Fi logics explained

[mikemex]

Socionics perpetuates the myth that Te and Ti are logical functions, while Fe and Fi are not. All judging functions are logical, because logics is just a set of rules to process information.

Ti is boolean logic; it works with absolute true and false. Fi, however, is diffuse, and thus can handle intermediate values between true and false. For example:



The girl above, is she wearing blue pants?

Ti answer: no.
Fi answer: she's wearing pants, but not blue.

According to Fi, it is true to some extent, or, in other words, it is a half truth.

It's the ability to handle partial truths what gives Fi types the diplomatic intelligence. They often look at other's point of view and find something useful, so they find it easy to build bridges of agreement between them an others.

The difference between Fi and Ti is explained here:

[science as magic]

you are not

:edit:

or to use your terminology you have ethics but not the introverted sort

[aestrivex]

this is sheer idiocy.

and you have demonstrated nothing to prove your point.

[Exodus]

you are not

:edit:

or to use your terminology you have ethics but not the introverted sort

Hmm...

[FDG]

I am open to your suggestion but now you have to explain WHY it is an half truth?

[science as magic]

we need the response to this methinks

[UDP]

She has no underwear on


PS(I wrote that before I saw SAMs post)
PSS Seems more SEE than EII or ESI

[krieger]

I agree with mikemex on this one.

[Jimbean]

I think mikemex has an interesting point, but I think there is something else going on with . Can anybody relate to praxeology?

http://praxeology.net/praxeo.htm

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[meatburger]

My answer to the question when first reading it: "No, and she has a big butt." I then went on to speculate whether Mikemex likes large derrieres and whether that's why he chose the picture.

lol that was exactly my line of thinking too.

Btw i can actually understand what Mikemex means by all this

[discojoe]

this is sheer idiocy.

and you have demonstrated nothing to prove your point.

ATTACK OF THE ELITIST ALPHA NERDS

[Expat]

It's the ability to handle partial truths what gives Fi types the diplomatic intelligence. They often look at other's point of view and find something useful, so they find it easy to build bridges of agreement between them an others.

Fi is indeed also about looking at things from someone else's point of view, so you have a point there about diplomatic intelligence, but that doesn't make it a "half-truth logic" in the sense of the example you gave.

The girl above, is she wearing blue pants?

Ti answer: no.
Fi answer: she's wearing pants, but not blue

.

Both of the answers above are correct according to Ti (or Te).

A closer example would perhaps be:

"I think that what that girl is wearing is blue pants"
Ti: No. The pants aren't blue.
Fi: Well you are partly right since she is wearing pants, but they aren't blue.

Which is still not a good way to make the Ti-Fi distinction.

Another way:

Ti: girls who dress like that want others to look at their butts.
Fi: perhaps she just likes the way she looks in those pants and doesn't realize that others may think she wants them to look at her butt.

[Tov]

Ti: girls who dress like that want others to look at their butts.
Fi: perhaps she just likes the way she looks in those pants and doesn't realize that others may think she wants them to look at her butt.

This is an interesting idea because I know that the Fi way of arguing there is my typical way of arguing, especially under the presumptuous terms such as this.
Now the real question here is am I playing the part of the Fi role or am I truely an Fi type and how do you tell the difference?

Also wouldn't that technically fall under the positivist and negativist definitions there rather than straight Ti and Fi?

[Tov]

Well of course. What I am saying though is that instead of defining behaviours based on the functions we are defining the functions in of themselves.
The problem is that if you define the functions based on how people process information, and you say that their behaviour is a direct result of such processing,
then one could assume that people act as a result of a particular function's process. The problem is how do you define the actual function which can be used by different people differently?
Well the answer is to look at someone's reasoning. What if they do not give it? This is what I am arguing. If two people were to argue those points to each other and that's all they said
then you could have nothing to go by, therefor those are inadequate definitions of a function or at least how they interact.

[Jonathan]

It appears that this thread (if we take it to its logical conclusion and see what's behind what people are saying) is attempting to argue that actually refers to logic, in fact, to more rigorous logic than T. It seems to imply that T tends towards over-generalization, making things black-and-white that aren't really black and white...saying (inaccurately) that things are either 100% or 0% when in fact they may be 53.48573483839999992293939%, and that is therefore more precise, more subtle (hence more accurate), perhaps then (we may deduce) more applicable to "more advanced" thinking in mathematics, physics, and philosophy.

I don't buy that this is is what is in terms of standard Socionics, although I'm willing to listen to a good case for it.

What may be true is that people in demonstrating either or may, in their use of T, tend to look a little deeper in issues involving people. But that's not the same as saying (or implying) that is a more precise form of logic compared to T, or even that the points raised here are any more related to than they are to .

[Slava]

Fi is also not shades but is also binary, no matter what they tell you. They are just confused about what Ti is. Fi is logic using good/bad rather than true false, and its the same boolean rules even having demorgans law... maths are universal to all functions in fact. The only difference is the primary context layout. long -> S = Space.distance; long -> N = Time.distance. Same distance formula, different context. All judging functions round and compute, but they also know the potential errors and should be able to tell what their conclusions truly imply.

[Dioklecian]

this is sheer idiocy.

and you have demonstrated nothing to prove your point.

I don't think that people would reply politely to such comments Niff. I think people should be encouraged in the forum to bring forth their ideas.

[mikemex]

Read this: http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~rojas/n...hapter/K11.pdf

[Slava]

Read this: http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~rojas/n...hapter/K11.pdf

Just want to be sure your demonstrating that logic itself doesn't have to be black and white. There is actually an Fi version of fuzzy logic called, fuzzy trust.

[science as magic]

why are you even having this discussion slava? it is not like gradient thought encompasses or is even different at all from digital thought

[mikemex]

Just want to be sure your demonstrating that logic itself doesn't have to be black and white. There is actually an Fi version of fuzzy logic called, fuzzy trust.

When you are in conflict with an ISTj, he argues with you to the extent that he makes sure that you agree with him totally that you are in the wrong in the first place.

This is the fundamental base for conflict between ENFp and ISTj. ENFp almost always use relativist arguments, which are almost impossible for the ISTj to understand. ISTj are strictly bivalent. Just see this:

INSPECTOR children may be quite possessive of the toys and people in their lives and have an above average awareness of insiders vs. outsiders.

The worst thing you can do to a child like this is make them treat everybody as equal.

INSPECTOR = MBTI ISTJ, which is undoubtedly Socionics ISTj also.

[FDG]

Just want to be sure your demonstrating that logic itself doesn't have to be black and white. There is actually an Fi version of fuzzy logic called, fuzzy trust.

"When you are in conflict with an ISTj, he argues with you to the extent that he makes sure that you agree with him totally that you are in the wrong in the first place."

This is the fundamental base for conflict between ENFp and ISTj. ENFp almost always use relativist arguments, which are almost impossible for the ISTj to understand. ISTj are strictly bivalent. Just see this:

INSPECTOR children may be quite possessive of the toys and people in their lives and have an above average awareness of insiders vs. outsiders.

The worst thing you can do to a child like this is make them treat everybody as equal.

INSPECTOR = MBTI ISTJ, which is undoubtedly Socionics ISTj also.

I can see how an ISTj would be pissed by your lacking logic indeed.

[mikemex]

Any idiot can understand his own arguments. It's our ability to see mistakes in ourselves and truths in others what makes us talented thinkers.

I wonder if I'll ever see the day in which an ISTj or ESTp will first think if they are really right before claiming how others are wrong.

[force my hand]

Any idiot can understand his own arguments. It's our ability to see mistakes in ourselves and truths in others what makes us talented thinkers.

I wonder if I'll ever see the day in which an ISTj or ESTp will first think if they are really right before claiming how others are wrong.

I was entertaining the distinction you created in the OP, not because the logic works, but because I think it serves as a nice illustration on how two personality types might perceive something differently, and potentially clash because of it.

However, I'm not sure how making gross, black-and-white generalizations about ISTj children helps your case for the flexibility of logic. It mirrors the simplistic characterization you've made of .

[mikemex]

Any idiot can understand his own arguments. It's our ability to see mistakes in ourselves and truths in others what makes us talented thinkers.

I wonder if I'll ever see the day in which an ISTj or ESTp will first think if they are really right before claiming how others are wrong.

I was entertaining the distinction you created in the OP, not because the logic works, but because I think it serves as a nice illustration on how two personality types might perceive something differently, and potentially clash because of it.

However, I'm not sure how making gross, black-and-white generalizations about ISTj children helps your case for the flexibility of logic. It mirrors the simplistic characterization you've made of .

You don't understand. All judging functions are logical systems. It's stupid to say that Fe and Fi are not logics. What are they if not? The simple idea that half of the types are, I don't know, random? it's not only false but it's quite dangerous.

You know, such is the base for most societies to turn into pathriarchies. Most males are logical and most women ethical, so those men, unable to understand the way of thinking of women, have just decided to suppress it.

If ISTj were so intelligent as FDG claims, then they would be more reasonable and could be convinced through arguments. But no. In their minds ISTj are either right or wrong but never in the middle. That's the reason why the typical soldier is ISTj or ESTp: once they have convinced themselves that killing people is right, then it's 100% right and they can do it without remorse. "That's why I get paid for!", "I'm defending my country!" and blah, blah, blah.

Thing is, they are unable to see the subtleties that ethicals can. Killing is right if you do it on self-defense, but going overseas to kill has nothing to do with self-defense. When you go to fight "defending your country", are you really going for that reason? What about going to protect the interests of those in power? What caused the enemy to declare us war in the first place?

Get rid on the ethical terms. Stop thinking that it has to do with people. Fi is just a way to take several logical dichotomies at once and evaluate to which degree they apply. In fact, without Fe, Fi would have nothing to do with ethics. Fe decides which weight you put on each dichotomy.

For example, a person steals some goods at a store and a police officer shots to stop him down. Strictly speaking, it was the duty of the officer to stop the criminal. That's the typical Ti stance. Fi, however, would also take into account the crime of homicide. Fi says they apply 50/50, but Fe says the life of a person far out weights the stolen goods, so it makes the decision to condemn the police officer.

If you observe logicals, you will soon notice that, to them, the worst mistake in thinking is to fall in a contradiction. This is because logicals are unable to (properly) handle problems in which more than one dichotomy is used at once. Thing is, ethicals consider several things when making a decision, so this appears to be "nonsense" to logicals, because they can only focus in one aspect at a time.

Just like you can't solve all problems in the world using Fi, you can't either using Ti. This is probably the worst problem: logicals belive that their logic is faultless and solves all. A panacea!

There are two kinds of ethics: one based on Ti/Te and one based on Fi/Fe. Just read this:

http://ethics.sandiego.edu/presentat...der/gender.ppt

[FDG]

So what if you get to know nonblackandwhite ISTjs? Don't you see how your thinking is just as black and white when you chain a person typed as ISTj to a given behaviour without giving the possibility for an alteration?

[FDG]

If you observe logicals, you will soon notice that, to them, the worst mistake in thinking is to fall in a contradiction. This is because logicals are unable to (properly) handle problems in which more than one dichotomy is used at once.

Man, a dichotomy is defined as being a choice between two options. Perhaps you meant a trichotomy or something like that. Either way, I can't see why Ti shouldn't be able to process paths of multiple dichotomies. Do you think parallel circuits are Fi as opposed to Ti serial? Ti people can only build serial networks?

[mikemex]

So what if you get to know nonblackandwhite ISTjs? Don't you see how your thinking is just as black and white when you chain a person typed as ISTj to a given behaviour without giving the possibility for an alteration?

Well, I agree with you on this one.

[force my hand]

You don't understand. All judging functions are logical systems. It's stupid to say that Fe and Fi are not logics. What are they if not? The simple idea that half of the types are, I don't know, random? it's not only false but it's quite dangerous.

I'm not particularily interested in a discussion about the functions themselves, as a) they largely seem tautological and b) I personally do not understand them enough to have any meaningful debate. If Socionics states that Feeling is a logical function, then it is. However, under the terms of what we typically state as 'logical', A != B, and pink pants are not blue pants. It doesn't matter that both are pants, because the semantic construction implies - if not explicitly asserts - the defining quality is colour.

If ISTj were so intelligent as FDG claims, then they would be more reasonable and could be convinced through arguments. But no. In their minds ISTj are either right or wrong but never in the middle. That's the reason why the typical soldier is ISTj or ESTp: once they have convinced themselves that killing people is right, then it's 100% right and they can do it without remorse. "That's why I get paid for!", "I'm defending my country!" and blah, blah, blah.

Thing is, they are unable to see the subtleties that ethicals can. Killing is right if you do it on self-defense, but going overseas to kill has nothing to do with self-defense. When you go to fight "defending your country", are you really going for that reason? What about going to protect the interests of those in power? What caused the enemy to declare us war in the first place?

Again, I'm not sure how generalizations help your point.

One might entertain a moral view that freeing people from political and religious oppression is worth the cost of several thousand - even tens of thousands - lives. Indeed, it a view that can be argued so effectively that the debate is ongoing (for example, here in Canada about NATO's involvement in Afghanistan), and will continue to be waged until human societies evolve beyond its need.

Another might be the recognition that social stability derives from political stability, and therefore, acting in accordance with a role you volunteered to assume is the 'hands-on' expression of that value. We live in social groupings, and no matter how much the West may pride itself on individualism, everyone toes the line because everyone has to. The soldier isn't really giving up anymore moral autonomy than the rest of us; it merely looks that way because killing=bad.

Some people just want to have a blast by killing citizens of an impoverished nation, but laying that at the feet of Socionics is rather simplistic as opposed to meaningful.

Get rid on the ethical terms. Stop thinking that it has to do with people. Fi is just a way to take several logical dichotomies at once and evaluate to which degree they apply. In fact, without Fe, Fi would have nothing to do with ethics. Fe decides which weight you put on each dichotomy.

For example, a person steals some goods at a store and a police officer shots to stop him down. Strictly speaking, it was the duty of the officer to stop the criminal. That's the typical Ti stance. Fi, however, would also take into account the crime of homicide. Fi says they apply 50/50, but Fe says the life of a person far out weights the stolen goods, so it makes the decision to condemn the police officer.

No gripes here. The spirit of my personal belief largely mirrors yours in this regard.

If you observe logicals, you will soon notice that, to them, the worst mistake in thinking is to fall in a contradiction. This is because logicals are unable to (properly) handle problems in which more than one dichotomy is used at once. Thing is, ethicals consider several things when making a decision, so this appears to be "nonsense" to logicals, because they can only focus in one aspect at a time.

O rly?