[Agent Blackout]

Disclaimer: This is a random hypothesis that just crossed my mind.


Fi-users, please assess the validity of the following statement:

"The Introverted Feeling function can be described as a constant ethical framework based on personal, subjective experiences."


Notes:
- This hypothesis sprung from how I describe my Ti as a "constant logical framework, based on personal, subjective experiences."
- "Constant" (in both cases) meaning stable and unchanging - unless it decides to re-arrange itself. Kinda.

 

[Dark NiTe]

I don't know for sure. I do know that it is pretty similar to Ni, where I just "know" something, pertaining to motives behind others' actions. "Idiosyncratic" values/morals seems like a good way of describing it. I clash with Fe users because I don't give a shit what they perceive to be the popular, most PC approach to things, much like a Ti user would clash with a Te user on impersonal issues, I assume. That's my interpretation of the "selfish" nature of Fi.

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

The poster above said what i was thinking. In regards to the line you highlighted, i think its pretty self explanatory.

 

[Agent Blackout]

I don't know for sure. I do know that it is pretty similar to Ni, where I just "know" something, pertaining to motives behind others' actions. "Idiosyncratic" values/morals seems like a good way of describing it. I clash with Fe users because I don't give a shit what they perceive to be the popular, most PC approach to things, much like a Ti user would clash with a Te user on impersonal issues, I assume. That's my interpretation of the "selfish" nature of Fi.

"...where I just "know" something, pertaining to motives behind others' actions..."

I used to think this... Ne+Ti... so I could "deduce" someone's motives based on my interpretations of their actions.
Eventually, I figured I can only draw possible conclusions or have gut-feelings with "truthiness" (check my sig. lol)
I've heard that before. So from experience, I figured there's a lot of similarities between Fi/Ti. (Aside from all the professional work done that says that, haha.)


Bolded: BAM Yes! Lol. Invert that in the right places and that's what I think of the "selfish" nature of Ti. Both are primarily self-referencing, naturally.

The poster above said what i was thinking. In regards to the line you highlighted, i think its pretty self explanatory.

That's what I thought based on descriptions. But I'm not an Fi-user, so I can't exactly assume I know what it works like.

And I've seen plenty of people disagree on official descriptions. I couldn't tell if they were right or just didn't know their own Fi. Ultimately, I had to ask.

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

"...where I just "know" something, pertaining to motives behind others' actions..."

I used to think this... Ne+Ti... so I could "deduce" someone's motives based on my interpretations of their actions.
Eventually, I figured I can only draw possible conclusions or have gut-feelings with "truthiness" (check my sig. lol)
I've heard that before. So from experience, I figured there's a lot of similarities between Fi/Ti. (Aside from all the professional work done that says that, haha.)


Bolded: BAM Yes! Lol. Invert that in the right places and that's what I think of the "selfish" nature of Ti. Both are primarily self-referencing, naturally.




That's what I thought based on descriptions. But I'm not an Fi-user, so I can't exactly assume I know what it works like.

And I've seen plenty of people disagree on official descriptions. I couldn't tell if they were right or just didn't know their own Fi. Ultimately, I had to ask.

I don't grasp the total concept of Ti just yet. When i see it explained it looks very much like Fi. Both rely on their own internal workings in making decisions. Ti with thinking, Fi with ethics, i see similarities with the process of both these functions.

Yes i have seen people disagree with Jung himself, cough*...words and meanings Jung quoted himself in regards to Fi have been over turned by a few who know better than the man who created the theory. Doing your own research with reading and studying is the best way to grasp the functions. There are people here who know their shit well, don't get me wrong, and its good to ask questions. Just keep in mind what is possible, logical, and those who go against the man who knew more than all of us, put their thoughts on ignore.

 

[Agent Blackout]

I don't grasp the total concept of Ti just yet. When i see it explained it looks very much like Fi. Both rely on their own internal workings in making decisions. Ti with thinking, Fi with ethics, i see similarities with the process of both these functions.

Yes i have seen people disagree with Jung himself, cough*...words and meanings Jung quoted himself in regards to Fi have been over turned by a few who know better than the man who created the theory. Doing your own research with reading and studying is the best way to grasp the functions. There are people here who know their shit well, don't get me wrong, and its good to ask questions. Just keep in mind what is possible, logical, and those who go against the man who knew more than all of us, put their thoughts on ignore.

 

[LiquidLight]

Yea but we should be careful here because tying morals and ethics to Feeling is more of a MBTI-ish (and especially Socionics) conception. Jung really does no such thing in his writings. And the reason is because the assumption here is that a type with low or poorly developed Feeling might be unethical (and certainly a poor Feeling function could make a Ti or Te-dom unethical, we've certainly seen examples of that) but it doesn't automatically make it so and nor does it make Feeling types the automatic standard-bearers of ethics or morality which is also commonly asserted. Generally what we consider 'morality' would be dictated by a moral complex and probably the ego, and the persona. A great many people appear outwardly moral adhering to the laws (Thinking) or values (Feeling) of the land (so both Te and Fe types get caught up in this meaning everyone) but who may not actually have much of a moral compass of their own. A number of people evaluate right and wrong based on either Thinking or Feeling principles like not driving drunk because you might get a DUI, or not because people might look down upon you or because you don't want to kill yourself or someone else but these may not actually reflect on your own moral compass of what is right or wrong (if there were no legal or cultural repercussions and there was no danger of hurting someone is it still immoral and why?).

 

[Naama]

i said this on another topic:

Fi is an judgment of value(of something). It works by comparing your emotional response to the thing, if the thing evokes a positive emotion, then the thing has positive value, if it makes you cry, then its negative.

This whole F value thing isnt about values that the person holds(personal values), its a value of something that is being judged with F.

and i should add to that, ethics are defined by dictionary like this: "a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic". naturally you can construct ethics using Fi aswell, but its not some Fi thing.

by saying that its an Fi thing, you are saying that types that use F in extraverted attitude lack ethical framework. if you go by the 8 function model, well thats exactly the reason why you would think silly things like this..

imo both Ti and Fi descriptions you gave are wrong. neither are some framework of things, they are judgments of something. F does the judgment using principle of value, T makes the judgment using principle of logical analysis. Introversion of function means that the subjective factor is the determining one(it doesent exclude noticing the objective factor, its just that the person orients himself according to the subjective factor). because it is the determining one, it always starts from the subjective factor, which can be compared and modified by the objective one, but leads back to the subject.

 

[Inguz]

The more I read, the more I imagine Fi and Fe as sitting in chairs around a table. Above the table you have the visual, Fe. Below you have the hidden, Fi.

Obviously, Fe will prefer to express themselves above the table, where as Fi prefers to express themselves under the table. Fi can give a footsie to someone they find themselves attracted to, where as if that person is Fe they may even consider it accidental, or maybe not even notice it. Fe obviously want to show that attraction above the table and likewise Fi may not always be paying attention to what's happening above the table if they don't feel the footsie below it at the same time.

While Fi surely is subjective in that regard, not everything stems from personal experiences. It will appear that way from an objective standpoint, and likewise objective ethics aren't necessarily based on impersonal experiences.

 

[Agent Blackout]

The more I read, the more I imagine Fi and Fe as sitting in chairs around a table. Above the table you have the visual, Fe. Below you have the hidden, Fi.

Obviously, Fe will prefer to express themselves above the table, where as Fi prefers to express themselves under the table. Fi can give a footsie to someone they find themselves attracted to, where as if that person is Fe they may even consider it accidental, or maybe not even notice it. Fe obviously want to show that attraction above the table and likewise Fi may not always be paying attention to what's happening above the table if they don't feel the footsie below it at the same time.

While Fi surely is subjective in that regard, not everything stems from personal experiences. It will appear that way from an objective standpoint, and likewise objective ethics aren't necessarily based on impersonal experiences.

Lol. Clever analogy. I see what you're saying.

 

[Kito]

The more people try to analyse Fi, the less I understand it... to be honest, I'm not sure what an ethical framework is... the only way I've ever seen Fi is being aware of your inner emotions in rich detail and using those emotions to guide your decisions and actions in life. All this morals/ethics/values BS confuses the hell out of me, because I've never seen my own feelings in any way other than my own feelings. It's how I feel about everything and not about this moral system that I've implanted into myself. Opinions come naturally to people, Fi just uses those opinions as a basis for everything. Do you like it? Then do it. Do you dislike it? Then don't do it. Does the rest of the world care? It doesn't matter.

/completelyofftopicrantsorry

 

[Agent Blackout]

The more people try to analyse Fi, the less I understand it... to be honest, I'm not sure what an ethical framework is... the only way I've ever seen Fi is being aware of your inner emotions in rich detail and using those emotions to guide your decisions and actions in life. All this morals/ethics/values BS confuses the hell out of me, because I've never seen my own feelings in any way other than my own feelings. It's how I feel about everything and not about this moral system that I've implanted into myself. Opinions come naturally to people, Fi just uses those opinions as a basis for everything. Do you like it? Then do it. Do you dislike it? Then don't do it. Does the rest of the world care? It doesn't matter.

/completelyofftopicrantsorry

Loool! It's cool. I feel you on that. (Ti...)

I'm just talking about the way it functions. Not the feelings themselves (which no one else but that person would understand anyway)
Just like Ti. The way Ti works in general as a function of the mind is the same, it's just the way one might extract a logical conclusion from a situation/idea might not be the same from person to person.

 

[Kito]

Loool! It's cool. I feel you on that. (Ti...)

I'm just talking about the way it functions. Not the feelings themselves (which no one else but that person would understand anyway)
Just like Ti. The way Ti works in general as a function of the mind is the same, it's just the way one might extract a logical conclusion from a situation/idea might not be the same from person to person.

It's fine, I guess I just got carried away. A ton of people misconceive Fi and this thread reminded me of that, so... ignore anything I wrote, sorry!

 

[shedreamt]

The more people try to analyse Fi, the less I understand it... to be honest, I'm not sure what an ethical framework is... the only way I've ever seen Fi is being aware of your inner emotions in rich detail and using those emotions to guide your decisions and actions in life. All this morals/ethics/values BS confuses the hell out of me, because I've never seen my own feelings in any way other than my own feelings. It's how I feel about everything and not about this moral system that I've implanted into myself. Opinions come naturally to people, Fi just uses those opinions as a basis for everything. Do you like it? Then do it. Do you dislike it? Then don't do it. Does the rest of the world care? It doesn't matter.

/completelyofftopicrantsorry

The reason people connect Fi with ethics is because as a judging function, it weighs different factors including our feelings in order to evaluate the world and act in the way that feels "right." To make ethical decisions you have to use your Fi since answering questions like "Should we use underage siblings of ill children as organ donors?"or "Should I buy free range or conventionally raised meat?" requires a holistic view of all the elements involved, not just how images of animals in small cages make you feel, or how you'd feel if you were dying of leukemia and your little sister wouldn't give you a bone marrow transplant. Using our Fi we look inward at our gut reaction first, then our catalogue of past experiences in life, multiple possible outcomes of various decisions (my Ne feeding Fi), and what society says is right (sometimes, not always) and choose based on what allows us to maintain our inner harmony. You can still have uncomfortable feelings even if you're doing the "right" thing. As a example, I enjoyed spending time with a man who had a girlfriend and started to fall for him, getting a vibe that the feeling was mutual but I ended our friendship because it disrupted my inner piece even though he evoked pleasurable feelings within me. That was Fi acting ethically.

Fe does this too although I'm still not sure how. Fi tends to be associated with ethical behavior I think because it is more noticeable since Fi users don't prioritize harmony with the world around them.

 

[Agent Blackout]

The reason people connect Fi with ethics is because as a judging function, it weighs different factors including our feelings in order to evaluate the world and act in the way that feels "right." To make ethical decisions you have to use your Fi since answering questions like "Should we use underage siblings of ill children as organ donors?"or "Should I buy free range or conventionally raised meat?" requires a holistic view of all the elements involved, not just how images of animals in small cages make you feel, or how you'd feel if you were dying of leukemia and your little sister wouldn't give you a bone marrow transplant. Using our Fi we look inward at our gut reaction first, then our catalogue of past experiences in life, multiple possible outcomes of various decisions (my Ne feeding Fi), and what society says is right (sometimes, not always) and choose based on what allows us to maintain our inner harmony. You can still have uncomfortable feelings even if you're doing the "right" thing. As a example, I enjoyed spending time with a man who had a girlfriend and started to fall for him, getting a vibe that the feeling was mutual but I ended our friendship because it disrupted my inner piece even though he evoked pleasurable feelings within me. That was Fi acting ethically.

Fe does this too although I'm still not sure how. Fi tends to be associated with ethical behavior I think because it is more noticeable since Fi users don't prioritize harmony with the world around them. Been puzzling over whether stuff like the Holocaust or the enslavement of blacks happens due to the majority of people in the world being Fe users or whether use of Fi or Fe has no connection with socially acceptable unethical behavior hmm. Just musing.

Interesting... lol

Blue seems like Fi ethical analysis. Seriously does look just like Ti analysis, except in terms of ethics. (again, idk if ethics is the right word)

Red:

Alternate Fe perspective just in case you were curious...

Most Fe users, when in this position, would consider the perspectives of the girlfriend who would probably be affected most if anything happened, and the Self last. A balancing act is best, and usually occurs with healthy Fe users.

Strong/healthy Fe users could/would care less about inner emotional peace, than they would about handling the situation in external reality ethically in order to make sure everyone is ends up okay (which would be our idea of attaining peace... in the environment, where our feelings are/flow).

In a complicated situation: I personally wouldn't consider justifying to the self the actions that would be required that would allow the self to feel better, but rather focus on justifying to others what the best decision would be for everyone to walk away as safely as possible.

"You can still have uncomfortable feelings even if you're doing the "right" thing."
Yes. This can still happen with Fe. But letting someone know that you're feeling bad might inspire guilt in them, so with Fe I'd probably wanna refrain from saying anything (Lol). Actually, it's pretty easy for most Fe users to shut emotions out when the goal is to prevent another from feeling bad because of showing them those emotions.

Hope that provides some insight, lol

 

[cityofcircuits]

This thread and all this reading on Fi makes me feel confused and sleepy. Why? Idk. It just does.

 

[Ayia]

I see fi the way the OP described. Or at least that is how I use it.

I believe in not forcing people to start doing whatever you're doing (unless what they're doing is hurting others). And I use this as a guiding principle after some experiences of being pushed to change my ways because other people think what they are doing is better. And from making other's changing their ways myself, only to realise that their original method was better than mine. So my guiding principles come from experience. So it is a constantly developing set, really. I don't know if I am making sense, but i hope I am .

So I won't choose to not shoplift because society tells me it's wrong. But because I hate being stolen from. I don't go to new-years-eve parties, even though most people think you should. I don't see the value in being bored a whole evening and having trouble getting home just because it's a new year. I will show up at my friends' birthdays because birthdays are another persons special day. I actually don't celebrate my birtdays, but I would be disappointed if I decided to and people stayed at home. etc etc.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

Here's my description of Fi as a functional process from the thread: "Fi Mislabeled A "Values System"" (great thread premise, btw):

Fi is a function that operates from the perspective of self-referential subjective values. The function itself isn't the values system, but it creates perspective around self-referential subjective values to judge from, so incoming data will be judged according to this self-referential subjective values system instinctually in the dom or aux Fi form. Fi doms basically view the world from the perspective of a self-referential subjective values system. If it's not a judging system, then it isn't Fi (e.g. people just saying that they like something, thus it's Fi - NONO!) There has to be consistent patterns that it operates by in order for it to be a system, which are the most consistent and complex in the dom and aux. Fi users. Due to the existence of these patterns, along with the interest in relating values to their own, Fi doms/auxes can easily predict via Fi how something might make them feel before experiencing it via this function and Ne or Se bringing it possibilities, unless their values clash too hard with such possibilities, which still gives them prediction ammo.

And btw, "ethics" are values but not all values are ethics, so it would be too vague to call Fi an "ethical" framework.

 

[Inguz]

And btw, "ethics" are values but not all values are ethics, so it would be too vague to call Fi an "ethical" framework.

This makes me think though, could it be possible to utilize Fi in mathematics? Not in the sense of logic, but in that rules are either right or wrong, and then apply said system? Calculators can do the numbers.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

This makes me think though, could it be possible to utilize Fi in mathematics? Not in the sense of logic, but in that rules are either right or wrong, and then apply said system? Calculators can do the numbers.

I doubt it, since math is highly technical, unless one somehow associates feelings with problems (e.g. something might feel "off" about something in a math problem, but focusing on feeling in math might be effective in not overanalyzing the problems but instead, motivating a person to focus on aspects of what they like about solving the problem and allow the person to pay more attention to trends in order to solve it successfully). But no way can this work as a system of mathematical reasoning. Btw, abilities and function position are largely irrelevant. I know F types who are good at math and T types who suck at it.