Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 57

Thread: Fi confidence ?

  1. #1
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Fi confidence ?

    Pulling a post out of another thread because it brought up some interesting questions in my head: (And no, it's not directed towards nor about any person in particular!!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Determining whether something is good or bad is an Fi function. It's placing values according to a set of criteria. The criteria are individualized according to the situation and according to the people involved.
    First, everyone can and does use all their functions.

    Second, what counts is how confident you are in your use of the functions, especially in relation to other people.

    A person who is confident in the use of his/her can lie - or kill - and will not care if someone else says, "you lied and killed, you are a monster" - because said person will "know" that the lies and killing were "justified" - according to this person's own subjective criteria, of course, but that it is precisely what is about.

    Another person who has less confidence in his/her could do the same but be shaken if someone calls him/her a monster, thinking, "uh, maybe what I did was wrong, now I'm not sure, damn, why can't I ever be sure about such things?"
    I really like expat's description of confident/nonconfident Fi. It hit home. I am not very confident regarding my Fi. I'm constantly questioning it (myself), checking for alternate criteria and alternate meanings, etc.

    I was talking with an INFj who read the above as well, and she mentioned that she too feels nonconfident about her Fi.

    This got me to wondering if it's the Ne/Se thing that creates a difference, life's circumstances, or something else. How would it show up in other types? Is it even a type related thing?

    I've noticed in a couple of ENTjs that when someone tells them that something that they said hurt someone, or that it's "bad" for whatever reason, that those two entjs seem to mentally review the situation, and in some cases put in effort to avoid the action in the future. Are ENTjs confident in their Fi usage? Is this one of the benefits they get from an ISFj?

    The INFps I know don't seem to even think of Fi stuff. And the ISFp I live with seems to only think of these things when I bring it up...however, I could be doing a selective memory thing with the ISFp. (edited to add that I might be doing a different selective memory thing with the INFps too. )

    Other ENFps have mentioned something similar, and yet some others don't seem to have a problem placing a good/bad judgement.

    One of the ESFjs I know uses social roles criteria extensively and is quite assertive about them.


    ----
    Ok, so this post isn't structured in any way. Random thoughts off the top of my head being written down before I lose it.

    Any insights any of you might have to offer, I'd appreciate.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Fi confidence ?

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    I've noticed in a couple of ENTjs that when someone tells them that something that they said hurt someone, or that it's "bad" for whatever reason, that those two entjs seem to mentally review the situation, and in some cases put in effort to avoid the action in the future. Are ENTjs confident in their Fi usage? Is this one of the benefits they get from an ISFj?
    Well, I personally take it just as objective feedback on my behaviour. If I can see that I actually was an ass, I see no point not to change my behaviour in order to make the next interaction smoother.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fi is virtue ethics. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ i think the 'strength' of Fi comes from lifes circumstnaces. sometimes it is necessary to kill in order to be virtuous. i will put forth the notion that if an Fi dominant does kill, it will be impossible to shake that persons confidence in the act. only in more trivial matters will the Fi dominant be less confident and self questioning. but i could be wrong, i am not Fi dominant.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  4. #4
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    I was talking with an INFj who read the above as well, and she mentioned that she too feels nonconfident about her Fi.

    This got me to wondering if it's the Ne/Se thing that creates a difference, life's circumstances, or something else. How would it show up in other types? Is it even a type related thing?
    I think ISFjs will be the most confident about their own values, due to their , indeed. INFjs will always be aware that other alternatives and points of view are possible - which is one reason why I think is also associated with open-mindedness.

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    I've noticed in a couple of ENTjs that when someone tells them that something that they said hurt someone, or that it's "bad" for whatever reason, that those two entjs seem to mentally review the situation, and in some cases put in effort to avoid the action in the future. Are ENTjs confident in their Fi usage? Is this one of the benefits they get from an ISFj?
    Well it depends on what you're talking about. To have hurt someone by, for instance, being too much to the point, too blunt, etc is a consequence of the role function. In that area, I am sensitive to criticism but I try to correct it.

    I'm far more confident about my than my , but not totally confident in . For instance, I intensively dislike lying, not only because I'm no good at it, and I'm often tormented about telling "necessary" lies, which I think would not disturb someone more confident in their .

    Yes, that would be one benefit of the duality with an ISFj, but I think it's more about being with someone who also values over , and who will reassure us about the relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    The INFps I know don't seem to even think of Fi stuff. And the ISFp I live with seems to only think of these things when I bring it up...however, I could be doing a selective memory thing with the ISFp.

    Other ENFps have mentioned something similar, and yet some others don't seem to have a problem placing a good/bad judgement.

    One of the ESFjs I know uses social roles criteria extensively and is quite assertive about them.
    I think all of that makes sense. And yes, the ISFps I know are also like that too.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh no, another descripton where INFjs are described as nonconfident. Sure, it does look like Expat describe it, but I don't agree with the word nonconfident.

    At least for me the hesitation that sometimes occurs regarding issues that aren't fundamental to me comes from a healthy dose of selfknowledge. I know that my moral standards can be high and rigid on the expence of acceptance of others. So of course I find reason to question my opinions when they clash with others. It's not a weakness.
    INFj

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My Definition

    I think it is better to think of Fi as personal, subjective emotions, and Fe as universal, objective emotions. I think in practise this definition makes more sense than most others.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  7. #7
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: My Definition

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    I think it is better to think of Fi as personal, subjective emotions, and Fe as universal, objective emotions. I think in practise this definition makes more sense than most others.
    I totally disagree.

    is about deeply felt emotions, not necessarily expressed; is about expressed emotions, not necessarily deeply felt. is more about "socially acceptable" emotions, or moods.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: My Definition

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    I think it is better to think of Fi as personal, subjective emotions, and Fe as universal, objective emotions. I think in practise this definition makes more sense than most others.
    I totally disagree.

    is about deeply felt emotions, not necessarily expressed; is about expressed emotions, not necessarily deeply felt. is more about "socially acceptable" emotions, or moods.
    I don't think that the defintions provided by CS and yours are incompatible at all. Actually, I think they're perfectly compatible, two halves of the whole
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Yet Another Definition

    One definition of Fi and Fe I have read was this one by Sergei Ganin:

    Fe defines whether object is excited or not. Excitement parameters appear
    though emotions. You see emotions because they are external.

    Fi defines the relation between objects, do the repel or do they attract.
    You feel repultion or attraction because they are internal.

    How do you know if someone likes you or not, through their emotional
    response. Yoeu can judge it by how they are excited about you. You relation
    to the person on the other hand is you own subjective feeling, whether you
    like the person or not they won't know unless you show an emotion.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/98

    I thought it made sense in the past, but now I am not so sure.
    The trouble is that often even people with the same type appear to use their functions in very different ways....
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Fi confidence ?

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Pulling a post out of another thread because it brought up some interesting questions in my head: (And no, it's not directed towards nor about any person in particular!!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Determining whether something is good or bad is an Fi function. It's placing values according to a set of criteria. The criteria are individualized according to the situation and according to the people involved.
    First, everyone can and does use all their functions.

    Second, what counts is how confident you are in your use of the functions, especially in relation to other people.

    A person who is confident in the use of his/her can lie - or kill - and will not care if someone else says, "you lied and killed, you are a monster" - because said person will "know" that the lies and killing were "justified" - according to this person's own subjective criteria, of course, but that it is precisely what is about.

    Another person who has less confidence in his/her could do the same but be shaken if someone calls him/her a monster, thinking, "uh, maybe what I did was wrong, now I'm not sure, damn, why can't I ever be sure about such things?"
    I really like expat's description of confident/nonconfident Fi. It hit home. I am not very confident regarding my Fi. I'm constantly questioning it (myself), checking for alternate criteria and alternate meanings, etc.

    I was talking with an INFj who read the above as well, and she mentioned that she too feels nonconfident about her Fi.

    This got me to wondering if it's the Ne/Se thing that creates a difference, life's circumstances, or something else. How would it show up in other types? Is it even a type related thing?

    I've noticed in a couple of ENTjs that when someone tells them that something that they said hurt someone, or that it's "bad" for whatever reason, that those two entjs seem to mentally review the situation, and in some cases put in effort to avoid the action in the future. Are ENTjs confident in their Fi usage? Is this one of the benefits they get from an ISFj?

    The INFps I know don't seem to even think of Fi stuff. And the ISFp I live with seems to only think of these things when I bring it up...however, I could be doing a selective memory thing with the ISFp.

    Other ENFps have mentioned something similar, and yet some others don't seem to have a problem placing a good/bad judgement.

    One of the ESFjs I know uses social roles criteria extensively and is quite assertive about them.


    ----
    Ok, so this post isn't structured in any way. Random thoughts off the top of my head being written down before I lose it.

    Any insights any of you might have to offer, I'd appreciate.
    Oh, Ishould have included that the ESFps i've known have been VERY confident regarding their values. ...(mumbles something about even if the value is often misplaced....
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  11. #11
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pesto
    Oh no, another descripton where INFjs are described as nonconfident. Sure, it does look like Expat describe it, but I don't agree with the word nonconfident.

    At least for me the hesitation that sometimes occurs regarding issues that aren't fundamental to me comes from a healthy dose of selfknowledge. I know that my moral standards can be high and rigid on the expence of acceptance of others. So of course I find reason to question my opinions when they clash with others. It's not a weakness.
    Which term would you prefer to use, then? I only used confident/nonconfident Fi as a means of expressing the concepts of being sure of one's Fi vs being willing to question one's Fi.

    I think that while it's not necessarily efficient, questioning one's values or actions based on those values is far more desirable than pushing said values in situations that may conflict with other values.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  12. #12
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: My Definition

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    I think it is better to think of Fi as personal, subjective emotions, and Fe as universal, objective emotions. I think in practise this definition makes more sense than most others.
    I totally disagree.

    is about deeply felt emotions, not necessarily expressed; is about expressed emotions, not necessarily deeply felt. is more about "socially acceptable" emotions, or moods.
    I don't think that the defintions provided by CS and yours are incompatible at all. Actually, I think they're perfectly compatible, two halves of the whole
    Hmm...one is saying that Fi is personal subjective values and Fe is universal objective values.
    The other is saying that Fi is about deeply felt values and Fe is about "socially acceptable" values.
    Yep, seems to me they are in essence saying the same thing.

    When we break all the Fi and Fe descriptions down into their most basic concepts, we get:
    Fi is about the values of an individual entity.
    Fe is about the values of a group.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by pesto
    Oh no, another descripton where INFjs are described as nonconfident. Sure, it does look like Expat describe it, but I don't agree with the word nonconfident.

    At least for me the hesitation that sometimes occurs regarding issues that aren't fundamental to me comes from a healthy dose of selfknowledge. I know that my moral standards can be high and rigid on the expence of acceptance of others. So of course I find reason to question my opinions when they clash with others. It's not a weakness.
    Which term would you prefer to use, then? I only used confident/nonconfident Fi as a means of expressing the concepts of being sure of one's Fi vs being willing to question one's Fi.
    Oh, I hoped someone else would figure that out. Flexible is the closest I get, but I'm not sure that covers it.
    INFj

  14. #14
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    However, on the other hand, you're probably not going to be able to convince me that something is okay that I think is wrong, once my conviction is set, not without some effort anyway.

    Once my conviction is set <---- that's the key point there, while I'm wavering and still deciding, before I've fully made up my mind I'll still be able to see all the angles, but once my mind has been made up -- it's hard to unmake it to accept something as okay.
    Open-mindedness FTW.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    694
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEI subtype

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    This is why strong turns me off. Not picking on Diana! Just it fits into the discussion Scrummy and I had in the INFp thread.
    You know, I think you have a point in that there can be too much of a good thing and that it needs to be balanced with Fe. My life got a lot a lot easier once I got over the concept of white lies.
    INFj

  18. #18
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  19. #19
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does this mean that types with weaker will just think about "what other want me to do" and not about morality. They don't care that something is "wrong", but in stead they will consider, "what would others think if I did that?".
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    Quote Originally Posted by pesto
    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    This is why strong turns me off. Not picking on Diana! Just it fits into the discussion Scrummy and I had in the INFp thread.
    You know, I think you have a point in that there can be too much of a good thing and that it needs to be balanced with Fe. My life got a lot a lot easier once I got over the concept of white lies.
    Hmm. I meant for myself -- my own standards, um like if sometone tries to convince me to do something that I think is wrong. It doesn't bother me what other people do -- but I'm responsible for my own actions, you know?
    Yeah. I hoped that was what you meant and that's why left out your quote, but I could have been clearer about that.

    My comment was more about me and how I'm learning to accept things like being told white lies about things that I myself would be honest about. Sort of when my Fi collides with others' Fe. Such things have taught me to focus more on Fe, and it makes things easier even in other situations. But it's a little off topic.
    INFj

  21. #21
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  22. #22
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: My Definition

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    I think it is better to think of Fi as personal, subjective emotions, and Fe as universal, objective emotions. I think in practise this definition makes more sense than most others.
    I totally disagree.

    is about deeply felt emotions, not necessarily expressed; is about expressed emotions, not necessarily deeply felt. is more about "socially acceptable" emotions, or moods.
    I don't think that the defintions provided by CS and yours are incompatible at all. Actually, I think they're perfectly compatible, two halves of the whole
    Hmm...one is saying that Fi is personal subjective values and Fe is universal objective values.
    The other is saying that Fi is about deeply felt values and Fe is about "socially acceptable" values.
    Yep, seems to me they are in essence saying the same thing.

    When we break all the Fi and Fe descriptions down into their most basic concepts, we get:
    Fi is about the values of an individual entity.
    Fe is about the values of a group.
    Ok, that is a fair comment, if that is what CS meant with "objective emotions".
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  23. #23
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    Does this mean that types with weaker will just think about "what other want me to do" and not about morality. They don't care that something is "wrong", but in stead they will consider, "what would others think if I did that?".
    Your phrasing is too black-and-white and absolute, as if types did not have ethical principles at all.

    Having said that, yes, I think that's one aspect of it. But not just about morality, also about feelings.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have a question: what if you dont know what the moral is but you spend a lot of time thinking about morality? Its not as if the strength lies in the conviction of a particular moral, but you are thinking a lot about which moral you will adopt?


    also.. could an person with strong Fi be shaken if someone accuses them of something , then rationalize the actions according to his or her own morals? Is that example also included in Expat's description?

  25. #25
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    i have a question: what if you dont know what the moral is but you spend a lot of time thinking about morality? Its not as if the strength lies in the conviction of a particular moral, but you are thinking a lot about which moral you will adopt?


    also.. could an person with strong Fi be shaken if someone accuses them of something , then rationalize the actions according to his or her own morals? Is that example also included in Expat's description?
    I think that taking the time to figure out which values one is willing to support or identify with goes a long way towards developing strength and or confidence in one's Fi usage.
    (Prior to my melt down, there was no sense of me, it was almost like I was being pulled this way and that way..and many of the directions in direct conflict with others. During my melt down, part of what helped pull me out of it...and helps keep me from slipping back into certain states...is that I took some time to figure out just which values I wanted to pursue, support, and identify with. I no longer feel quite as pulled and I find that there is a center core to my self. Though I do still notice differences between say...my self image...vs my actions.)

    It is quite common for values to contradict each other. You'll notice this most easiest when, as you said, the person rationalizes an action by claiming a different value, and then not being able to recognize that the values are in conflict. You can almost see the switches in mode...like..."light goes on, light goes off, light goes on, light goes off".
    There are also situations in which some psychological labels are given, in part, because the person is torn between multiple conflicting values. Borderline Personality Disorder is one of them. In such cases, it takes a great deal of time, effort, and patience to guide the person through some of the major conflicting values while showing them where and how they conflict with each other. It also helps this person to role-play situations in which a values conflict will likely appear, so that they can gain successful experiences in working through those conflicts.

    Situations like conflicting values and rationalizations would fall under those who are "confident" with their Fi. If they were "nonconfident" they would easier notice discrepancies when pointed out.

    I hope I answered your questions.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well i think that i took the above posts to mean that the Fi dominant person can find a rationale for their moral, not that they can rationalize to see if something IS moral according to a specific moral.

  27. #27
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    well i think that i took the above posts to mean that the Fi dominant person can find a rationale for their moral, not that they can rationalize to see if something IS moral according to a specific moral.
    *clutches her head*
    Ooh, ow, brain twist.

    I'll have to get back to you...um..maybe.....
    *walks away with a grimace*
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Umm... I find it interesting that a lot of the negative "Fi" stuff you guys are talking about, Carl Jung attributed to Extraverted Thinking (and I must agree with him). Maybe it really is more of the weak (unconscious) Fi that you guys are mistaking for poor Fi types?



    example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    well i think that i took the above posts to mean that the Fi dominant person can find a rationale for their moral, not that they can rationalize to see if something IS moral according to a specific moral.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  29. #29
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Umm... I find it interesting that a lot of the negative "Fi" stuff you guys are talking about, Carl Jung attributed to Extraverted Thinking (and I must agree with him). Maybe it really is more of the weak (unconscious) Fi that you guys are mistaking for poor Fi types?



    example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    well i think that i took the above posts to mean that the Fi dominant person can find a rationale for their moral, not that they can rationalize to see if something IS moral according to a specific moral.
    hahah yeah you dork i know i have neurotic Fi But I think its conscious.

    I don't see how things are extraverted thinking, though.

  31. #31
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I consider myslef as an open -minded person. I may do mistakes due to impulsivity . But I do not think that violence/agressoin is in any way natural to - this is a morality function, not antimorality function. Two things just do not fit together. That is why we have Jesus who was teaching not to hit back. What are you talking about?
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  32. #32
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    I consider myslef as an open -minded person. I may do mistakes due to impulsivity . But I do not think that violence/agressoin is in any way natural to - this is a morality function, not antimorality function. Two things just do not fit together. That is why we have Jesus who was teaching not to hit back. What are you talking about?
    Fi as a "morality" function would include "antimorality morals" as well.

    Saying that one is "confident" in their Fi does not say that they are not open-minded, nor that they are closed minded. Nor is it saying that Fi itself is aggressive/assertive.

    I was/am curious about what, if any, differences occur when it is coupled with Se vs Ne. Would the Fi be acted upon more assertively in one than in another? How quickly is it double checked or altered when there is a conflict or discrepency in values? IF so...or even if not...how is it altered when it's not in the first two slots? These were just a few thoughts that hit me upon reading Expats one post, and...being an ENFp, I sought out other inputs to add fuel to my brainstorm.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  33. #33
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    Does this mean that types with weaker will just think about "what other want me to do" and not about morality. They don't care that something is "wrong", but in stead they will consider, "what would others think if I did that?".
    Your phrasing is too black-and-white and absolute, as if types did not have ethical principles at all.

    Having said that, yes, I think that's one aspect of it. But not just about morality, also about feelings.

    Finally! ... someone said it. And they understand absolute! <3

    /sigh-of-relief

  34. #34
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    Does this mean that types with weaker will just think about "what other want me to do" and not about morality. They don't care that something is "wrong", but in stead they will consider, "what would others think if I did that?".
    Your phrasing is too black-and-white and absolute, as if types did not have ethical principles at all.

    Having said that, yes, I think that's one aspect of it. But not just about morality, also about feelings.

    Finally! ... someone said it. And they understand absolute! <3

    /sigh-of-relief
    When trying to understand types and their differences, I see similarities as 0-difference, therefore I subtract them. And I'm always trying to be brief and simple, so my posts would be as short as possible. I'm sorry if my posts seem stupid. I do know that types have ethical principles, but so does everyone else. This is why it's not worth mentioning. The same reasoning explains many of my other "black-and-white" statements.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  35. #35
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Oops. I didnt mean to quote you. I was quoting Expat. It was a general /sigh-of-relief from reading what he wrote.

  36. #36
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Anndelise

    I think the question is too abstract, it will depend on many other factors.
    Theoretically ISFJs suppose to act more assertively than INFJs but ISFJs also submissive and in many ways they do not care or accept the authority. If we consider the quadras than we can say Beta and Gamma are conflicting quadras/types who will be assertive in many different ways and conflict against each other. I think we had enougf evidence that INTPs can be assertive and reactive. I think ENTJs are also quick to put their point accross. ISFPs and INFPs and INFJs seem to be a softer touch. I don't think it is an easy question. It could be related to other dimensions like individualism and other-orientation. The development of personality also takes part: you may be sensitive when you are younger and over reactive and later you may care much less and do not react.
    I am not sure if I have answered your question.

    I have not met that many ISFJs to get the idea about their "antimoral values". I would assume ISFJ are very strongly attached to their values and only change them due to their experiences. But it may well be that the morality is built in their personality and that is why they feel moral dilemmas very early. The need for love and understanding is very strong and the rejection which is quite often experienced is very painful. socionic suggest that they learn to be less impulsive and think more about what they are doing eventually .
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  37. #37
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Fi as a "morality" function would include "antimorality morals" as well.

    Saying that one is "confident" in their Fi does not say that they are not open-minded, nor that they are closed minded. Nor is it saying that Fi itself is aggressive/assertive.

    I was/am curious about what, if any, differences occur when it is coupled with Se vs Ne. Would the Fi be acted upon more assertively in one than in another? How quickly is it double checked or altered when there is a conflict or discrepency in values? IF so...or even if not...how is it altered when it's not in the first two slots? These were just a few thoughts that hit me upon reading Expats one post, and...being an ENFp, I sought out other inputs to add fuel to my brainstorm.
    I'll say it again: You cannot discuss by itself. Look at NeFi, FiNe, SeFi, etc. Very different expressions of Fi. I also object to the constant connection of Fi with morality, but that will have to wait until tomorrow.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    i forgot
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Fi as a "morality" function would include "antimorality morals" as well.

    Saying that one is "confident" in their Fi does not say that they are not open-minded, nor that they are closed minded. Nor is it saying that Fi itself is aggressive/assertive.

    I was/am curious about what, if any, differences occur when it is coupled with Se vs Ne. Would the Fi be acted upon more assertively in one than in another? How quickly is it double checked or altered when there is a conflict or discrepency in values? IF so...or even if not...how is it altered when it's not in the first two slots? These were just a few thoughts that hit me upon reading Expats one post, and...being an ENFp, I sought out other inputs to add fuel to my brainstorm.
    I'll say it again: You cannot discuss by itself. Look at NeFi, FiNe, SeFi, etc. Very different expressions of Fi. I also object to the constant connection of Fi with morality, but that will have to wait until tomorrow.
    OHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYYY GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

    Spare humanity the time.
    thing.

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Fi has more to do with personally relevant morality if any morality at all, and in some cases using Fi means siding against the moral majority for a cause that may not even be seen as moral. Strong self expressions.

  40. #40
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Fi as a "morality" function would include "antimorality morals" as well.

    Saying that one is "confident" in their Fi does not say that they are not open-minded, nor that they are closed minded. Nor is it saying that Fi itself is aggressive/assertive.

    I was/am curious about what, if any, differences occur when it is coupled with Se vs Ne. Would the Fi be acted upon more assertively in one than in another? How quickly is it double checked or altered when there is a conflict or discrepency in values? IF so...or even if not...how is it altered when it's not in the first two slots? These were just a few thoughts that hit me upon reading Expats one post, and...being an ENFp, I sought out other inputs to add fuel to my brainstorm.
    I'll say it again: You cannot discuss by itself. Look at NeFi, FiNe, SeFi, etc. Very different expressions of Fi. I also object to the constant connection of Fi with morality, but that will have to wait until tomorrow.
    1. I'm not the one who keeps connecting Fi to morality.
    2. I was responding to Olga's post utilizing Olga's language.
    3. This whole flipping thread was to figure out how Ne and Se might affect/alter Fi.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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