Intelligence associated with Negativity?

[Sidis Coruscatis]

You say that Fi guides you to the truth, but it doesn’t necessarily. It guides you to what pleases you only. It may be true or untrue. All that is true is that it pleases you.

A blueprint with assumed validity is not how I process or see things. I work out myself using objective logic and Fe whether I think it is right or not. It’s the assumption of validity in systems which causes so many problems. You’re talking about Te. You’re an INTJ right?

Finding truth and untruth are different sides of the same coin.

Well of course it's not necessarily true. But what is cognitively held as truth is epistemically indistinguishable between individuals, except for the criteria which they use as a reflection for the validity of their truth. Nobody can genuinely believe something as true when they know it's untrue-what they can do is manipulate and cherry pick the criteria by which the idea is judged, so that it starts sounding plausible. What pleases me is that something exerts a pull on me, and what pleases Ti is apparent consistency and absence of contradiction. That says nothing about the validity of the basic principles on which that logic is built, and that's really one of the main differences in Fi and Ti.

Fi is explicit bias with ineffable logic, and maybe this is why Te is sometimes said to "adopt external logic", not because it accepts random ideas for no reason, but because the systematized explanations given by someone else provide linguistic form for what is already known, but hidden in Fi.
Ti is subtle bias with clarified logic. Ti users often falsely consider their first principles as self-evident, even thought they're really just a consequence of their personal experience, and then bury that bias by appealing to the presumed consistency of the overarching structure. It's just about being aware how your emotions steer your assumptions, and Ti users can severely lack in that department. Many people assume that emotions and logic are two compartmentalized entities, but that is not so.

And yes, you do assume validity, you just misunderstand what I mean by "assume". Any system is only valid to the extent that it satisfies the criteria you set for it. Right now, you're assuming the validity of your understanding of Jungian functions despite there being several alternative systems with divergent definitions. Why would that be? I suppose something about it just pleases you.

 

[John K]

One interesting thing about Fi is that it's probably the only function which possesses something resembling a priori knowledge that is revealed aesthetically. If I'm reading something and it resonates strongly, I already know that it has something personally meaningful and therefore true. I don't need to reason about why it's attractive to me, which is precisely the opposite approach that Ti users take.

That's very interesting. To me it sounds more like a dance between Ni and Fi than pure Fi with Fi putting values-based structure onto Ni patterning and insight. It's analogous to the way my Ni and Ti interact, where my Ti puts analytical structure onto my Ni - it's what evaluates, linearizes and translates it into words.

The second reason is that being tied to some kind of system is necessary to have a sense of direction

I agree with this, except that for myself I attach myself to a metasystem as far as possible - it's a sort of test-rig shell if you like that allows me to plug different systems in useably without my becoming bound to their implicit worldviews. I can't escape the inevitable attachment to an associated meta worldview though

 

[David Nelson]

I’m assuming Jungian functions are the best because they make intuitive sense, have been around the longest and are most widely followed. I think if a better system had been conceived it would have superseded it. Note- that isn’t at all always the case with new ideas or theories, but in this area I don’t think there would be as much resistance as in other academic areas. MBTI came from practical observation and theory. I suspect if it does have a weakness, it is that it oversimplifies somewhat. But this just calls refinement not replacement.

 

[aeon]

You say that Fi guides you to the truth, but it doesn’t necessarily. It guides you to what pleases you only. It may be true or untrue. All that is true is that it pleases you.

Fi is the subjective mental recognition of living & cognitive agents as warranting an examination of their ethics/morality, as well as a consideration of their needs. Fi develops a system of moral rights/wrongs, and chooses positions on topics based on whether they complement or violate that rational system. Fi then takes actions based on how a situation measures up to that ethical system.

Fi is not about what pleases a person. And especially to say that to an INTJ, whose functions are NiTeFiSe. Aside from their Fi, their functions seem well-suited, if not ideal, to the discernment of truths.

A blueprint with assumed validity is not how I process or see things. I work out myself using objective logic and Fe whether I think it is right or not.

Don’t kid yourself, Ti user. Your logics are subjective, and the crowd will only prostitute your questions. Consult with Te users to check your conclusions against an objective basis of thought.

Hehe,
Ian

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

That's very interesting. To me it sounds more like a dance between Ni and Fi than pure Fi with Fi putting values-based structure onto Ni patterning and insight. It's analogous to the way my Ni and Ti interact, where my Ti puts analytical structure onto my Ni - it's what evaluates, linearizes and translates it into words.

Could be, it can be difficult to measure how far the haziness of Fi extends into that of Ni. The only sure way to know is when I start inexplicably crying upon revelation of something precious lol.

One good example is when I was reading stories about ship's cats and how they developed bonds with the sailors on long journeys and often endured extreme conditions with them. By the end of each story, I always teared up at the image it leaves. It's like time collapses and the essences of the people and animals are still with me, or anywhere. I feel like they're eternalized in the tapestry of life and contributed something worthy of respect. Something that will be repeated again, maybe in a different form, to carry on their legacy.

I agree with this, except that for myself I attach myself to a metasystem as far as possible - it's a sort of test-rig shell if you like that allows me to plug different systems in useably without my becoming bound to their implicit worldviews. I can't escape the inevitable attachment to an associated meta worldview though

That's what perennial wisdom is for me, in a way. It basically demands that I engage with multitude of philosophies to accomplish its aim, but I still like to linger on each new viewpoint to savor the stability it gives me before organically discovering the next step.

 

[David Nelson]

Fi is the subjective mental recognition of living & cognitive agents as warranting an examination of their ethics/morality, as well as a consideration of their needs. Fi develops a system of moral rights/wrongs, and chooses positions on topics based on whether they complement or violate that rational system. Fi then takes actions based on how a situation measures up to that ethical system.

Fi is not about what pleases a person. And especially to say that to an INTJ, whose functions are NiTeFiSe. Aside from their Fi, their functions seem well-suited, if not ideal, to the discernment of truths.



Don’t kid yourself, Ti user. Your logics are subjective, and the crowd will only prostitute your questions. Consult with Te users to check your conclusions against an objective basis of thought.

Hehe,
Ian

Your definition of Fi against mine is purely semantics. Fi is about values, which is ultimately what pleases or is deemed right (which pleases). Fi seeks personal, internal positive feelings.

To say all logic is subjective is only true in the sense that it comes from an individual. I don’t think you understand Ti as I’ve already said in another post. If Ti was subjective, how did Einstein make his breakthroughs? By luck? Ti truths do depend on the accuracy of the facts of principled upon which they are based, but objective logic is certainly possible within a mind. Te is only objective because it is applied logic in the physical world. This doesn’t make it superior, only easier to criticise or test because it is subject to simpler criteria and succeeds or fails only on the measures used to verify. Also, Te logic can be verified for things which don’t have sound Ti underpinned it, and thus seem ok when they aren’t. Te analysis is limited compared to Ti analysis.

 

[philostam]

I understand Fi much better now, thanks Sidis. I'd like to try living like that, sounds fun and interesting.

Ti is pretty boring tbh. On top of that, seem like INTJs can easily display strong Ti features. Reading your posts, I find them both interesting and very well argued, so I could easily assume you display strong Ti. While for me it's almost impossible to display Fi features, no matter how much I try. Te-like features come a bit easier, though.

 

[philostam]

Your definition of Fi against mine is purely semantics. Fi is about values, which is ultimately what pleases or is deemed right (which pleases). Fi seeks personal, internal positive feelings.

To say all logic is subjective is only true in the sense that it comes from an individual. I don’t think you understand Ti as I’ve already said in another post. If Ti was subjective, how did Einstein make his breakthroughs? By luck? Ti truths do depend on the accuracy of the facts of principled upon which they are based, but objective logic is certainly possible within a mind. Te is only objective because it is applied logic in the physical world. This doesn’t make it superior, only easier to criticise or test because it is subject to simpler criteria and succeeds or fails only on the measures used to verify. Also, Te logic can be verified for things which don’t have sound Ti underpinned it, and thus seem ok when they aren’t. Te analysis is limited compared to Ti analysis.

I think that's reasonable but the last sentence ruined it again for me.

It's not about Te and Ti in isolation.

 

[David Nelson]

This reminds me of a quote about feelings being there to remind us of the truth. Not strictly true, but certainly a lot of truth to that statement.

 

[David Nelson]

I think that's reasonable but the last sentence ruined it again for me.

It's not about Te and Ti in isolation.

I probably didn’t explain myself well enough. What I mean is Ti is more useful if we care about the truth, because it is more closely aligned to it that Te. Ti is the scientific breakthroughs, Te the products developed from those inventions. Which is most important? Both are, but Ti has to come first and Te is lost without Ti. Te is not revolutionary.

 

[aeon]

Your definition of Fi against mine is purely semantics. Fi is about values, which is ultimately what pleases or is deemed right (which pleases). Fi seeks personal, internal positive feelings.

I disagree, it is not purely semantics. Yes, Fi can be said to be about values, but that is true of every function, whether objective or subjective. Where you are incorrect is that what I (as a NeFiTeSi) deem right or moral or ethical is not by default what pleases me. Indeed, there are many things I deem right which inform my choices and behavior that I find little to no pleasure in, yet I follow them anyway because I am a member of a community and society, and sometimes what is right is based on the “them” and “we,” not the “me.”

To say all logic is subjective is only true in the sense that it comes from an individual. I don’t think you understand Ti as I’ve already said in another post. If Ti was subjective, how did Einstein make his breakthroughs? By luck?

Ti is subjective by definition. Check your Jung. He could not be more clear. There is no question of this.

Also, you seem to have once again missed, or ignored, a smiley.

Te is only objective because it is applied logic in the physical world.

Correct, it is external, so it is objective.

This doesn’t make it superior

I never claimed it was, nor would I, because I don’t think or feel functions to be greater or lesser, or suitable for a hierarchical ranking.

Te analysis is limited compared to Ti analysis.

If one makes the mistake of comparing and contrasting functions with an aim to find them superior, or inferior, one might see it that way. That said, this isn’t a competition or a dick-measuring contest, regardless of the degree you might wish it to be.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

I’m assuming Jungian functions are the best because they make intuitive sense

Exactly. Fi, while not being intuition, still works in a similar manner.

If Ti was subjective, how did Einstein make his breakthroughs?

For one, there's a problem with confusing the words "objective" and "subjective" with correct and incorrect. All logic is technically subjective, and you can be subjective and right, it just means you're vulnerable to all kinds of wrong turns.

The second thing is that depending on the definitions (and you know I'm not using your definitions), there's a good chance that Einstein was actually ENFP. The entirety of modern scientific approach to physics is basically Ne-Te complex.

That reminds me, @aeon what's your assessment of the ENFPness of this guy? https://cognitivetype.net/s/NeFi_Eric_Cornell_1.mp4
He's like a child in a candy store.

 

[aeon]

That reminds me, @aeon what's your assessment of the ENFPness of this guy? https://cognitivetype.net/s/NeFi_Eric_Cornell_1.mp4
He's like a child in a candy store.

He sure could be. I can be exactly like that when in a given context I can see how A, B, J, and Q are all in play, even if there seems to be a non-sequitur or two in my saying so. He certainly had that brain-fire bubbling quality, but when I have been that way, I’m not sure to what degree it is a result of Ne, ADHD, or sx subtype dyadic enthusiasm/excitement when engaging with a receptive and expressive individual.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

I could easily assume you display strong Ti.

In the system I'm using, that would actually be the combined effect of Fi and Te, which to me makes more sense than using the 8 function model and elevating functions that are supposed to be in the shadow.

 

[David Nelson]

I see what you mean Ian about Fi. I defined it incorrectly. It’s not just about what pleases you, even though it is based on values which you accept. I think in your definition you wandered into Fe though. Fi is about internal values and harmony, Fe external ones.

Ti is subjective but can be as right or wrong as Te (thanks s i d i s). That’s what I was trying to say.

When comparing the importance of functions I think this really needs me to do some writing. My intuition tells me there is some hierarchy among them, but that this is not obvious to most people, and needs some explanation. Hence I should only make such a claim after doing some research and writing to back up my position (which you can then try and shoot holes in lol).

 

[David Nelson]

In the system I'm using, that would actually be the combined effect of Fi and Te, which to me makes more sense than using the 8 function model and elevating functions that are supposed to be in the shadow.

View attachment 88432

Well we all use shadow functions to some degree or we couldn’t function. It just takes more effort and energy and will never be a strength.

 

[John K]

To say all logic is subjective is only true in the sense that it comes from an individual. I don’t think you understand Ti as I’ve already said in another post. If Ti was subjective, how did Einstein make his breakthroughs? By luck? Ti truths do depend on the accuracy of the facts of principled upon which they are based, but objective logic is certainly possible within a mind. Te is only objective because it is applied logic in the physical world. This doesn’t make it superior, only easier to criticise or test because it is subject to simpler criteria and succeeds or fails only on the measures used to verify. Also, Te logic can be verified for things which don’t have sound Ti underpinned it, and thus seem ok when they aren’t. Te analysis is limited compared to Ti analysis.

I think that some of the disagreement here is because of semantics. When Jung called the introverted forms of the functions 'subjective' he didn't mean this in the colloquial sense of being biased and not rigorous. He used the words objective and subjective to differentiate between a function projected out into the outer world and one introjected into our inner world. The first is when you put yourself out there, the second is when you bring what's out there inside you. Consider the difference between thinking privately about the implications of riding on a beam of light, or alternatively leading your crew to manually fly your space shuttle and dock it onto the port of a space station. What makes me think that MBTI may differentiate too strongly between the e and i forms of each function is when you attend a technical conference - it's pretty obvious that the blend of ideas which have been worked on in private are then brought out into the open and are bounced around, critiqued and developed further collectively and socially in groups. Without that sort of Ti/Te interaction it's impossible to get anything accepted and the actual thinking mechanisms and processes overlap very broadly between each orientation.

It's interesting that T is often seen as being essentially rooted in logic, but strangely I rarely see the most intense debates that are expressed in T thinking emerging from logic. They seem to come more from disagreements about the premises - the axiomatic starting points - which are not derived from logic as such, or at best are supported by some form of partial inductive rationale.

My intuition tells me there is some hierarchy among them,

My advice would be to tread warily with how you express anything on this score. People who take the trouble to determine their MBTI type often have strong identity ties to it, and feel personally attacked by any suggestion that their type is inferior to one or more others - it can sound like you are saying that they personally are inferior to you, even if that's not what you intend. It needs to be expressed very carefully with some virtuoso Fe skills as well as logic.

My own intuition is that there is no absolute hierarchy between the functions in terms of their merit or value - no -one is inferior to another because of their type. What we can say is that gifts differ and some types are better suited to this, others to that. When I was working in the Antarctic, I was forever in awe of the people who think with their hands for example, and who could turn a few planks and nails into a blizzard proof hut in just a couple of days in the face of a crisis, or the guys who could turn a few bags of concrete mix into a smooth landing ramp emerging from under the sea for hauling boats ashore. I have always appreciated the control experts as well who can lead a complex project to a good conclusion, within scope, on time and to budget.

 

[aeon]

I see what you mean Ian about Fi. I defined it incorrectly. It’s not just about what pleases you, even though it is based on values which you accept. I think in your definition you wandered into Fe though. Fi is about internal values and harmony, Fe external ones.

Even when I am acting in accordance with a value that considers the “we,” it isn’t because I care about what they think at all. It’s only based on what I think right for the situation. A perfect example is leaving a shopping cart in the parking lot of a grocery store. The consensus opinion would seem to be it is okay to do so, as it seems most people do this. I don’t care—I always return my cart (if I have one) to the store, no question, because I think it best (for all of us) to do so.

Now, let’s have a laugh about that...even if part of me absolutely loves this:

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

We have shopping trolleys which you put a £1 coin in. So you have to return it to get your £1 back. Solves trolleys being abandoned

 

[David Nelson]

I see what you mean John K. I think where I am coming from is that the rarer types and functions have greater potential power in society. It’s a bit like comparing the potential of a highly intelligent person with a person of low intelligence. Yes the bright person could do evil and be horrible while the low intelligence person could have a good heart and live morally. But if we factor out those other qualities, intelligence will always be a virtue to the individual and society on aggregate, even if there is a price to pay for the bright individual. No one would sensibly say intelligence isn’t important would they?