Fi and Taboo

[discojoe]

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.)

[Slacker]

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.

[discojoe]

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.

[Creepy-female]

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.

[Creepy-female]

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.

[Computer Loser]

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?

[discojoe]

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.

[silverchris9]

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?

[Singu]

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...

[Creepy-female]

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.

[Galen]

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.

[Creepy-male]

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.

[Creepy-male]

“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.

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"

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

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.

[Slacker]

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.

[sudler]

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?

[silverchris9]

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 ****** 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).

[Slacker]

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

[Slacker]

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.

[Creepy-male]

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.

[Creepy-male]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Aiss]

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.

[Slacker]

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.

[Creepy-male]

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.