Ti and Fi Failing Long-term

[Desert Financial]

You know how and revolve around the development of universal rules of thumb?

establishes impersonal principles while cultivates personal values, but the content of both functions tends to have an element of universality. For example, people who lead with hold in the highest regard truths that have no exception. Meanwhile, leads prefer following values that apply in every case.

Everyone is fallible, and those who have introverted judgment in their ego functions are no exception.

So, have your values or principles ever yielded unwanted results?

Do you change your judgments?

Do you do anything to offset the ramifications?

Have you ever found that no matter what kind of system you operate with, you'll be faced with drawbacks?

[Aramas]

You know how and revolve around the development of universal rules of thumb?

establishes impersonal principles while cultivates personal values, but the content of both functions tends to have an element of universality. For example, people who lead with hold in the highest regard truths that have no exception. Meanwhile, leads prefer following values that apply in every case.

Everyone is fallible, and those who have introverted judgment in their ego functions are no exception.

So, have your values or principles ever yielded unwanted results?

Do you change your judgments?

Do you do anything to offset the ramifications?

Have you ever found that no matter what kind of system you operate with, you'll be faced with drawbacks?

I really don't operate with a coherent system. My feelings, "values," and etc. tend to fluctuate fluidly over time. I don't care much about consistency with past static elements of my life. There are a few things about myself, certain qualities and traits, that I think I value, moreso than any external "values" themselves. I think these are more consistent over time.

And yeah, the things I hold (or have held, to emphasize transience) to be true have yielded unwanted results. But if I cared that much about what I was doing, that took precedence over anything else. I can't really say that the "things I hold to be true" though have necessarily guided my actions. That's inaccurate and doesn't really portray how I act and behave. I tend to go based on my feelings, my instincts, and my intuitions. Whatever I feel is right for me in the moment, that is what I do. I don't consider myself beholden to some universal principle of any kind. Those are all artificial in my opinion. I think there is some truth to the idea that one's own nature should be the highest principle from which one acts. That sounds closer to what Fi is than following values that apply in every case. I don't think there is a situation in life that is without exception, so it's necessary to think from the situation rather than from principle.

[Desert Financial]

I really don't operate with a coherent system. My feelings, "values," and etc. tend to fluctuate fluidly over time. I don't care much about consistency with past static elements of my life. There are a few things about myself, certain qualities and traits, that I think I value, moreso than any external "values" themselves. I think these are more consistent over time.

And yeah, the things I hold to be true have yielded unwanted results. But if I cared that much about what I was doing, that took precedence over anything else. I can't really say that the "things I hold to be true" though have necessarily guided my actions. That's inaccurate and doesn't really portray how I act and behave. I tend to go based on my feelings, my instincts, and my intuitions. Whatever I feel is right for me in the moment, that is what I do. I don't consider myself beholden to some universal principle of any kind. Those are all artificial in my opinion. I think there is some truth to the idea that one's own nature should be the highest principle from which one acts. That sounds closer to what Fi is than following values that apply in every case. I don't think there is a situation in life that is without exception, so it's necessary to think from the situation rather than from principle.

Tactics/Strategy

[Aramas]

Tactics/Strategy

Could it be that your questions contained an inherent assumption of a strategic approach, which is why I had to contradict the premise of the question itself?

[Desert Financial]

Could it be that your questions contained an inherent assumption of a strategic approach, which is why I had to contradict the premise of the question itself?

That occurred to me. It seems that to avoid overlap with other traits, it's best to refine definitions.

@Aramas , additionally, your only has 3 dimensions. Not your base function. So if the OP is 100%, your most natural inclinations would serve as a poorer reflection of it compared to someone who's base function was or .

[idontgiveaf]

So, have your values or principles ever yielded unwanted results?
- Not really. Because my values / principles are really good and for my own betterment... It's just hard to keep up with it lololololol xD

Do you change your judgments?
- Well i have to know the whole situation first. I cannot just judge easily without even knowing every sides.

Do you do anything to offset the ramifications?
- yes. Ofcourse especially if it doesn't really make sense and that ramifications are really serious.

Have you ever found that no matter what kind of system you operate with, you'll be faced with drawbacks?
- Yes ofcourse. But drawbacks is a challenge so i don't have problems with it. Part of life. Challenge is good.

[Number 9 large]

You know how and revolve around the development of universal rules of thumb?

establishes impersonal principles while cultivates personal values, but the content of both functions tends to have an element of universality. For example, people who lead with hold in the highest regard truths that have no exception. Meanwhile, leads prefer following values that apply in every case.

Everyone is fallible, and those who have introverted judgment in their ego functions are no exception.

So, have your values or principles ever yielded unwanted results?

Do you change your judgments?

Do you do anything to offset the ramifications?

Have you ever found that no matter what kind of system you operate with, you'll be faced with drawbacks?

even not engaging every situation with the same set mindset or rules is a mindset or rule by itself

[Desert Financial]

even not engaging every situation with the same set mindset or rules is a mindset or rule by itself

Exactly.

[The Exception]

So, have your values or principles ever yielded unwanted results?

I'm an LII.
Sometimes it happens when I try to impose some consistent rule to make things clear to avoid ambiguity and then someone gets angry (typically a Ti PoLR) that I'm trying to infringe on their freedom.

I do have an Fi role function that plays a strong influence as well. I believe in rules of civil behavior that should exist between people to ensure harmonious relationships and a good emotional atmosphere (which is probably more Fe). So someone acts in a way I perceive as being rude and that person gets mad at me because s/he thinks I'm trying to censor them.

Do you change your judgments?

If I have a good reason, good evidence to support it. I probably change outward behavior more easily than judgements though. So I can get along with people although internally I'm judging others poorly for something they did or said.

Do you do anything to offset the ramifications?

Not quite sure what you mean here, would need some examples.

Have you ever found that no matter what kind of system you operate with, you'll be faced with drawbacks?

Yes, because no system is completely infallible, but still I hope for that perfect infallible system.

[ashlesha]

I don't consciously create values to live by. It's more like the things I observe in the world become systematized and generalized and while I don't make an effort to behave in any certain way my lifestyle becomes a byproduct of that. There have been times I've come to see that the conclusions I've drawn are wrong. These are kinds of watershed moments for me where I face a lot of cognitive dissonance and I come out the other side feeling like I've battled something because its really uncomfortable for me to say "this is what I thought then and this is what I think now" but sometimes I have to do that in order to maintain consistency within myself even if the outward inconsistency is painful for me to reconcile with. I think any kind of system is imperfect because the world is chaotic and doesn't adhere.

[Bertrand]

notions of hypocrisy and sincerity are really interesting when considered in light of time because on one hand we have the person who has grown and yet often people will turn around and accuse them of hypocrisy for the sin of bettering themselves [1]. On the other hand, you have people who act one way one moment and a different way the next, and they simply want to to take credit for the good and ignore the bad as if only good shit applies to them and they're really just a two faced hypocrite. its the time component that both judger and judgee can have a weakness in regard to.

so the person holding a grudge may not realize, "that was then this is now" and treat the two as if they either occurred simultaneously or the bad deed was actually later (this is like when someone does something so bad it extends in time and "covers" later good deeds, casting a cloud of suspicion over them) [2]

the person being incongruent and wondering why people aren't honoring their great deeds likewise doesn't understand how they're being perceived in time. this is more the ESE types, who only take the good and leave the bad, and are wholly inconsistent as to when what rules apply. this person in some sense "deserves" suspicion because of their unpredictable nature. it is perhaps organized by an underlying well meaning intent, but they don't know how to order themselves going forward in such a way that they carve out a foreseeable and reasonable set of reactions: i.e.: integrity. rather they are relegated to the "unknown" box, which is what often is perceived as weak character. unreliable. hypocritical if you set their statements and deeds next to eachother and compare all the varying occasions they manifested words and deeds.

the solution to ESE is to box them in via Ti, but this is the same solution that crushes the spirit of SEE. SEE is sensitive to the time component because of Ni suggestive: they want to get better, they want to organize themselves accordingly. What they don't want are strict rules to be forced to play by. ESE wants to understand the rules and then be free to do whatever strikes them in that moment, as long as the guardrails are in place. if you try to box them in according to time it is like being trapped by a nightmare where you don't know where the threats are coming from. its like there's all this evil but they can't identify it and they don't want to step out of line. it freezes them our of fear, which is more powerful than any actual limitations could ever be. intuition of time is often what people call "conscience" because its the invisible force that constrains people absent any literal or concrete prohibition.. this I think contributes to the "victim" look

returning to how people's behavior is perceived. this is often question of sincerity. When someone says one thing then subsequently does another, by acting out their true principles it seems to me they never actually "said" anything. Rather what they "said" was what they did. So insincerity is someone trying to say they said something they never said. a lie. In other words, they're trying to create reality out of words alone. Insincerity is the idea that this is the type of person who when judged in terms of time, cannot be counted on to merge words and actions, thus before they even fail to live up to their promises, we say "this person won't make good"--i.e.: they "do not mean it"

accusations of insincerity are really accusations of prospective hypocrisy. when you make judgements as to someones sincerity you're reaching through time and placing a bet on whether or not they'll follow through. this is why low Fi low Ni get so confused, because they lack the tools to consciously and with granularity make these evaluations. you need either conscious fi or ni to make such an evaluation, and you need at least 2d + Ni to apply a standard of consistency . otherwise you're being constantly fooled on one axis or the other. the higher the Fi/Ni and the more conscious the Ni the more you're able to make these kinds of assessments with accuracy. you need Fi because you need to be able to place them at a preicse ethical point and you need Ni in order to imagine the continuum that point is plotted on and through both of those functions you track the relative movement and changes: this creates a pattern, you might call it a character evaluation

grudges can therefore be an accurate assessment of risk management when dealing with a person. but from the point of view of someone who cannot make such a calculation it looks completely irrational, hence the pejorative tone in the mouth of another

dominant Fi has a time component built into it so its very good at making these assessments as they gain age and experience

of course, Dostoevsky is the master, which in light of this you can see how his empathy transcends any single individual which is why he's the empath and feels the whole world not according to a manifest blur, like Fe which presents itself with "one face" but as an extremely detailed tracking of every individual all at once, according to precise ethical condition and place in time. think of Fe like looking at a single video feed zoomed out on the globe,that is hamlet, but now think of every single person having a gps on them and tracking every single point in abstract 4 dimensional detail, that is Dostoevsky (or at least all the people hes encountered, same with hamlet the blur is the community)


[1] this is low Fi all they see is the inconsistency, perhaps in time, perhaps not, but not the relative merit of the events, only that they don't match up. SLE is most likely to say "come down on one side or the other, I don't care which"--that is the basis for their character evaluation, which you might call respect "I may not like you but I respect the hell out of you" strong valued Ti, weak valued Ni, weak non valued Fi

[2] low fi vs high fi grudges are SLE v ESI, both Ni valuing, but ESI grudges are more "fair" and less ethically "prejudicial" because they track the relative merit of the progression--the prejudicial nature of them is a projection of others upon them had they been the ones forming the grudge

[ashlesha]

@Bertrand your words are a comfort to someone who questions their own sincerity when they change. Maybe I need dat higher Ni lol. I think being a 6 doesn't help.

[Bertrand]

yeah I always give myself the permission to change. the main thing is to progress and always allow yourself the opportunity to do better, not continue to do bad out of some misguided thinking that consistently doing bad is somehow superior to doing bad then doing good. if anyone would impose guilt on that account, fuck them. what they don't understand is the regret already happened, which is why the person is changing to begin with. it confuses stability on the time axis alone for virtue. its a statement of Ti/Ni over Fi/Ni. or to put it another way, its a fixed subconscious Fi commitment by Ti valuers, that, contrariwise, Fi valuers reserve for themselves the right to consciously modify, especially 3d+ because they allow for exception and development in time

the main thing is that the sincere intent is that the good follow the bad, if so you can't be faulted. which means the commitment to put into action what you say, which is to "not say anything you don't believe" and you prove it by effort. so if you try your best to implement the good, that's all anyone can ask. anyone who would cast shade on that construct, I think, is wrong... it would chain you to a system that may or may not be corrupt (hence the strong authoritarian tone to their statements to begin with)

the thing is though the sincere attempt to make good, we might call love, its the precondition to action that without which the whole deed becomes a swindle. love is an attitude of benevolence and sincerity towards the world

so you must act out of love to make a deviation worthwhile, if you don't, it brings all those criticisms back in

if you can't act out of love: yeah follow a formula given by someone who can (that is your act of love: Thinking "love")

[Desert Financial]

[Delilah]

[2] low fi vs high fi grudges are LSE v ESI, both Ni valuing, but ESI grudges are more "fair" and less ethically "prejudicial" because they track the relative merit of the progression--the prejudicial nature of them is a projection of others upon them had they been the ones forming the grudge

I liked your post, but LSE is NE valuing, not Ni.

To answer one of the OP questions: i do sometimes change my judgements (with enough new evidence or change in perspective)

[Bertrand]

oops yeah I meant SLE

[Aylen]

When you're a cat and realize in the future there will be a race of feline beings who are far more intelligent than silly humans and they happen to resemble you.



“Many multidimensional telepaths have received the following information: In preparation for ascension, the human body will be provided with an additional twelve or thirteen DNA strands. The expanding number of physical strands marks the beginning phase of your physical merger into contours of light. The third strand will provide you with the Christ Essence- a cosmic indicator that, as Soul, will give you the ability to ascend into matter at will and to reascend as spiritual light. This strand is a multidimensional ladder you will use to limb up and out of your physical body, enter and pass through your astral body, and exit into the realms where you will permanently integrate your light or spiritual body.”

[Chae]

Creative - I prefer to be highly flexible about it. It changes constantly because I get new insights from - "oh! it's not like that". It also depends on what I know other people around me will deem right or wrong, which again changes my attitude. Introverted ethical judgement, unlike logical intro judgement, is not divorced from the values of others even if you might be clear about your own principles. , to me, is collaborative, especially when blocked with rather than . In other words, it has perspective(s).

[GuavaDrunk]

(...)
grudges can therefore be an accurate assessment of risk management when dealing with a person. but from the point of view of someone who cannot make such a calculation it looks completely irrational, hence the pejorative tone in the mouth of another

dominant Fi has a time component built into it so its very good at making these assessments as they gain age and experience

of course, Dostoevsky is the master, which in light of this you can see how his empathy transcends any single individual which is why he's the empath and feels the whole world not according to a manifest blur, like Fe which presents itself with "one face" but as an extremely detailed tracking of every individual all at once, according to precise ethical condition and place in time. think of Fe like looking at a single video feed zoomed out on the globe,that is hamlet, but now think of every single person having a gps on them and tracking every single point in abstract 4 dimensional detail, that is Dostoevsky (or at least all the people hes encountered, same with hamlet the blur is the community)

Good explanation, I especially like your use of time as an explanatory variable.

Re: grudges - that is exactly how I think of the ones I hold. They are essentially a large red stamp on someone's case file saying 'Do Not Bother'. I do not necessarily feel negatively towards the person anymore, or remember in all its gory details why the stamp was applied, but I trust myself to have had a good reason to stop wanting to associate with them ie: a reason which I believe will not change, or not fast enough, to make a difference in the long run.

Your contrast of tracking styles in 4D Fe vs 4D Fi is also pretty enlightening, and I think accurate. I would call the Fe 'blur' more of a (dynamic, 4D element of time) model of emotional currents. Hence the farther back you stand (or the bigger the group you're looking at), the less distinct the individual currents become. Only dominant notes stand out in the cacophony/ symphony, and the level of skill required to isolate a single instrument increases eg: isolating the sound of the trombone section in a classical orchestra.

Thank you for clarifying the Fi version of that.

[Desert Financial]

Not quite sure what you mean here, would need some examples.

Let's say you have a system for taking standardized tests. They're fairly common; many students and instructors have ideas about what kinds of multiple-choice answers to eliminate, for example. However, you take a new test and your tried-and-true methods fail. Do you tweak your methods for test-taking? In a situation like that, how do you determine what to change?

IME, the above kind scenario is relatively easy to learn from and adjust to. The real challenge comes when your ways of dealing with people fail.

[Bertrand]

if you read The Brothers Karamazov, it becomes clear that Dostoevsky himself thinks like that, with the way he tracks individual characters. Rather than being in a kind of impressionistic flow or a "to be, or not to be" dialectical struggle, its these incredibly accurate portraits of each individual as their own universe, each valid unto themselves etc. Its like each individual chapter or interlude on a character could be its own book, and Alyosha himself experiences this as he interacts with people. Its like EII through the eyes of EII

Your contrast of tracking styles in 4D Fe vs 4D Fi is also pretty enlightening, and I think accurate. I would call the Fe 'blur' more of a (dynamic, 4D element of time) model of emotional currents. Hence the farther back you stand (or the bigger the group you're looking at), the less distinct the individual currents become.

so whereas dostoyeski is like the opposite of this--he views people in sharp relief, whereas with Hamlet or Fe in general its more like unified drama within which people are near indiscernible organs or currents that give rise to the overall shape of things, which itself is then reckoned with in the mind of EIE

[Singu]

Dostoevsky really understood how the brain worked in 1880, in the book the Brothers Karamazov:

When the imprisoned Dmitri Karamazov tries to make sense of what he has just learned from a visiting academic:

"Imagine: inside, in the nerves, in the head—that is, these nerves are there in the brain…(damn them!) there are sort of little tails, the little tails of those nerves, and as soon as they begin quivering…that is, you see, I look at something with my eyes and then they begin quivering, those little tails…and when they quiver, then an image appears…it doesn’t appear at once, but an instant, a second, passes…and then something like a moment appears; that is, not a moment—devil take the moment!—but an image; that is, an object, or an action, damn it! That’s why I see and then think, because of those tails, not at all because I’ve got a soul, and that I am some sort of image and likeness. All that is nonsense! Rakitin explained it all to me yesterday, brother, and it simply bowled me over. It’s magnificent, Alyosha, this science! A new man’s arising—that I understand…. And yet I am sorry to lose God!"

[Bertrand]

the entire point of the character is that Dmitri is kind of a moron

[Slade]

So, have your values or principles ever yielded unwanted results?

This question is counter-intuitive to me. If principles could be said to have a point, it wouldn't be results. It would be more efficient to not have principles if results is what you are after, so I do not see how you wouldn't come to a situation of unwanted results on occasion. That is the pitfall for anything that lacks adaptability. The good news is, though you can always modify aspects of that structure to fit the reality. I think, in a functioning form, principles should be a guide to navigate reality that enhances your overall experience.

[The Exception]

Let's say you have a system for taking standardized tests. They're fairly common; many students and instructors have ideas about what kinds of multiple-choice answers to eliminate, for example. However, you take a new test and your tried-and-true methods fail. Do you tweak your methods for test-taking? In a situation like that, how do you determine what to change?

IME, the above kind scenario is relatively easy to learn from and adjust to. The real challenge comes when your ways of dealing with people fail.

Same here, it's far easier for me to adjust to new methods of test taking than with new methods of dealing with people.