Unseelie Fi Description

Home Page Forums Cognitive Functions Unseelie Fi Description

  • Rondo
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: llll
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Something that has bothered me a lot is the concept of Seelie/Adaptive and Unseelie/Directive. It seems like they are trying to stab into the mental health of the person, but miss the mark. Seelie/Adaptive could be pushovers, passive aggressive, backstabbing and shit-stirrers. And Unseelie/Directive could be overly aggressive, demanding, unable to connect emotionally, and bullies. But really none of that is healthy. It may be an unnecessary addition to the typing that doesn’t add a lot of value and causes harm or for some to feel more hopeless than they need to. I think people know if they are too willing to let others walk over them, avoid conflict, be too aggressive, etc.

    @Cedar – I very much enjoyed reading through your post, and I hope you’ll forgive my intrusion into the Fi domain here, but I felt the desire to push back on this a bit as it relates to all types by virtue of the “Heartitudes”. I thought you did an excellent job of summarizing the negative aspects of the F attitudes, but I very much disagree that including these negative aspects in their descriptions is of little value, or that people are more aware than unaware of their faults in these dimensions. What I do know is that more than a few members (of differing Quadras and devs) here have expressed and continue to express the desire to find the balance between the F attitudes, having come to an understanding that both extremes of the pendulum are unhealthy and counter-productive; perhaps as stated in the OP, it is the Unseelie Fi description in particular which is lacking something, and this thread is attempting to work that out.

    I think it is a simple either/or when put into these two boxes, when we are all complicated beings, doing our best to get through life and using the tools that have helped us get this far. Additionally, the descriptions of Seelie and Adaptive seem like what we all want to be while Unseelie/Directive is the consultation prize of a failed emotional attempt. I am feeling judgmental about this because I think any reasonable mental health professional would encourage a different metric.

    I would definitely agree with you that at the very least the F attitudes should indicate Unseelie>Seelie, etc. when displayed on the profiles rather than simply displaying one or the other, as the general understanding is that everyone has both F attitudes, but they’re almost never on “equal” display in consciousness. And to speak to the last point in the text above, I do believe a sort of “disclaimer” could be included as standard in the member reports such that people are made more immediately aware that having markers of Flat Affect doesn’t mean you are doomed to go through every day in a depressive fog, or that being labeled Unseelie>Seelie means your daydreams consist of only HR Giger designs. But as you’ve said, labels will never be able to do justice to a full image of “personhood”, nor should they be expected to, but I am in support of the idea that there could be some slight improvements made in the way the labels are displayed and understood.

    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    I know that the Big 5 Personaility Types aren’t as embraced here, and I agree it lacks a lot and is slanted rather negatively. How do you feel about people to are typed as Seelie but their Big 5 shows them as low in compassion? Or the opposite? Several Fi folks are typed this way. To be the devil’s advocate, what is the value if it doesn’t correspond to how someone shows up in life? Does Seelie = only Openness to experiences? What about the qualities under Extroversion (friendly and cheerful)and Agreeableness (altruism, morality, cooperation sympathy, trust)?

    I really don’t get this stuff. There seems to be a steep learning curve and not a lot of clean, current info.

    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: llll
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    I absolutely agree that CT as it stands today can have a steep learning curve, and a lack of concise, synthesized, current info that’s easy for a general audience to understand. Unfortunately the cloning process for Auburn hasn’t been fully streamlined yet 😝… but in all seriousness, a lack of available synthesis for the most current info was something which irked me quite a bit when I first joined, and though it’s far from an ideal solution, for the time being we have threads like these and discussions on the Discord that attempt to synthesize the current understandings.

    In terms of Big 5 correlations with CT, that’s still in the realm of the purely speculative for me. Perhaps J is correlated with Conscientiousness and P with Openness, but even that’s nothing I could confidently stand behind right now. CT has made huge strides, but it’s still far from reaching full maturation I would say. Another way to look at it is that there’s still a lot of novelty to be discovered 🙂

    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    @cedar – Thanks for opening up here.

    Heeh! I should say that all the things you wrote in your first post in this thread sounds to me like trademark seelie Fi, so you are likely mislabeled as unseelie when you are really seelie. Do you relate more to the seelie descriptions? Let me show you a bit of what I mean and see:


    Cedar: I feel very close to others emotionally, even strangers. I can feel the energy they give off and make adjustments in real time to create smoother interactions. I am able to predict (extremely accurately) what their motivations are, what they are thinking and feeling, what they need in that moment and long-term. I find it easy to be able to plant seeds towards that need.

    This correlates strongly to:

    Profile: The Fi user exists in a constant state of high permeability; an uncontrollable receptivity to the emotional energy of other people and the world.

    And this…

    Cedar: I feel a natural affinity to other people, animals, plants…even ecosystems. I feel like I have an intuitive understanding of what they are communicating, mostly through body language or the observation of their outputs. I experience immense joy in tweaking inputs to get healthier and happier outputs.

    Corresponds to:

    But this same empathic tendency does not stop at human beings. The seelie Fi user will feel the same injury for all manner of animals. This often leads to vegetarianism and to an animal rights activism compelled by a belief that “if it has the capacity to feel pain, then it should be protected.” But this also leads to an appreciation for “creatureness” where the seelie Fi user may imprint on various other animals and come to relate more to them than humans if they share the same temperament.

    And this…

    Cedar: What does get me is that I have zero tolerance for the neglect of living things be they houseplants or children.

    Corresponds to:

    Profile: When Fi is seelie, it retains an open and unobstructed emotional channel to the world. Painful situations register with a more acute sensitivity than to most others, and they may be prone to break down in tears upon hearing a terrible story or even from looking at a photograph of impoverished or abused children.

    I see about a dozen other small points like this in what you write, but I fail to give a full account of them, as they’re too many to parallel. But you do seem like an Fi-lead to me in all that you have written in this thread. The issue seems to me a mere matter of seelie versus unseelie for you — and you’re clearly psychologically seelie. I apologize for the mislabeling, as the seelie/unseelie vultology has still needed more clarity.. and it gets more complicated with flat affect too.

    Um, but aside from that what else do you feel is off? You mentioned that you feel your type is “way off the mark” and I’m curious as to whether seelie Fi would answer your questions or if there’s something else that this would still not clear up?

    Fe & Compassion?:

    “People describe me as: emotionally available, open, friendly, passionate, well informed, kind, thoughtful, sensitive, spiritual, intuitive, old-soul, self-aware, present, compassionate, empathetic, approachable, gentle, caring, nurturing, handy, and selfless to a fault”

    I wanted to offer a general note about “Fe” and ENF, since as I understand it you relate to both of these in other typology systems. Helping others, wanting to help others, being open and friendly, compassionate, empathetic and approachable… are absolutely in line with seelie Fi in CT. Members like our @bera and @faerie (SeFi and NeFi respectively) are embodiments of these qualities through seelie Fi. These are not Fe-exclusive traits but they are simply both aspects of the light side of the F attitude.

    Heartitude Article

    Seelie/Adaptive could be pushovers, passive aggressive, backstabbing and shit-stirrers. And Unseelie/Directive could be overly aggressive, demanding, unable to connect emotionally, and bullies. But really none of that is healthy.

    Right! 🙂 And that is why it says in the article, after every header, that the following describes the function “when they fall under the weight of stress and mental illness.” The “Attitudes of the Heart” article specifically labels sections as “Under Stress” for the purpose of explicitly noting that this is not the baseline behavior.

    So far, as Rondo mentioned, it has been instrumental to our members and to our general understanding of humanity to also document precisely “how” certain types fall out of health, because it does differ and people are indeed not necessarily aware. 🙂 But those sections “Under Stress” really should not be confused for the F attitude’s normal operation.

    The unseelie & directive attitudes are not broken forms of seelie & adaptive, but are fully necessary, useful, and valuable aspects of the entire psychic economy of humanity (which is always dual). And they also have their own alternate ethical stances which advocate for things that are less agreeable but also very important to society.

    I hope some of this clarifies your questions– I feel I likely missed a lot of them, but let me know your thoughts on the few points covered? ^^;

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    I think the main issue is I don’t agree with the delineation between the Feeling types. If anything, they also feel like they should be on a spectrum and not separate types. In other systems the boundaries made clearer sense. There are tons of posts from Fi’s perspective. Are there any from Fe lead Adaptive females?

    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    I think the main issue is I don’t agree with the delineation between the Feeling types. If anything, they also feel like they should be on a spectrum and not separate types.

    Yes, it actually is a spectrum. 🙂

    Seelie-Unseelie and Adaptive-Directive are spectra of the F functions, and that’s always been the case. They’re not ‘true dichotomies’ although the profiles were written to paint the extremes for clarity’s sake.

    In other systems the boundaries made clearer sense.

    Hmm, I dunno how you mean exactly. But “clarity” is not accuracy in this case. There are a lot of trait theories that present easy bite-sized categories but that is not the same thing as reality. For example, it may be very convenient and clear to say:

    Fe = social/communal/empathic/collective
    Fi = personal/one-on-one/self-focused/individual

    …or something to that effect, but that may not reflect any higher truth outside of this heuristic convenience. Yes, psychometric models like Big Five rely on two complementary forms of categorization: 1–oppositional traits, 2–a spetrum between those traits. But this allows near-infinite construction of psychometric traits, with no necessary justification for their delineations.

    CT is not a trait-model and that’s not the formula we follow. Instead it’s cognitive/metabolic and the end results and traits may vary. So in brief:

    Fi: The Fi user may be empathic, accepting and supportive, depending on their attitude. But what always remains the case is that Fi will be subject-oriented and essentialist in its delineations of subject properties, when it aims to answer the question of how [subject] relates to the data of the emotional register.

    Fe: The Fe user may or may not be empathic, accommodating and supportive, depending on their attitude. But what always remains the case is that Fe will be object-oriented and pragmatic in its delineation of causality, when it aims to answer the question of how the [objects] relate to the data of the emotional register.

    ~ ~ ~

    This difference takes a more nuanced analysis of who they are and what they say. The Fi user may form an abundance of successful social relationships while always treating each relation in a singular form, by evaluating the properties of the subject discretely, and/or against some universally sensed life-principle. So then you get a social butterfly Fi, who nonetheless treats each subject-relation on its own terms, rather than as a wider causality game of objects.

    Oppositely, sometimes the Fe user may be quite unsuccessful in social relations, and push everyone away. This may, ironically, be due to their attitude of Fe… if it turns out that they don’t listen to subjects by evaluating their discrete properties but instead see subjects as part of a larger social causality game which they’re playing. People can come to be seen as roles rather than individuals. More than a few Fe-leads in the database are poor listeners, and quite disagreeable. But that doesn’t change the fact that their mode of experiencing causality (Je) is as a relationship of people-objects and dynamics stemming from “human nature” as generally understood.

    This post ended up way longer than I expected and maybe it’s not done much to clarify, but I wanted to give it a try anyhow. Thanks for making it this far.

    There are tons of posts from Fi’s perspective. Are there any from Fe lead Adaptive females?

    I don’t think we have many Fe-lead women on the forum.

    But we have female Fe users?

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l---
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Woooooh, yeah this is one thing that I do not relate to too well…..

    I know that in my videos, I am pulling all kinds of funny faces, but I feel completely content…… I wonder how often I do this IRL?….

    Maybe I subconsciously don’t want to be talking to/through a computer screen?….

    Maybe I subconsciously don’t want to be delving too much into memory based info? (which I’m poor at doing)

    I’m definitely not seen as blunt or an Asshole!!!! I’m a very friendly and agreeable person, and have always been one of the best people at getting along with a wide variety of people…

    Apparently I would have been made ‘head boy’ (representative for your year group at school) assuming due to the above…. but they said that they knew that I would not have wanted to do it. (guessing due to my relative shyness at that age)

    It does seem that I am a very moral person, and do dislike some of the things that people do, but I never go around judging people…. I might just keep my distance sometimes….. I’m very forgiving though……

    I would say that I judge ppls actions, more than the person themselves…. which is probably why I can easily forgive the person….

    Damnnnnn….. I’m wearing a ‘WARNING, ASSHOLE, DO NOT APPROACH’ sign!





    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    I just tried to post, and my post didn’t show up! So I’m trying again, and hopefully it won’t result in double-posting.

    I just got typed as FiNe II– Unseelie, and Auburn suggested I check out this thread. So, I wanted to add my thoughts here. It’s worth noting that in MBTI-land, I consider myself an INTP and even here in CT-land, I relate more to Ti than Fi. But I’m still learning. From what’s been said so far in this thread, here’s what I either relate to or don’t:

    From LadyNerdSky:

    “I sense the hidden, unspoken “vibes” of the room or the person in front of me. I sometimes feel like I have a weird psychic “link” to another, that I’m accidentally tuned into the same wavelength as them. I’m great at intuiting other people’s next words and future moves. As if I’m reading your mind (not feeling your heart). If I’m comfortable I’ll try to give voice to my observations: “I sense you’re hesitant, uncertain, anxious etc”. But most of the time I won’t say anything. Instead I’ll silently and subtly tweak how I approach you or the situation to suit what I believe is going on behind the scenes and the future I anticipate unfurling in front of me. I will try to jump onto your wavelength and flow with you, not against you.”

    I don’t relate to this. What other people are thinking and feeling often feels pretty mysterious to me, and I don’t think I’m very good at reading people. I sometimes get a sense that something is “off,” but I usually don’t know what it is. And when I do have a sense that something is “off” with someone, I don’t really know what to do about it – certainly nothing as sophisticated as subtly tweaking how I approach them to suit what is going on with them.

    “But I don’t “feel” or absorb another person’s emotions. It’s more of a clinical detached observation from behind a wall.”

    I mostly relate to this. There are times when seeing someone else cry has led me to start crying too, but it’s only if I’m already experiencing those emotions and seeing the other person crying kind of pushes me over the edge. Otherwise, if I’m not already experiencing those emotions, it feels like the clinical detached observation you describe.

    “I feel very capable of compartmentalising my inner world and my emotional reactions. I can view terrible footage and not feel anything emotionally inside.”

    I have experienced this both ways – I have viewed things that have emotionally moved me and also viewed things that I recognized as “tragic” without actually feeling the corresponding emotions. I’m trying to figure out what distinguishes those situations in which I feel from those in which I don’t. I can’t say with any confidence at the moment what it is. A couple of things that come to mind are that I am less likely to feel emotionally moved if I feel like the footage is manipulating me specifically to try to emotionally move me and I am more likely to be emotionally moved if the footage involves harm to animals. That tends to get to me.

    “Other people’s outward displays of emotion makes me very uncomfortable and I want to leave. But I’m also curious to think about the why behind the other person’s reactions. If someone has, in my opinion, an irrational emotional outburst, I like to think about the possible various factors that contributed to their reaction: what is their personality, what might be their past experiences that coloured their present interpretations, what is their perspective. Psychoanalysing.  I don’t feel like it’s my problem to deal with their emotions or calm them down. I don’t ever want to be the person anyone leans on for emotional support. I try to rationalise and understand feelings and emotions, without getting personally involved.”

    I agree that other people’s emotional displays make me uncomfortable. Since I’ve become interested in typology, I do sometimes try to analyze what’s happening to them through that lens, but that wasn’t something I ever did before. Psychoanalysing does not come naturally to me.

    “I have excellent control over my own feelings and emotions. This is partially why I dislike uncontrolled displays from others. I think, why can’t you pull yourself together? Why are you burdening others with your emotional needs? I see myself as logical, calm, controlled and level-headed. I think before I react and am very self-contained.”

    When I was younger (early high school and before), I cried very very easily, and that was something I really didn’t like because it’s pretty embarrassing and awkward to start crying in front of a teacher or in the middle of a class. Nowadays I cry much less easily. In fact it’s pretty rare, and I kind of feel like I have to consciously choose to cry in order for it to happen. I don’t think my aversion to other’s emotional displays are so much because I think they should control themselves. It’s just awkward for me and I don’t know what to do, so I’d rather it not happen. At least that’s true with most people. If it’s my husband, I tend to have more of that “pull yourself together” attitude, which I actually really don’t like about myself because that’s the opposite of how I would want someone to treat me if I was upset.

    “I’m allergic to public consensus. Anything that’s popular among the general public I probably couldn’t care less about. I like to make up my own mind about things that interest me and I’ll come to experiences in my own sweet time when I’m ready.”

    I have noticed that I seem to have a bias against the mainstream view. If I’m researching something, and I learn that there’s a mainstream widely accepted take on it and then there’s someone else saying, “Hey, I’ve figured out that the mainstream view is wrong, and here’s why,” I’m more inclined to believe the person saying the mainstream view is wrong. I like to think that I am still able to judge both views logically and I’m not just taken in by anyone claiming the mainstream is wrong, but I do have a bias in that direction. For some reason it just feels plausible to me that the mainstream view is usually wrong, or at least oversimplified.

    “I’m a perfectionist and a control-freak. I like things a certain way and that’s usually my way. I can be bossy with the way things “should be”. I might listen to your opinion, but ultimately do my own thing. I’m very picky with personal aesthetics. Only certain colours, fabrics, and textures are welcome and I’m very quick to judge appropriateness. I will reorganise a room or office to my tastes if it’s cluttered, disorganised or ineffective. Even if it’s a shared space. I won’t ask, I’ll just do it. I will streamline files, papers, and maximise desk space. Everything will have its place. I go nuts labelling the room. I feel much more peaceful and in control once the space is perfect. I am meticulous about crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.”

    I am a control freak when it comes to my own life, but not when it comes to other people. In other words, it’s really important to me to have autonomy to choose how I will live my own life, but I don’t really care what other people do. This can end up being kind of controlling from my husband’s point of view because there are so many aspects of our lives that are shared. So, if it’s very important to me that the place I live be a certain way, that means the place he lives has to be that way too because we live in the same place 🙂 I’m not that picky about aesthetics though. I have opinions, but it’s not a big deal to me. And I’m not much of an organizer. I’m pretty disorganized. But I do do the thing that I will decide for myself how I want a certain system in our home to work and I will go ahead and implement it without consulting my husband :/ (which I realize is pretty hypocritical of me because I really wouldn’t like it if he did that).

    “I’m very hard on myself if I underperform. I think if you’re going to do something, do it right the first time. The pressure comes mostly from myself. I don’t care if other people have lower expectations or standards, I will judge based on my personal measure and definition of success and acceptable performance. There’s very little you can say to talk me down from the proverbial ledge when I disappoint myself. People say I’m too hard on myself. I think others don’t try hard enough.”

    Totally relate to this. I actually get really bothered when I’ve disappointed myself and other people try to comfort me by saying that what I’m doing is actually good. They think they’re being comforting but they’re actually just arguing against my deeply held beliefs, which doesn’t make me feel better.

    “I have my own set of values, standards and things that I think are important in life that may or may not echo society’s values […] I have a lot of patience and acceptance for people just trying to be themselves. I feel more tolerant than average to alternate lifestyles, gender-orientations, sexual-orientations, fringe-groups and alternative forms of self-expression.”

    Agree. I don’t specifically rebel against something just because it is a commonly held value. For example, I do actually value marriage and having kids for myself even though it is very “traditional.” But I don’t value anything just because it is a societal value. For example, I don’t care about money or status at all. I question everything and figure out what makes sense to me, personally. So there are a number of things that I personally value that would be considered unusual. I am also very tolerant of other people and “alternative” lifestyles. I will say that when I think I have figured out the “right” way to do something, I do sometimes have some internal judgement of other people doing it differently. But I’m not judging the people, I’m just judging their actions, if that makes sense. For example, I have done a crazy amount of research on parenting methods, and so I have pretty strong ideas about what is “right” and “wrong” in terms of parenting, and I do judge what most other parents are doing as the “wrong” way to do it. But I don’t judge those people as being “bad.” They’re just doing what they think is best. I recognize that it’s weird to do the amount of research I’ve done, and that in some ways it’s probably healthier to be a little less obsessive and perfectionist about it, so I don’t fault other people for not doing it the “right” way.

    “Decision-making can be easy. I don’t need a factual list of pros and cons, or to forecast every potential future scenario that may evolve from my choices. I don’t need elaborate decision-trees, and I don’t need to ask everyone around me for their opinion or input. An idea or future option will appear to me, and it will just feel right.”

    I don’t relate to this at all. Decision-making is extremely hard for me. I agonize over every decision and change my mind constantly.

    “Options are either a natural part of me, or not. They quickly take root inside and make themselves at home like they were meant to be there all along, or they just don’t vibe well with me. It feels like things are sorted by “does belong” and “does not belong”.”

    Nope. To me, it feels like the answer to everything is “it depends.” I can see both sides of everything.

    “I think people would describe me as: difficult to get to know, reserved, shy, quiet, perfectionist, principled, honest, studious, independent, diplomatic, hard-working, sweet, gentle, calm, thoughtful, intelligent, acts with integrity, even-tempered, rational, pessimist, skeptical, truth-seeking, distant, opinionated, difficult to please, snob.”

    I relate to most of this, with a few exceptions. I don’t think I’d often be described as “hard-working.” As a student, yes, but not in the rest of my life unless it’s working at the specific thing I’m really interested in at the moment. “Sweet” kind of depends on who you’re talking to. Almost everyone who knows me would describe me that way (and that actually is one of the most common words people who don’t know me super well use to describe me), but people who have actually lived with me might not. They know the side of me that can be very stubborn and “hard” in certain areas. It’s like I have a soft exterior and a hard interior, and the people who live with me are become part of my interior, so they see the “hard” side.

    From Cosmo:

    “I actually get annoyed when something or someone tries to appeal to my emotions rather than logic, and I notice when dealing with others, I tend to try to appeal to their logic, which doesn’t always work. I process my emotions by thinking through them, from a detached analytical point of view. I struggle with understanding others’ emotions and sometimes my own. Whenever someone is upset about something I usually approach the situation by giving advice to solve the problem, because that’s what I would want, rather than emotional comfort or sympathy.”

    I relate to this big time. My default response to feeling an emotion is to immediately start analyzing it logically – this is actually one of the main things I’m working on with my therapist right now. She’s trying to help me learn how to just feel the feeling without jumping straight to analyzing it. And I also react to other’s problems by offering advice. I’m trying to work on this too (the book Nonviolent Communication is helpful), and just empathize with what they’re saying, but it feels very unnatural to me. I feel like a robot trying to be a therapist.

    “When people are more emotionally expressive I am not too affected by it, unless they are demanding an emotional response from me, in which case I tend to shut off because it feels intrusive or forced.”

    Big time relate to this. This is a source of difficulty for me whenever I talk to my mom. She likes to share with me whatever horribly tragic thing she’s heard on the news, and I can tell she’s looking for me to have a certain emotional reaction, which makes me totally shut off emotionally.

    “I’ve also struggled to relating to the Te description. Anything to do with making money, business, etc, is super foreign and weird to me.”

    Same. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to relate to Te because it’s not conscious for me, but money and business stuff is of no interest to me.

    “If [emotions] are just shoved back down then they fester and may manifest in the body as illness or may create other problems such as resentment. I think emotional/social intelligence is just as important as intellectual intelligence, otherwise there will be unbalance. I don’t like it when people lean on me for emotional support because it’s difficult for me to do on demand, unless they know that I will approach the situation from a detached manner and that I will most likely try to solve instead of soothe. However, the older I get and the more loss I’ve experienced, I realize there is something to be gained to just let the emotions go and just sit in them, rather than control them […] I think I’m more comfortable in general with emotions than I used to be, and I try to be more present with experiencing them and being in my body, rather than in my head all the time. But I do still tend to think through my emotions, so it’s a work in progress.”

    Totally agree. As I mentioned above, I’m working with my therapist on this exact thing right now.

    “I don’t think most things are so black and white, rather they have nuance and lots of grey areas that require philosophical exploration and are constantly changing and progressing. I enjoy sparking these types of discussions, because they can cause others to reflect on their own ideals and values, as well as my own. I think opinions and values are so personal and require a combination of both subjective and objective ideals, ie philosophy and ethics. I always try to take a neutral stance unless it’s something I feel strongly about or want to spark a discussion, but even then I don’t mind discussing or entertaining different view points. I will say, I tend to favor logical arguments over emotional ones, but it depends on the topic.”

    I also don’t see things as black and white. I see the grey in everything. I enjoy playing devil’s advocate. If I’m talking to someone I feel really comfortable with, having philosophical discussions and entertaining different viewpoints is one of my favorite activities. But I don’t do this with people I don’t know super well because I’m afraid I might offend them.

    From Elisa Day:

    “They say I surprise them in my ability to stay cool under pressure and level-headed in times of crisis.”

    Nope. I’m no good in a crisis. I just panic. I think that quality in you may actually be related to Se. I read in Dario Nardi’s book Neuroscience of Personality that people with high Se are very good in a crisis. Of course CT is different from what Nardi uses, but there could still be a connection.

    Since some people have brought up enneagram, so I will add that I have not been “officially” typed, but I definitely identify as a 5.

    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    For posterity, I’m also going to include here what I wrote to Auburn in an email about what aspects of my type description I don’t relate to.

    1. I noticed that the profiles for TiNe and FiNe are very similar, but one place they differed is in these sentences:

    TiNe: “You may begin to ask reductionist questions about what the objective meaning of life is, how such a thing can ever be defined, and you may be prone to the occasional existential moment.”
    FiNe: “Questions may crop up related to what the purpose of living is and whether you feel you are living in true alignment to that higher purpose within you.”

    In comparing these two sentences, I definitely relate much more strongly to the Ti one. I do not believe that I have a “higher purpose.” I am actually a nihilist who believes that nothing in the universe has any inherent value or purpose.

    2. “And while you do linger on these intellectual questions a lot, your investigation of true reality more often comes in the form of an artistic exploration, such as via poems, lyric writing, paintings, music, dance or fashion, wherein the artform becomes the vehicle by which those core realizations can radiate out into the world.”

    This sentence was in both the FiNe II– and TiNe II– profiles, but in any case, I don’t relate to it. I’m not a very artistic person. I dabbled a bit in photography and acting as a teenager, but since graduating high school I haven’t had any interest in any artistic pursuits. I will say that I do appreciate art created by other people though.

    3. In the description of being “unseelie:” “You’re not afraid to make critical opinions of others, and to call out lies and hypocrisies where you see them.”

    I am not afraid to do this within my own head, but I definitely don’t do it out loud to the face of the person in question. If someone says something I disagree with, unless they are someone I am very close to and comfortable with, I usually keep quiet about it. If it is simply a factual error, I am more likely to correct it, but if it is something more personal like “lies and hypocrisies,” I would definitely not call it out – I’m very conflict-avoidant with all but the 2 people closest to me in my life.

    4. “But always for the Fi user the question of what is truth and goodness are in some way inseparable and irreducible.”

    I definitely don’t see truth and goodness as being inseparable and irreducible. I see them as being totally separate and unrelated. As I mentioned above, I am a nihilist, so I believe that what is “good” is entirely subjective – it’s just based on what evolution and personal experience have led your brain to interpret as good – whereas I definitely don’t think what is “true” is subjective.

    5.  “Fi+Ne: The Fairy. This type is the epitome of the Fi fairy archetype, and the most like the typical INF description. Very dreamy, with head in the clouds. Child-like and a bit magical. Usually artistic, sensitive, ephemeral and highly receptive to ideas and to the hearts of others. Prone to love experimenting with their own identity and making a somewhat eccentric artpiece of themselves. Colorful. Sing-songy. Whimsical. Almost always seelie, but can also be very private. Very curious. They are deeply affected by the world, but are ever-guarded underneath.”

    I relate to very little of this. The parts I relate to are “sensitive,” “highly receptive to ideas,” “curious,” and “deeply affected by the world, but ever-guarded underneath.” The parts I don’t relate to are “most like the typical INF description,” “very dreamy, with head in the clouds,” “artistic,” “ephemeral” (actually not really sure what that means when describing a person), and “Prone to love experimenting with their own identity and making a somewhat eccentric artpiece of themselves. Colorful. Sing-songy. Whimsical.”

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by fayest42.
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    So, pulling text from Cosmo about her experiences plus yours, I do think I’m a problem-solver before being an empathiser. It’s taken me a long time to realise people are mostly just venting, want validation for their feelings, or emotional support, not an advice session. I’ve been joining professional development workshops in my field designed to teach clinicians to explore feelings and the emotional space. It feels icky and still makes me uncomfortable. But I’m better at throwing out phrases like, “that must be so hard for you”, “that must have been a frustrating experience for you” etc without sounding sarcastic.

    “Emotions being shoved down and festering in the body”

    Yes. I have big problem of anxiety not really being an emotion but a body reaction so severe I’ve given myself a Panic Disorder and can even faint from overwhelm. For a recent example, my emotions were telling me I’m totally chill about this pandemic situation, but simultaneously my body had digestive upset, nausea, vomiting, shaking, fatigue, insomnia and shortness of breath.

    “don’t think things are so black and white…”

    true. I think in my original Fi spiel I painted myself as being more binary that I am with decision-making and reactions. I’m going to steal a Personality Hacker quote, where they describe Fi as understanding at a nuanced level that everyone’s opinion makes sense, to them, from their perspective. Fi is good at finding that perspective.

    Ti and Existentialism: Definitely had, and continue to have existential moments. In my 20s I concluded life was meaningless, basically that we’re born, we procreate to ensure survival of the species, we die, and everything else in-between is just a triviality to pass the time and distract us from death. Which became a problem because I have no plans to procreate, therefore I myself am nothing, therefore logically it doesn’t matter if I die.
    But later in life I moved to the more Fi “purpose of living … higher purpose within you” stance.

    “for the Fi user truth and goodness are in some way inseparable and irreducible”

    To paraphrase, a “pure” Fi stance would be that ultimate truth is the one that also meets the criteria of “most good”? Or also, an Fi user would struggle to accept that truth or rightness may also involve choosing the more “evil” option? Maybe it’s the conscious Te, because to me they are separable.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 | CognitiveType.com
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animaged GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.