[Important] Limit
- Thread starter Limit
- Start date
Thank you for clearing that up, I suppose you could say than that a Te user would tend to be more skeptical and that the definition of Te that you gave would be Te in it's most extreme form and isolated from the other functions.
Look at what I said, dear.
I said the rest you could deduce from that statement. Morals and ethics of the group are derived from placing your judging importance of feelings on the environment.
I think what [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION] is trying to say is that the environment creates the ethics and morals of Fe not that Fe is projected outward into the outside world, I think the confusion may have come from different understandings of the word "directed" however I think you two are saying the same thing actually. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[MENTION=3465]Limit[/MENTION]
but it's easy to see the former as an example of the latter. Its source being...so many things. Religious texts, ideals in society, even childhood fantasies. No?
Which is, IMO, why in practice Fe users will 'adapt' according to society (or at least the people they meet). So a lot of Fe users, when uninterrupted by other functions will be nice, polite, chivalrous; but according to the society's ideal.
[MENTION=3538]Arsal[/MENTION]
[MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]
Agreed,
but it's easy to see the former as an example of the latter. Its source being...so many things. Religious texts, ideals in society, even childhood fantasies. No?
Which is, IMO, why in practice Fe users will 'adapt' according to society (or at least the people they meet). So a lot of Fe users, when uninterrupted by other functions will be nice, polite, chivalrous; but according to the society's ideal.
[MENTION=3538]Arsal[/MENTION]
I don't think you're wrong. Essentially, it is indeed about structures; to know and understand and work according to the structure. Think of Te as 'scores' in videogames. While Fe....well, people. Values and ideals. And in that sense, it -is- a method of survival; I personally catched it as, 'to know what the world needs to not kill me.'
[MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]
Not saying you're wrong, but it's a very wide umbrella term. Remember, feelings =/= feelings in the common sense (read : emotions).
Last edited:
[MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION]
"I said the rest you could deduce from that statement. Morals and ethics of the group are derived from placing your judging importance of feelings on the environment."
^^ is what I said a few posts ago. I think if you think through that statement enough its decently accurate.
If you place the importance of your judgement based upon feelings on the environment, this then means that the environment in its own way supersedes all else. If I place my decision making process based on how the environment feels, then I am going to look to the environment as to how I should lead my life, or make my decisions. Since humans (animals are out of all the question for all intents and purposes) are the only ones with feelings in this Universe, I must then look to the cluster of humanity for guidance. I will trust the environment more than I will trust myself, which is what I see as the difference between the Fx. Now, someone may quote this saying "but thats not what it is at all." Maybe not on paper,but then again I'm not here to recite a dictionary of Jungian propositions, I'm here to give my opinion. I think Sali does have a point that perhaps Limit and I are on the same page, and just using different terminology.
"I said the rest you could deduce from that statement. Morals and ethics of the group are derived from placing your judging importance of feelings on the environment."
^^ is what I said a few posts ago. I think if you think through that statement enough its decently accurate.
If you place the importance of your judgement based upon feelings on the environment, this then means that the environment in its own way supersedes all else. If I place my decision making process based on how the environment feels, then I am going to look to the environment as to how I should lead my life, or make my decisions. Since humans (animals are out of all the question for all intents and purposes) are the only ones with feelings in this Universe, I must then look to the cluster of humanity for guidance. I will trust the environment more than I will trust myself, which is what I see as the difference between the Fx. Now, someone may quote this saying "but thats not what it is at all." Maybe not on paper,but then again I'm not here to recite a dictionary of Jungian propositions, I'm here to give my opinion. I think Sali does have a point that perhaps Limit and I are on the same page, and just using different terminology.
....The directions sounds reversed, IMO. Fe is placing / expressing / manifesting your feelings derived from morals and ethics of the group. This might be a matter of explanation, but you made it seems like the 'directions' is out>in>out ('feeling' the outside world, processing it, then offering a reaction).
Sounds like Fi, if I were to be honest. But it might be just me...
The way I see it, Fe is in>out>in ('looking' at the environments around them, 'giving' their reaction, then 'looking' at the result).....and I'm talking nonsense again.
I think your words can be deducted as an example of Fe, but......there's something ....different. with the way you explained it.
Which isn't wrong, but can be problematic in your own life later if you so ever decide to analyze some actions (in the instance [MENTION=1579]Odyne[/MENTION] gave, she's absolutely right and it's not Fe.) and mentioning it to other person. Difference in perspective is a dangerous thing~
</rambles>
"I see extraverted feeling as the function that reasons, decides, and judges the collision of principles, rules of conduct, and the distinction between right and wrong sourced from an external, localized area."
How can you agree with this, but disagree with what I'm saying, when we're saying the same thing. I might make it sound like Fi, but its Fe.
Hmm....I wonder, can Fe clash with Fe?
If possible, that what's happening? A clash of..simply put, values?
Or is it a clash of Ti instead; "From the shared values of X, I think Y amount is enough, while s/he thinks Z amount is the right one, thus we're clashing."? (I'm not putting other functions against the equation atm, because that will affect so many variables. CMIIW)
If possible, that what's happening? A clash of..simply put, values?
Or is it a clash of Ti instead; "From the shared values of X, I think Y amount is enough, while s/he thinks Z amount is the right one, thus we're clashing."? (I'm not putting other functions against the equation atm, because that will affect so many variables. CMIIW)
Yes. Fe can clash with Fe.
Want an extreme example? Hitler (xNFJ) vs most people on this forum.
You can grow up in an environment where ethics of that society tell you that it
So, lets say I want to believe in something spiritual (god) but I can't make myself to because it doesn't make sense to me -logically (because I had that moral, ethic input from my environment) would that be Fe or Fi or something else?
I'm really trying to understand all these Fe, Fi, Ni etc things, I'm a bit confused, so I apologize in advance if I sound ignorant (which I probably do) with my question.
I'm really trying to understand all these Fe, Fi, Ni etc things, I'm a bit confused, so I apologize in advance if I sound ignorant (which I probably do) with my question.
I will give you some advice: read the books.
Like you, I tried getting by through reading things off the internet and from 2nd and 3rd hand sources. Unfortunately, this is the reason why there’s so much confusion on typology. People want to take the words of these people as gold because they think that it “makes sense.”
I may know where you can get the books Analytical Psychology and/or Psychological Types by Carl Jung. Might want to play around with those texts than depend on internet material. Internet material (while there are some really good ones) should be taken as 2nd hand material to go along with studies. It’s one of the reasons so many people are confused with other typologies like the enneagram.
Last edited:
Yes, MBTI should not be used on unhealthy people at all since it only looks at outward behavior.
Jungian concepts though?
Last edited: