my point in bringing up taboos is to say that there is nothing at all wrong with following conventionally accepted rules that you can't "prove" logically; everybody does that, naturally and necessarily.

    Nevertheless, you see a very beta "in the abyss" moment, for instance, in the Oresteia where the accepted rules of life (don't kill your own kin) are broken, first in the social/citizen sphere by Agamemnon, and then (more importantly) in the domestic/personal sphere by Clytaemnestra and then Orestes. Then you start questioning the logical validity (Ti) of those accepted ways of life (an alpha phase), and then you go into this beta phase where abstracted and personified principles war against one another (Ni) until a new truth is arrived at (Gamma phase).

    The point is, in the beta phase, you have to suspend the taboos, open them up to Ti questioning (based on Se: what will get us the desired outcome), and then change something in how you look at the world, so that can be reified into new traditions of "how we do things here".

    So yeah, summary, I'm not saying that Fi valuers think in terms of taboos. I'm saying that taboos are a fundamental part of every society, and are one of the areas of reality that we all need Fi for, whether we value it or not. Taboos are good examples of the sort of judgments that we need Fi to make, of the necessity of reactions that come from an internal place that we cannot justify or derive.


    Also: taboos in the sense of social etiquette is NTR. But taboos in the sense of "judgments about the quality of a thing that are not derived (explicitly/logically) from experience or other postulates" are related to Fi. Fi IS the voice that says "we don't do that because we don't do that." Ti is the voice that says "we don't do that because action y goes in category x and category x is undesirable." Maybe a subtle difference, and they can certainly feel equally arbitrary, but there's a difference nonetheless.
    I see what you mean, I get where you're going with this, and I more or less completely agree. Exception: bolded where I don't know wtf is going on.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  17. #17
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    The OP
    I agree more or less, mainly because I have superstitions about absolute concurrence.

    If you read what Jung wrote on the function, you can see he relates it to a subjective feeling which is coherent with the idea of it being personalized and not based on social values.

    Further Jung describe it as having a sort of mysterious nature to it, it is more felt and experienced as a calm emotional undercurrent, rather than something that is easily described, since it is after all highly subjective and independent of any "object" or anything in reality. I think that is coherent with how you said "Fi IS the voice that says 'we don't do that because we don't do that'." In other words its a something that is felt from within and can't be tangibly articulated easily.

    Jung also goes to great length describing the attribute in symbolic terms, "the waters run deep", "undercurrents", "feminine". I also found that particularly effective in terms of dream/symbol analysis and analogies. Like consider the mythological "Lady of the Lake"... potentially an Fi-correlated symbol.

    Finally personally I feel as if Fi-PoLR manifests itself as uncertainty or a lack of confidence in those "irrational" judgments, in other words the connection with ones emotional undercurrents is largely suppressed in favor of a cognition viewpoint which emphasizes perception of the object (Ne / Se) supplemented with a thinking function. EXTp's primarily want to analyze their perceptions of reality, this leaves them out of contact with ones emotional undercurrents, as this information interferes/complicates the goal of the ego.

    I also suspect that in truth, the actual mechanism that Fi interferes with other functions is more nuanced and complex than model A presents, but model A is probably a much more direct and concise version of reality.

    I personally occasionally have felt like I've gone into the realm of ENFp-ness as the closest thing to experiencing Fi. Usually I'll have one of those "irrational" judgments supplement Ne instead of Ti. However INFj, ISFj, and ESFp seem very foreign to me. At any rate, consistently I'm more insecure about utilization of Fi in comparison to Ti. Doing activities which are based largely in Ti cognition, feels like putting on a baseball glove that's worked in, or an instrument you've played for several years.

  18. #18
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    “The intellectual is constantly betrayed by his vanity. Godlike he blandly assumes that he can express everything in words; whereas the things one loves, lives, and dies for are not, in the last analysis completely expressible in words.”
    Lol I hate how everyone associates analysis with dispassion.

    I will agree though that its not possible to think oneself into a particular state like love or happiness. The upside is you'll never think yourself into a depression either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    I think of taboos as being things that are considered objectively wrong by everyone within a society.
    Oh really, well where do taboos come from, surely they weren't created 5 billion years ago with the earth.

    Your good in my book as long as what follows isn't "The stork or god"

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin View Post
    I think that my main idea about this issue is that if you compare Fi and Ti, Fi more intuitively grasps markers or points that Ti has to externally reason towards.
    Hmmm Ti isn't exactly external reasoning, its actually subjective logic.

    Here is a block of Jung Text

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung Text
    Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by
    the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of
    direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less
    finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived
    either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by
    subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective
    things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this
    thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject,
    and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory
    of the real and the actual.
    In other words Ti is about juggling around logic within ones own head. It can't stand on its own though, because it requires axioms and basic assumptions to permute around. In terms of ethics Ti types are more law-oriented because using a few ethical axioms or principles they can build logical systems from these which are consistent to this end.

    I'd think the common fallacy with Ti types is over focusing on the importance of "laws" and being out of touch with the direct source of their ethics. In an LSI for example one could assume these laws to be practical, like laws of policy, in an LII one could assume these laws to be theoretical, like the laws of physics. The LSI may enforce a law on someone in a way that violates basic human empathy because to them this law is connected to another ethical principle through a system of logic. The LII may insist on a cold calculated dry nihilistic view of the universe because to them this law is connected to another ethical principle/value through a system of logic.

  19. #19
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh really, well where do taboos come from, surely they weren't created 5 billion years ago with the earth.

    Your good in my book as long as what follows isn't "The stork or god"
    You're talking about something that happened thousands of years ago. I don't know. It could just as easily have been Te or Ti or Fe something. Maybe someone was more concerned about what would make a community work in a practical manner without killing each other off. It isn't really the point, though.

    Fi is a person-by-person thing. Even if someone was using Fi to form these taboos thousands of years ago, it wouldn't be relevant to today. It's like looking at an individual situation and wondering if in that particular situation at that place and time, whether something is right and wrong. More like situational ethics. Big society-wide overall taboos are not a individualized subjective thing.
    Last edited by Slacker; 01-26-2011 at 01:23 PM.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fi doens't have anything to do with taboos imo, I don't really think "this is wrong", more like "what he did there was wrong/inconsiderate/assholish". I think that's what you meant too, Mariella?
    And of course, if someone keeps doing that, like insulting me or a friend, bullying etc. I will get "bitchy" (that's what some people have called me, anyway )
    I don't care much about taboos at all, except for something like incest or pedophilia where I think the repulsion is just ingrained in the brain (don't know anything about that stuff though so that might be bs)
    The kind of "taboos" I'm most annoyed by are something like "smoking/drugs/junk food are *so*, so bad and should be outlawed", don't know if you meant that tho. Fuck this stuff, live and let live, is it so hard?

  21. #21
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    Fi is a person-by-person thing. Even if someone was using Fi to form these taboos thousands of years ago, it wouldn't be relevant to today. It's like looking at an individual situation and wondering if in that particular situation at that place and time, whether something is right and wrong. More like situational ethics. Big society-wide overall taboos are not a individualized subjective thing.
    But society-wide taboos are personal. It's the core commonality (sort of where Te and Fi intersect). Anyway, they may be held in common by largegroups of people, but the personal, subjective reaction of good or bad doesn't come about as a result of something someone tells you; itarises spontaneously out of the self. It is highly personal and individual.

    Also, taboos aren't objective truth in the the explicit sense. It's closer to impersonal subjectivity, truths felt as complete in themselves arising spontaneously (without meditation) from the self, which nonetheless do not only concern the self. And again, this is my attempt to a) describe pure Fi (i.e., not FiNe) and b) describe basic or 1-dimensional Fi. As your use of Fi becomes more nuanced, your application of these judgments that sort of pop up from inside you becomes more nuanced as well. Less "good/bad" or "desirable/undesireable" or "like/dislkie" or whatever you want to call it, and more nuanced to the situation. You get more shades of gray. The core of the judgment, however, is nevertheless based in these basic, immediate feelings, just modulated to take in several different aspects of a given situation. (whereas Fi-polrs have only this basic, taboo level "like or dislike" like the jealous SLE surprised by his/her own powerful "dislike" reaction, despite lacking an explicit, derivable reason for feeling so angry/negative/bad/whatever).

    Ashton, I do agree with what you said about potential for misunderstanding, and because of that, this is clearly something that should be discluded from any sort of broad-based consensus. But I've always thought that other people's stupidity is kinda not my problem. If Hitler wants to say my operas are abouthating Jews, it's not my fault, so long as they are really about societal change on a fundamental level (or whatever the Ring Cycle by Wagner iz actually about).
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  22. #22
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Society-wide and personal are in opposition of each other. Unless you define those things differently than I do.

  23. #23
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyway, taboos are something that come from outside, from society, rather than being created subjectively within.

    and I should have just edited the last post.

    OK this time I will just edit:

    And yeah, Sudler, I agree with you.

  24. #24
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If everybody holds the same opinion, it's still a personal opinion, just a personal opinion held in common. Nothing contradictory about that at all...

    and sure, you can define taboos as things that "come from outside" if you want, but then what word do you use for opinions held in common? Beliefs that large groups of people all hold as personal values, without being taught them explicitly (taboos =/= doctrine and may even be inborn), and which, most importantly, are self-sufficient, if not true then... felt simpliciter, without further analysis or derivation from first principles or justficiation? What do you call those?
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  25. #25
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's really unlikely that everybody in a society (except sociopaths and the like) would come up with the exact same subjective opinion. It isn't just opinion at that point. It's something that is either inborn or something that people are taught from outside.

  26. #26
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    I personally occasionally have felt like I've gone into the realm of ENFp-ness as the closest thing to experiencing Fi. Usually I'll have one of those "irrational" judgments supplement Ne instead of Ti. However INFj, ISFj, and ESFp seem very foreign to me. At any rate, consistently I'm more insecure about utilization of Fi in comparison to Ti. Doing activities which are based largely in Ti cognition, feels like putting on a baseball glove that's worked in, or an instrument you've played for several years.
    Maybe this is why I have an easy time agreeing with what silverchris9 is saying, and some of you disagree, because you seem to look at 1-D Fi (as he calls it) in a fundamentally different way. The only thing that comes to mind now for someone to say that they barely experience Fi is that they have some kind of disorder, such as sociopathy. In any case, if someone pokes you with information pertaining to Fi, you should get stimulated and have an "experience." The overall result of that stimulation then comes from what your type is, and how you instinctively deal with that type of stimulation. That's the way I see it, at least.

    I also don't see how Fi would be foreign to you either... (if you are INTj, which I think you mentioned sometime before, if not then this doesn't apply) Both Fi and Ti thinking are systematic and logical ("if-then" one dealing with emotions and the other with facts), which should be comfortable processes for Ijs in general. I deal with Ti all the time for my engineering career, but it does tire me after a while. From so much exposure to it, I gradually became more confident about Ti matters.

  27. #27
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ugh, this is going to make me sound like I didn't actually read this thread.

    What in the world is a taboo?

    To me, it's something learned from a large or small collective (culture, religion, family) that by implication is NOT up for examination or interrogation. Therefore, it becomes possible to personalize it only if I dare to question what it's doing in my values system. Or if I have personal experiences that lead me to draw my own conclusions from life that yes indeed, that thing generally held as a taboo is bad or whatever.

    And it seems to me that Fi- and Fe-oriented people might have different ways of addressing taboos, but I have seen both types question them, break them. If I wanted to really understand the nature of how different types of people handle and relate to taboos, then I'd need to study it in-depth, ideally based on what they say and do ; I'd rather not speculate about what is going on there.

    Lastly, I would be open to Delta Fi and Gamma Fi showing differences in this regard. But it seems like the biggest differences are apt to be cultural, generational, religious, and individual ones.

  28. #28
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    You're talking about something that happened thousands of years ago. I don't know.
    Lol I was more asking you to speculate on a theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    It could just as easily have been Te or Ti or Fe something. Maybe someone was more concerned about what would make a community work in a practical manner without killing each other off.
    Yea well interestingly enough those "types" of taboos would seem different than what silverchris is talking about with Fi. He would be talking about a taboo founded in feeling rather than something which makes a community work practically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    Fi is a person-by-person thing.
    Actually I think Fi as a psychological function is more a personal thing, not a person-to-person thing. Introverted/Subjective Feelings can be associated to anything, even society as an abstraction, or objects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    Even if someone was using Fi to form these taboos thousands of years ago, it wouldn't be relevant to today. It's like looking at an individual situation and wondering if in that particular situation at that place and time, whether something is right and wrong. More like situational ethics. Big society-wide overall taboos are not a individualized subjective thing.
    Yea of course, and silverchris distinguished this in the last paragraph of the OP, but all I was saying was that social taboos come from somewhere. I'm personally not trying to argue they come solely from Fi... but more so that sociology and psychology have an inter-relation. Society is just a system of interactions between individuals. It's not like society is a thing you can touch or hold in your hand, or a person you can have a conversation with... it's really just a system of interactions between individuals.

    I think functions play certain roles in society at large, but its more complex because instead of a function being a cognitive gateway for the individual. Functions in society are like the axons/dendrites in nerve cells, they connect and send/receive information from one individual to the next. Certain tracks/pathways are responsible for different social phenomenon.

    At any rate, I wasn't taking a position.... I really was just asking you what you thought. I don't claim to know either where taboos come from, I just know they come from human psychology... even the social ones.

  29. #29
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Yea well interestingly enough those "types" of taboos would seem different than what silverchris is talking about with Fi. He would be talking about a taboo founded in feeling rather than something which makes a community work practically.
    Did you see leckysupport's latest blog posts about Te/Fi? I think they address it quite well.

  30. #30
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    But society-wide taboos are personal. It's the core commonality (sort of where Te and Fi intersect). Anyway, they may be held in common by largegroups of people, but the personal, subjective reaction of good or bad doesn't come about as a result of something someone tells you; itarises spontaneously out of the self. It is highly personal and individual.

    Also, taboos aren't objective truth in the the explicit sense. It's closer to impersonal subjectivity, truths felt as complete in themselves arising spontaneously (without meditation) from the self, which nonetheless do not only concern the self.
    Ok so yea I wasn't trying to argue above that social taboos are related to Fi, if you read what I actually said on Fi, I was saying its subjective, internal and personal.

    I was just asking for an explanation on the connection of Fi with social taboos.

    I think part of social taboos are Fi, but Fi in general are not social taboos. I think that if you have a feeling, you derive ethics and values from this. Further in terms of social issues, people will support things which are coherent with there ethics/values and reject things which are not coherent with there ethics/values.

    It works in two ways society to the individual and individual to society. In society to the individual the individual looks at society and has "feelings" about that. In individual to society the individual supports particular ideation/policy/etc because it is coherent with there ethics/values.

    In specific these feelings and ethics are the subjective Fi type and not the object externally oriented Fe type.

    The other 7 functions also play a role in shaping society.

    For example in the deconstruction of an issue such as statutory rape and the age of consent. Most likely the aspects of that issue most strongly correlated to feeling types are things surrounding how one feels about pedophilia, children having sex, and childhood innocence/sexuality. However that is not the only aspect of the issue. For example the actually law is probably founded more in the thinking functions... i.e. No legal sex under the age of 18 or 16 or whatever. And finally the enforcement of that law is probably founded more in Se.

    While this particular example one may disagree with, the point is social taboos are likely multi-faceted, with several functions playing a role, and constantly dynamic being reshaped by influences between individuals and society and vice versa. Feeling though in general (Fe/Fi) I think is the source for social ethics, Thinking on its own is probably indifferent in terms of social ethics... in human psychology thinking supplements feeling in ethical issues. Pure Thinking necessarily isn't evil, it won't purposefully violate a taboo out of certain negative features like pride, lust, etc... thinking merely won't see a reason for restraint and dispassionately violate a taboo if something is a more efficient means to an end.

  31. #31
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,451
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin View Post
    Attention dolphin: you may not involve yourself in this thread. You are discouraged by patterns that do not resolve and thus will refrain from further engagement. I understand that you had to vent. Now it is time to let the anger go and move on. This will be a reminder to you. You are capable of growth and wisdom. Socionics hath endeth and a new dawn doth ariseth. Love, your conscience.
    Your conscience and my conscience should talk some time, I think they have a lot to agree with.

  32. #32
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    The only thing that comes to mind now for someone to say that they barely experience Fi is that they have some kind of disorder, such as sociopathy.
    Lol not at all, first I'm not saying that... lets clarify that. I'm not saying "hey guys I have a disorder of sociopathy".

    Secondarily... what I am saying. Socionics divides functions in one's psyche into "strong and weak" functions. I'm trying to understand how this mechanism works in people and how it relates to me. I'm entertaining the notion of whether I have "weak Fi" and how that would look like.

    At any rate I'm not a sociopath.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    In any case, if someone pokes you with information pertaining to Fi, you should get stimulated and have an "experience."
    pokes you? what the hell is a poke? This isn't facebook... I'm trying to understand how these functions work.

    I personally see functions in the socionics context as gateways or information input and see strength weakness of a function as bandwidth.

    Because a human brain can only process so much information, information has to be divided into various functions, some function have a clearly large bandwidth and more information flows in clearer, some functions have a lower bandwidth and less information flow in and its more jumbled.

    I haven't perfected this concept, I'm still confused on the role of the subconscious, because I personally feel like people take in the same bulk of information more or less, but the bandwidth is more a function of how much of that information its actually consciously perceived.

    In other words excess information is suppressed in the subconscious and your dual/semi-dual helps draw attention to that suppressed information by consciously recalling it from their ego, while the same is reciprocated. In other words they help draw up those certain aspects of reality you can't help but feel are absent (because you neglected them), in this way romantic dualism still holds its two halves of one whole quality via this interpretation and the outward claims of socionics remains unscathed.

    The ego in a sense is the filtration system which attempts to sort out the torrent of subconscious information flowing into the human brain.

    So its not so much that feelings aren't there, its that they are suppressed in the subconscious and usually appear in the form of subconscious phenomenon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    That's the way I see it, at least.
    I see it different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    I also don't see how Fi would be foreign to you either... (if you are INTj, which I think you mentioned sometime before, if not then this doesn't apply) Both Fi and Ti thinking are systematic and logical ("if-then" one dealing with emotions and the other with facts), which should be comfortable processes for Ijs in general. I deal with Ti all the time for my engineering career, but it does tire me after a while. From so much exposure to it, I gradually became more confident about Ti matters.
    Read the Jungian descriptions of Ti and Fi that is my current understanding.

    Also I don't really take my type extremely seriously because I think model A isn't a true to reality perfect model. I think as a best match my type would be ILE. Originally I was LII and I share similar mannerisms to LIIs but overall once I gained understanding of the functions I think that Ne > Ti in me.

    Also what I mean isn't that I am foreign to Fi but rather what I said above, that Fi is subconscious information which is suppressed, and I don't mean subconscious in the same sense as socionics unconscious/conscious. I mean subconscious/conscious in the sense of weak/strong in socionics.

  33. #33
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post


    Actually I think Fi as a psychological function is more a personal thing, not a person-to-person thing. Introverted/Subjective Feelings can be associated to anything, even society as an abstraction, or objects.

    I didn't say person-to-person, I said person-by-person, so like individual or personal.

  34. #34
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Lol not at all, first I'm not saying that... lets clarify that. I'm not saying "hey guys I have a disorder of sociopathy".

    Secondarily... what I am saying. Socionics divides functions in one's psyche into "strong and weak" functions. I'm trying to understand how this mechanism works in people and how it relates to me. I'm entertaining the notion of whether I have "weak Fi" and how that would look like.

    At any rate I'm not a sociopath.
    I didn't say that you're a sociopath. I was just commenting that for someone who is impaired to experience Fi, it seems like more of a disorder to me. You mentioned "closest thing to experience Fi" and that threw me off apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    pokes you? what the hell is a poke? This isn't facebook... I'm trying to understand how these functions work.

    ...
    Just so you know, I was very tempted to copy-paste a definition of "poke" from a children's online dictionary and leave it at that, because it doesn't seem like you were trying to understand my idea beyond face value, punk lol. Anyhow, I meant to say that someone intentionally incites an Fi response from you, maybe: "no one will ever love you." It doesn't make sense, yet it will probably cause a reaction if it's the first time you've heard it.

    Can't really comment on the rest you mention, since I haven't given the subject enough thought to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Also I don't really take my type extremely seriously because I think model A isn't a true to reality perfect model. I think as a best match my type would be ILE. Originally I was LII and I share similar mannerisms to LIIs but overall once I gained understanding of the functions I think that Ne > Ti in me.

    Also what I mean isn't that I am foreign to Fi but rather what I said above, that Fi is subconscious information which is suppressed, and I don't mean subconscious in the same sense as socionics unconscious/conscious. I mean subconscious/conscious in the sense of weak/strong in socionics.
    Actually, now that you mention it, I can see you being Ti-creative. You seem to provide extensive analysis about things, and spew Ti like a mofo... Temperament-wise, you don't seem to have that need for conciseness in what you are writing that Ijs tend to have, from what I've seen so far.

  35. #35
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    I didn't say person-to-person, I said person-by-person, so like individual or personal.
    excuse' moi! then....

    well unless you want to discuss anything I said, as far as the person-by-person thing is concerned I am in agreement, like I said in my first post in this topic I think Fi is subjective feeling and something which is unique to the individual. I'm not arguing everyone experiences exactly the same feelings across all of society and that is how taboos are created lol.... that just sounds retarded.

  36. #36
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    I didn't say that you're a sociopath. I was just commenting that for someone who is impaired to experience Fi, it seems like more of a disorder to me. You mentioned "closest thing to experience Fi" and that threw me off apparently.
    I figured you weren't, and that you were instead merely addressing the claim and not me personally. But that claim and my previous statements would logically imply that I am a sociopath, which I am not...

    So that's all I was saying, I wanted to make that disclaimer before someone else could potentially make that connection and the topic became personal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    Just so you know, I was very tempted to copy-paste a definition of "poke" from a children's online dictionary and leave it at that, because it doesn't seem like you were trying to understand my idea beyond face value, punk lol.
    Lol your right, I wasn't haha. But its not because I was trying to be a punk, I want to explore the mechanism deeper than just saying "poke".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    Anyhow, I meant to say that someone intentionally incites an Fi response from you, maybe: "no one will ever love you." It doesn't make sense, yet it will probably cause a reaction if it's the first time you've heard it.
    Bleh, well have you read what Jung says on Fi. He defines it as subjective feeling that is more internal. He defines extraverted feeling as more objective and external.

    In fact this is his whole notion of extraverted/introverted functions.

    Introversion is concerned with the withdrawl of libido from the object. They are taking something in.

    Extroversion is concerned with comparison of the the object with oneself, relating to it. They are putting themselves out to the object.

    Introversion is "subjective" in this sense, internalizing the object to you as a subject.

    Extroversion is "objective" in this sense, externalizing oneself to the object and comparing two objects.

    (sorry for the pedantic steps)

    but my point is that what you said more sounds like Fe... measuring oneself against and statement and extrapolated feelings from that. How do I feel about myself not being loved.

    Fi runs deeper and is more mysterious and subjective than that according to Jung, it is like the emotional source of where the desire to be loved comes from from within one's psyche. It also makes it harder for Fi to be communicated than Fe.

    My statement about PoLR's isn't that that emotional undercurrent doesn't exist in PoLR's, but that it is not drawn upon by the conscious ego and utilized frequently by the persona. Say an EXTp, is not likely to make judgments based on this emotional undercurrent, they are likely to feel a bit disconnected from this, not in a mentally unhealthy sense, but more in a subconsciously suppressed sense, its there and it influences them, but it happens out of view of their ego, it happens deep down within their subconscious.

    Fi ego by comparison are constantly in touch with this, and have no problems drawing upon this emotional undercurrent in their decision making and framing of reality with their ego.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    Actually, now that you mention it, I can see you being Ti-creative. You seem to provide extensive analysis about things, and spew Ti like a mofo... Temperament-wise, you don't seem to have that need for conciseness in what you are writing that Ijs tend to have, from what I've seen so far.
    Well its not that, its just as a paradigm, I trust perception over thought. Ti is good in so far as it serves to flesh out the potentials and possibilities provided by Ne. I view my ego in a way as Ne being the goal and Ti being the hammer. The goal is to explore new potentials and possibilities, make sense of reality via intuition. The tool is systematic logic and thinking. Of course my inner world is more complicated than that, but from the standpoint of determining ILE versus LII that is the critical difference. An LII is a system builder, and they use Ne to build coherent systems. An ILE is an explorer, and they use Ti to map uncharted territory.

  37. #37
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Your conscience and my conscience should talk some time, I think they have a lot to agree with.
    lol my people will call your people and well set up a telecon, we need to talk consolidating the bottom-line for this quarter and driving profits up, were thinking of cutting human resources, but we're not sure about the backlash from corporate.

  38. #38
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,123
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    If everybody holds the same opinion, it's still a personal opinion, just a personal opinion held in common. Nothing contradictory about that at all...

    and sure, you can define taboos as things that "come from outside" if you want, but then what word do you use for opinions held in common? Beliefs that large groups of people all hold as personal values, without being taught them explicitly (taboos =/= doctrine and may even be inborn), and which, most importantly, are self-sufficient, if not true then... felt simpliciter, without further analysis or derivation from first principles or justficiation? What do you call those?
    Well, it's not Fi. Fi isn't inborn beliefs, or widely-held opinions. It is instead a mode of processing, a way in which a person comes to their own ideas and opinions. The elements are not objective things in the world, they are the means through which types view the world.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •