As for your video, 3:52-3:56 is a Ti-loss of momentum followed by a Ti-neutralization. Basically what we do instead of an Fi-snarl d: You may be creating a value judgment during that point, I don't know, but on a vultological level it looks more like you're fact-checking yourself, doing a Ti "Wait, is this true? Hold up, everyone, let's gather our thoughts and make sure we're thinking about and representing the concept correctly". Your upper lip seems to just sit higher up naturally, no disgust-snarls here.
Haha. It's hard to say. I do cringe a lot, even hearing this now made me cringe a bit. But what your'e saying is also possible, I don't really remember what exactly I thought and felt in that moment. It's weird, I feel a constant sensitivity and many inner "cringes", I'm not sure why face isn't signaling it.
In search for snarles...
Ok so, how do types with no Ti think? No logical consistency? How does FiNe create theories/ideologies etc.?
Zweilous - Yea, I was trying to simplify it a bit too much there. Hmm, lemmy try again.
bellabellas86 - Hehehe I should note that disgust is a *universal* emotional, as per Ekman. So naturally even Fe users will snarl when there is some very definitive moral disgust.
I was moreso aiming to note that this activity, which is average in Fe, happens constantly in Fi/Te users. And indeed, it doesn't only happen in moments of disgust for Fi users ---though I use that to illustrate the essence of the process--- but at any moment they are pinging the emotional register, which happens often for them. Sometimes those pings register fond affinities, but the mechanic is the same; strong resonance/dissonance is registered between one's palate and the thought at hand.
The Ti user doesn't display this tension because, second-by-second they're not evaluating things against the emotional register. They're evaluating things against their conception of truth, or in the case of developed Fe, against the conceptual truth as per their combined etho-logical framework. Fe displeasure looks more like this:
Additionally, I think the few signs of disgust you could find in your videos wouldn't indicate Fi because the Fi/Te pair would be identified by the constant unconscious activation of this pinging, not only by the sparse and rather isolated circumstances of showing moral displeasure for obvious reasons.
Ok so, how do types with no Ti think? No logical consistency? How does FiNe create theories/ideologies etc.?
The Te/Fi pairing and the Fe/Ti pairing each cover the full range of necessary ethical and logical considerations.
That's why when an Fe/Ti user wants to be logistically effective, they put their Fe into gear while using Ti to calibrate that pathway and remain dispassionate about matters that don't need to have passion in them. But there's side effects. It doesn't come out as Te. It comes out like a well calibrated and reasonable Fe execution.
To give you an example, lets use FiNe Edward Witten, a Nobel prize winning theoretical physicist.
Firstly, as an introvert everything is simulated mentally. As I mention of the NiTe in the book, Te (and actually Fe too) is able to be simulated mentally in the human mind. If you're a TiNe and you're sitting there trying to write a letter and wondering how it'll come across to others, you're using your Fe to do so. You're running it through Fe in a mock situation. That doesn't make it Fi, because the nature of the orientation of the thought is not the subject; it's the dynamic objective reception.
Likewise, Te can just as easily be simulated cognitively, which leads people to quantify the dynamics of physical causality (Te) via that abstraction. We have another example of this in TeNi Richard Feynman. Heck, any politician and economist that uses Te is simulating it via scenarios and anticipating outcomes. These people are mathematicians, physicist and they have plenty of logical consistency.
The perspective of "If someone is logically consistent in their arguments --> they must be using Ti" would be a rather infantile one to hold. And of course, an 8 function model becomes necessary from that perspective because Ti has essentially been made synonymous with accuracy.
The expressions and results of a function are far more nuanced and broad-reaching than that. It's not like only Ti users can be logically consistent, nor do we need it to accomplish that. Any situational result/output (i.e. consistency) is actually a measure of personal talent and skill, not of function use. They are modes of metabolizing information. Ti-leads can be dead wrong against a Te-lead probably close to 50% of the time.
Logical consistency is at the base of T. Which then branches off into Te and Ti.
So logical consistency is equally the aspiration of both Te and Ti, although to Te that means a perspective in "alignment with the causality and dynamics of the world" and to Ti that means a perspective "in alignment with epistemological truth, self-consistent and void of internal errors"
..toTe that means a perspective in "alignment with the causality and dynamics of the world" and to Ti that means a perspective "in alignment with epistemological truth, self-consistent and void of internal errors"
Much clearer about the pinging, thanks.
So it is possible I am defining my values mostly according to ideology formulated by Ti (although wouldn't be the case at all times). But the heirarchy in terms of significance is still tilted towards my values. Perhaps being a T doesn't mean you place logic over values in decision making, but rather that you use your logic to define them (?)
These short definitions you gave of Te and Ti are really helpful for clarification. How would you define Fi and Fe is this way? And also the other functions could help..
So what happens when NiTe is thinking about whether something is "in alignment with epistemological truth" rather than whether its in "alignment with the causality and dynamics of the world"? Or say when a FiNe is writing a letter wondering how it'll come across to others? Te in calibration with Fi?
This almost makes it seem as though there are only four functions - T F S N. And that the preferred orientation (subjective-internal/objective-external) the person gives his dominant function kind of sets the tone for the rest.
...standing up for bullied kids in school (despite usually being quiet and "shy" appearing), cynically telling my 5th grade teacher I hope a burglar never enters my house because I might not be so reluctant to lie (as I have a STRONG aversion to lies, until this day) that I might tell him the truth about where the money is... or being VERY stubborn regarding things I believe are immoral or unethical in some way (this is true until this day, although I have learned to relax it a bit) and so on.
Another thing that comes to mind now, very Fi-ish and true to this day - I cannot see a poor person on thes street and not give charity. I sometimes force myself not to give it, because I think I overdo it, but in many cases I end up feeling bad and going back the entire street to give the charity (which I tend to give in larger amounts than most people, because Fi just takes over. A few months ago I saw a teenager boy sitting on a bench and he seems like he was in trouble, I crossed the street even though I knew I might miss the bus by doing so, and asked if he needed help. I sat and spoke to him, apparently he ran away from home (such a Jerusalem story haha). I spoke with him about what happened to him and added him to my facebook, letting him know he can contact me if he needs something. Stuff like this. Could this be developed Fe instead of Fi? idk but doesn't seem like it to me..
Not to muddy the waters or to focus too much on aspects outside of your vultology, but your descriptions above are totally me, especially around standing up for bullied kids and your second paragraph. To be very open, I once was overtaken emotionally and literally wept over the idea of there being so many homeless in a community I was living in at the time - my heart was bursting for them and I desperately wanted to help them, but only in ways that I could be assured were genuinely needed AND administered authentically, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, my opinion is that this is Fe, developed to some degree. I'll even go out on a limb and create a new term and call it a TiNe's "individualistic Fe"; I believe this may occur due to Ti's ability to detach from and analyze the self, which can then "see" some (not all) of the emotions, thoughts, needs, concerns, responses, etc. that make up a human (i.e. you, in this instance - but to clarify, this "view" does not necessarily encompass all humans).
Perhaps the rest of the TiNe's psyche, including Fe, is informed of this ever-expanding "view", and when Ne encounters situations that match, Fe "feels" the pressure to act and bring Life to the Collective. However, because truth, honesty and authenticity are so very important to the TiNe, they generally want to bring Life in those very same honest and authentic ways. I abhor 'showy' and manipulative "help" from others, especially if it doesn't meet the true need of the person(s).
This is interesting. I thought I'd bring the experience of someone with strong Fe here (Fe Si).
What Bellabellas86 described, giving charity to homeless/begging folk, I don't see as "Fi ish" at all. This is because I have done this ever since I can remember. Like Bellabellas, whenever I have failed to do so, it has really bothered me to the extent that I have gone back and given. It seems that poor folk even in strange new towns instinctively know this about me because they will approach me even in a crowd. Sometimes I have unwittingly prompted others who had ignored the person while he passed them to give once he gets to me and I give. I guess they have felt embarrassed even though we didnt know each other, just happened to be in the same spot when the person came by asking. I also give lots.
What it is is: I have trouble saying No to someone who asks me directly for help. Period. It's not complicated at all.
I quit a job at an NGO where we dealt with a certain class of needy folk because the job basically required me to turn down almost all their requests for help. It became too much stress not being able to help people who ask for your help all day long. Recently I was able to say No to a relative after finding myself in a corner where I had no choice and then realized I really had to be smart about helping from now on. Part of my motivation for making money and saving is so that I won't have to say No. But that's silly, unless I own the universe of course, but it's an uncormfortable enough thing to actually influence very important decisions.
So no, that's not an indication of Fi at all. It's just a certain expression of empathy. It can be expressed both ways but its basically being uncomfortable with someone else's suffering to the point where you must do something to relieve yourself that stress.
The most painful thing I ever experienced was watching a loved one suffer and not being able to help. Everyone suffered but I was traumatized and mentally tortured to the point of experiencing PTSD symptoms long after they died. My Ne Fi mother was ever present with him and watched him closely for years throughout the illness. When I watched him, I eventually had to leave though I didn't want to, but once away realized I had desperately needed to "run away" to relieve myself of the stress even though I would have never willingly left and did not want to.
So I see Fi as much stronger. It can somehow "stay" and be of help to the suffering one without losing itself in the experience of the suffering one. I guess because it comes from inside and can empathize while not "not getting lost" and merging its own experience with that of the other. The other remains "other" with their individuality intact whereas Fe just can't separate! At least as I exerience it.
Fe works like those psychological mirror functions that makes us unconsciously copy others for camaraderie. It's like Fe takes in that experience as its own and our minds recreates it in us and merges with others and loses itself. I guess that's why sometimes we can "pretend" to go along and hate ourselves afterwards feeling very icky. It's just a pull you cannot clearly understand in your head that forces you into the feelings and experiences of others. Sometimes you can take charge and spread good feeling or bad feeling but you are extremely impacted by the others as well.
“If every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness.”
I agree with Authenticity. Fi can sometimes detach and use Te to get the job done. I think it comes at a cost, but it's still possible. (Also, Authenticity, it was mentioned recently that Si is prone to PTSD. I would say that's very true. You need more of the "SEARCHING" function to rewrite your Si story.)
And about giving money to the homeless: I hate saying "No," but I also don't think it's a good long term solution. Fortunately, I don't carry cash, and I can say that with integrity. My response to homelessness is a bit more Te. Let's see what has the best outcome and do that. So I will donate to a charity that proves to be successful. Actually, I'm working on getting a non-profit going right now. I feel the best I can do for someone is value them as a person and value their journey. The outcome of showing compassion can be the same among Fe and Fi users, but perhaps the paths differ. IDK.
I feel the best I can do for someone is value them as a person and value their journey.
I definitely agree with this! And I think that's awesome you're starting a nonprofit. For me, if I'm talking to a homeless person--or really anyone--the most important thing I feel I can do is to be respectful, unassuming and actually interested in who they are as individuals. It seems like part of how homelessness happens is because at some point along the way homeless people become seen as a different class of people--outcasts who are beneath normal society. In most cases they have suffered trauma or abuse of some sort or another and often seem to feel themselves less than everyone else.
If I have coins in my pocket I'll often give them out to homeless people, or better, I'll give them food if I have it. The best is if I have time to actually share a meal with them, but to be honest that's rare. In any case, I don't feel like I'm doing them any real charity or service, or really helping them through their troubles, because I'm not...but if someone is obviously suffering and needs a hand, it feels wrong to say no when it requires so very little. It also feels wrong to assume what they're going to do with the little bit of change I give them. Yes, a lot of homeless people have alcohol problems. But it's not always quite so simple as "they're homeless because they drink." A lot of times it's more like, sleeping on the street really sucks and people have to drink to be able to sleep.
I worked in a homeless shelter for a while, and have had some friends over the years from the homeless/transient population, and I recognize that a lot of homeless people do suffer from psychological problems that make it harder for them to function in normal society. This, along with the economic desperation, can make it challenging to have balanced personal interactions or relationships with them. But again, it seems like almost all homeless people have suffered traumatic circumstances at one time or another. At the very least, becoming homeless is deeply humiliating and traumatic.
Unfortunately, I feel like the root cause of homelessness is a political and cultural problem more than anything else. It's political because it's the inevitable result a capitalist ideology that's used to justify greed. It's cultural because consumerism & technology have made ever more atomized and isolated from each other. People "know" each other through the screens of their iPhones but are afraid of each other when encountering face-to-face on the street. Homeless people are seen as either a problem to be solved or a public nuiscence, but not simply as actual individuals. In my hometown, the pro-business mayor recently pushed through a law that banned people from sleeping on the streets...out of sight, out of mind, as with so many things in our culture.
It's really, really hard to strike a balance between helping, governing, etc. on proactive and reactive levels. I feel our government is very reactive and does little to actively prevent problems. Of course, the question is how to do so without being a nanny state?
I definitely agree about the government being reactive, and in principle I think I can relate to the concern of a nanny-state. In an ideal world, I’d much rather if communities were wealthy, politically powerful and unprejudiced enough to address the basic needs of their citizens on a more adaptive basis. Community-based nonprofits are a great start toward building this ideal. I’ve heard lots of good things about Housing First.
However, right now it seems like the US has the worst of both worlds: more of a playground-bully state than a nanny-state. Despite the severe social problems the US had during the 50s and 60s, there were far fewer homeless people back then. Since then, the size of the federal government has ballooned, but less of its expenditures are actually going toward helping ordinary people.
Instead, more federal dollars are being spent on things like spying on American citizens, bailing out the banks that seize peoples’ homes, creating the largest prison population in the world, arming police forces with military-grade weapons which they then use to gun down people of color with impunity. Mass incarceration has actually exacerbated the problem of homelessness. A criminal record can make it tough to find any job other than working for 4.25 an hour selling crack on the street corner. It’s tough to separate a lot of these issues—homelessness, worker exploitation, wealth inequality, racism—because they all sort of run into each other.
Homelessness has been largely created by an increasingly wealthy elite at the controls of an increasingly kleptocratic and authoritarian government. This is why I don’t expect billionaire philanthropists like Bill Gates to actually fix anything: they’re much too deeply invested in a system that creates the very problems they claim to want to solve.
Bella, when I came on this thread (whenever I commented) I actually came to remark on your original post but then got sidetracked!
I really think you gave an accurate description of Fi in your post. I didn't watch the whole video, but what I did hear really, really resonated true. Especially the quote about beauty. I know beauty if powerful and affects most people, but I'm really CONSCIOUS of its power, though I myself am not fancy. I feel how drawn to it I am and spot its effect in others. Not just physical beauty either.
Not to muddy the waters or to focus too much on aspects outside of your vultology, but your descriptions above are totally me, especially around standing up for bullied kids and your second paragraph. To be very open, I once was overtaken emotionally and literally wept over the idea of there being so many homeless in a community I was living in at the time - my heart was bursting for them and I desperately wanted to help them, but only in ways that I could be assured were genuinely needed AND administered authentically, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, my opinion is that this is Fe, developed to some degree. I'll even go out on a limb and create a new term and call it a TiNe's "individualistic Fe"; I believe this may occur due to Ti's ability to detach from and analyze the self, which can then "see" some (not all) of the emotions, thoughts, needs, concerns, responses, etc. that make up a human (i.e. you, in this instance - but to clarify, this "view" does not necessarily encompass all humans).
Perhaps the rest of the TiNe's psyche, including Fe, is informed of this ever-expanding "view", and when Ne encounters situations that match, Fe "feels" the pressure to act and bring Life to the Collective. However, because truth, honesty and authenticity are so very important to the TiNe, they generally want to bring Life in those very same honest and authentic ways. I abhor 'showy' and manipulative "help" from others, especially if it doesn't meet the true need of the person(s).
This is interesting. I thought I'd bring the experience of someone with strong Fe here (Fe Si).
What Bellabellas86 described, giving charity to homeless/begging folk, I don't see as "Fi ish" at all. This is because I have done this ever since I can remember. Like Bellabellas, whenever I have failed to do so, it has really bothered me to the extent that I have gone back and given. It seems that poor folk even in strange new towns instinctively know this about me because they will approach me even in a crowd. Sometimes I have unwittingly prompted others who had ignored the person while he passed them to give once he gets to me and I give. I guess they have felt embarrassed even though we didnt know each other, just happened to be in the same spot when the person came by asking. I also give lots.
What it is is: I have trouble saying No to someone who asks me directly for help. Period. It's not complicated at all.
I quit a job at an NGO where we dealt with a certain class of needy folk because the job basically required me to turn down almost all their requests for help. It became too much stress not being able to help people who ask for your help all day long. Recently I was able to say No to a relative after finding myself in a corner where I had no choice and then realized I really had to be smart about helping from now on. Part of my motivation for making money and saving is so that I won't have to say No. But that's silly, unless I own the universe of course, but it's an uncormfortable enough thing to actually influence very important decisions.
So no, that's not an indication of Fi at all. It's just a certain expression of empathy. It can be expressed both ways but its basically being uncomfortable with someone else's suffering to the point where you must do something to relieve yourself that stress.
The most painful thing I ever experienced was watching a loved one suffer and not being able to help. Everyone suffered but I was traumatized and mentally tortured to the point of experiencing PTSD symptoms long after they died. My Ne Fi mother was ever present with him and watched him closely for years throughout the illness. When I watched him, I eventually had to leave though I didn't want to, but once away realized I had desperately needed to "run away" to relieve myself of the stress even though I would have never willingly left and did not want to.
So I see Fi as much stronger. It can somehow "stay" and be of help to the suffering one without losing itself in the experience of the suffering one. I guess because it comes from inside and can empathize while not "not getting lost" and merging its own experience with that of the other. The other remains "other" with their individuality intact whereas Fe just can't separate! At least as I exerience it.
Fe works like those psychological mirror functions that makes us unconsciously copy others for camaraderie. It's like Fe takes in that experience as its own and our minds recreates it in us and merges with others and loses itself. I guess that's why sometimes we can "pretend" to go along and hate ourselves afterwards feeling very icky. It's just a pull you cannot clearly understand in your head that forces you into the feelings and experiences of others. Sometimes you can take charge and spread good feeling or bad feeling but you are extremely impacted by the others as well.
Good lord! So I decide to read this thread on Fi and what do I find? Lo and behold, it's Authenticity, purporting to be describing Fe. I really hope I haven't confused too many seekers.
The content is true, though: I just have to understand it is an Fi and not Fe perspective I'm describing: Interesting!