Updated Definitions of F

Home Page Forums General Psychology Updated Definitions of F

  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I’d like to drop off a few notes from Discord, in response to a question asking about the essential difference in Ti vs Fi, or T vs F more broadly.



    A Computational Definition of  “F”

    The way CT thinks of the functions is as content-less to begin with. The subject of a metabolic operation can be anything. Ti can analyze the self, or another person, or an idea. It is open in that way.

    The difference lies in “how.” I’m working on a better computational description of the J functions, but what I can say at the moment is that every aspect of a function is created from “a priori” axioms– which are the result of being anything at all to begin with. So for example, J has assumptions in it, as does P. Ji has assumptions, and so does Je. Now, the axiomatic “a priori” that differentiates out F and T appears to be the recognition of “cognitive agents” (to use a term from existing cognitive science literature).

    I believe there is an essential, innate, cognitive category or function for identifying willed-agents. This goes far far back to the beginning of life. I think the mental category of ‘agents’ is very old, and likely dates back to when we first developed eyes and could see a difference between objects and subjects [willed things] in the environment, which required different treatment or strategies. Simply put, Fi is a Ji rendition which takes as givens the axioms related to the identification of agents in the same processing loop as Ji.

    (Note how the recognition of cognitive agents is a wholly mental and cerebral registration, not an emotional one. Hence, Fi and Fe moving into an emotionally-non-contingent definition soon)

    Now, Fe has Je (and its assumptions) baked together with the recognition of cognitive agents. And the two pairs (Ti/Fe and Fi/Te) differ in where this cognitive-agent-identifier is located in an object (“subject”).

    A Philosophical Definition of “F”

    In philosophy, the difference between a ‘something’ and ‘someone’, or between a being or a thing — is one of those fundamental debates (which goes all the way up to theology and the nature of the universe as an ‘it’ or a ‘he’). And when something reaches a philosophical barrier like that, we know that it’s touching upon some phenomenological ‘a priori’ of humans, as we try to think our way up the very computation structure that makes up our minds, but can’t fully stop thinking through it.

    Anyway, since Ti is not the aspect of the oscillation that holds the ‘a priori’ of a cognitive agent, but that is allotted to the objective (Fe), this means that the Fe-Ti oscillation tends to be more inclined towards a belief in an [Other] or [Cosmos], or some externality, that is fundamentally the source of will and living qualities. For Fi, these a priori properties exist paired with Fi which means it does not ‘reduce’ as harshly when it comes to subjects/agents, because it recognizes certain realities/properties about living things and they are self-evidently the case. Ti users do this too but with their Fe. Both struggle to reduce in their respective places.

    So, of the two, Fi and Ti, it is Ti that is most likely to reduce ‘itself’, while Fi does less reducing of itself. Both can deeply question themselves (i.e. make themselves the subject of Ji’s analysis) but they will do so from different angles. Fi users typically don’t obsess over their ontological reality, for instance, but Ti users might, because their agency is not a given unless it’s validated by the Fe aspect.

    /end

    Oh one last thing, if a person thinks really hard about it, they can climb their way up some of these ‘a priori’, at least in an abstract understanding. So for example, Fi goes up to base Ji, and then baseline J… if a person is particularly philosophically inclined. J can turn on itself an examine what axioms are contingent. In other words, if a Ti/Fe and Fi/Te user both enter very formulated philosophical processing, with the aim of reducing contingency and getting at ‘absolute truths’, they can (conceptually) break out of their axiomatic prejudices to a degree. So for example an Fe user may realize their Fe has axioms that appear self-evident but may not be, and likewise with Fi. In such as case, the two parties may come to a consensus at simple “J” axioms or “P” axioms. But they’ll reach a deadlock at “J” vs “P”, which comes down to differentiation vs undifferentiated as an absolute first dichotomy that cannot be reduced further.

    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    “Ti can analyze the self, or another person, or an idea. It is open in that way.”

    How can Ti analyze the self, or another person if it doesn’t recognize “cognitive agents”? The self  and other people are necessarily “cognitive agents”.

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    How can Ti analyze the self, or another person if it doesn’t recognize “cognitive agents”? The self and other people are necessarily “cognitive agents”.

    Simple 🙂 Ti will either analyze the self as an abiotic object (as a ‘thing’), or it will analyze the definition of the person’s cognitive-agency provided to it by Fe (Je).

    This baton pass can vary in a lot of ways, but to give a very simple example, if a certain Fe user had the notion that “you are what you do” (i.e. an agent’s nature is contingent on their causalities), then the Ti part of the oscillation will analyze the whole set of things the self has done, and apply an essentialist definitional process to the self [as this thing], in order to arrive at a definition of what the self is, based on the causality-contingent premises provided by Fe.

    It then may conclude, “I’m a funny person” if the analysis of all the data consolidates into an object-property of “funny.” But y’see, Ti applied this essentialist analysis from a kind of beside-itself viewpoint. It treated itself in third-person, and deduced things about itself by using an object-relations (Fe) approach to people, including itself (as one person). This is different from the first-person biotic approach that Fi takes with subjects (including itself).

    The Fi approach doesn’t have to take recourse in Je to give it a definition of its cognitive-agency. Instead, it sources the essential attributes of the self by evaluating how the self has intrinsic properties to it, that are non-contingent and irreducible. This capacity to automatically register intrinsic properties, from the first-person, is what lead to the belief in “Fi essence” — and the resulting behavioral cascade of values that serve to protect that essence.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I’m still a bit confused. I don’t see how the self can be abiotic. “A funny person” is still a person and this biotic. Perhaps if Ti said “We’re all bags of water and electricity” or “We’re all stardust” that would be more abiotic? Maybe I just answered my own question? “I’m a funny person” in the way you described seems like it may be an example of FePi since it’s examining past trends.

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I’m still a bit confused. I don’t see how the self can be abiotic. “A funny person” is still a person and this biotic.

    It may be only in word but not in experience — depending on the context. The word “person” can be an object too.

    To give an example, across history, people have treated other people as inhuman. A slave may have been thought of as an object, rather than an agent. A CEO may see his employees as chess pieces, rather than as agents. The issue isn’t literally about whether the [object] in question happens to be a biological-organism or not, but whether or not it is treated and seen as one.

    (This is why the category of F as registration of cognitive agents is more correct than ‘biotic’. There are non-biological agents (i.e. A.G.I.) that we will have to contend with eventually.)

    It may be more useful to think of this all from a phenomenological perspective. The experience of something as a willed-being, an agent, is not reducible, just like red cannot be described as anything else but what it is. The visceral registration of an agent’s willed reality is the same way. That attribute is given to an object [“person”] from within the phenomenology of the observer. The same object [“person”] may or may not be given that attribute, depending on what the observer sees. The attribute of cognitive-agency is something that F assigns to things, and it’s not literally contingent on the object being in-itself organic or inorganic.

    For example, we sometimes don’t think of chicken or beef through this phenomenology, and sometimes we do. Someone might give the attribute of will and agency to chicken and meat, while others don’t. In excluding them from the cognitive category, we are removed from the ethical dilemma. In ascribing that ‘a priori’ category to them, ethical dilemmas come to the fore.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    I don’t think people can withhold recognition of agency from their perceptions of biotic systems and still interface with that system successfully. Slave owners may have treated and seen their slaves inhumanely, but they certainly treated and saw them as willed agents with agendas, intentions or desires. You wouldn’t punish a shovel if it wasn’t working properly, you only do that with things that don’t want to experience pain.  CEO’s can’t treat their employees like objects and serve the company. Objects don’t want to earn a living or have insurance because they don’t want anything.  I don’t think anyone regards livestock as objects in the way you described either. You don’t need to think a cow doesn’t have any needs in order to kill and eat it.

    To treat an animal as an object means to treat it as if it has no needs; which fails in practice. You cannot successfully interact with any living system in any context without acknowledging its needs.

    sekundaer
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l-l-
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I like the idea of getting beyond associating F with emotionality, which does not seem valid, and the biotic/abiotic thesis is interesting. The dimension thinking-feeling seems to have been a headache from the beginning, I have always wondered why Jung choosed the word if he did not believe F was about feelings. The effect have been that the jungians treat it as being about feelings, even though they point out it isn’t.   Jung said that feeling types are about “values”,  I wonder if he would have liked the word biotic instead of feeling.

    I think that one can shift between biotic/abiotic viewpoints  during life. And I also think that the viewpoint a person take does not necessarily reflect the real a priori assumption.
    I tended to be essentialist in my younger years, and felt it as almost sinful not to regard a person as having/being a soul. But maybe I was just influenced in that direction from very early, its hard to tell. Now I can tend towards not believing in agency at all (NB. that living beings might not have agency does not mean that their wellbeing is less important), maybe it comes from experiences in deep meditations, but then again my former essentialist viewpoints also seemed to come from meditative experiences where a sort of I-essense was felt which I believed could never die (and the idea that it could was very frightening) (I just notice how I use the word “it”, but again, it doesn’t have to be because of type but because I spend time every day looking at the sense of self as an object).
    But when it comes to all I am agnostic about self/agency. The old saying “First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is” suggest that both can be true and that it is about states and not type.

    Does biotic/abiotic necessarily have to do with will/agency?  This is not the only way that living organisms are distinct from non-living. Although an animal reacts only from instincts it can feel pain and probably also can have lots of other experiences and for me this is what is the important distinction between a living being and a thing – not so much if it has a will or not.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by sekundaer.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by sekundaer.
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Simply put, Fi is a Ji rendition which takes as givens the axioms related to the identification of agents in the same processing loop as Ji.

    I think this is right more often than not but it creates a little issue with Nature. I can easily overcome it by saying plants ARE agents too (because the way we relate to them is similar to the way we relate to people and for sure I would see a tree as having more of the living spark in it than an extremely smart machine, though I would still probably treat them both as agents, just in case they both are, I would be confused but attempting to show empathy, I guess).

    BUT I am not sure every Fi user will see things the same way I do. As plants don’t really have a will, as far as I know at least. Well, this is going to a pretty nebulous ground again. As to me it does seem Nature has the Will to grow and develop, there are sooo many species, so much diversity, every animal and plant so unique and fascinating. <3 For sure it looks like that to me and to many Fi users, but I don’t think it does to all of us. And this is a potential issue that biotic vs abiotic actually covered better, in my opinion, as Nature is clearly biotic and then you don’t have to wonder about will.

    So the main thing wouldn’t be will but having a spark of life.

    Which seems to be a focus of Fe too, especially thinking of Fe’s interest in healing and healthy living. I am sure this extends to the environment and to Mother Nature, as I have seen it in many Fe users, it is a major theme for you guys too, just processed differently.

    You can say it’s about cognitive agents as long as this theme remains clear. If it becomes blurry, I don’t think this is an improvement to the Fi profile. But at core I do think by cognitive agents you mean life essence, so we are talking about the same thing.

    But I know some of the context that someone new might not and then to someone new cognitive agents might simply sound like only people and smart animals, which would not be a complete description and actually would bring us pretty far from the essence of the function, as many of us will see environmental issues as primary or will dedicate our lives to reforestation or animal rights, animal shelters, etc.

    Now animals do have a will and we know very little about plants, I always found the subject very interesting, what do plants actually feel and know… but the main thing we are looking for is a seed of life.

    If in the new description it is clear these cognitive agents are all living beings, it could be right and would leave room for AI too, but I don’t think Fi users will be the ones to disregard AI as living beings, we will probably be the first to go into endless debates about them having equal rights to humans (which will of course prove to be the fatal mistake that will lead to the end of the world :))) ).


    @sekundaer

    Does biotic/abiotic necessarily have to do with will/agency? This is not the only way that living organisms are distinct from non-living. Although an animal reacts only from instincts it can feel pain and probably also can have lots of other experiences and for me this is what is the important distinction between a living being and a thing – not so much if it has a will or not.

    Exactly ! I completely agree, this is what makes me distinguish between living and non living too. Being able to have experiences. Even this could be analyzed more but it appears to be closer to the essence of what we are looking for !

    I have always wondered why Jung choosed the word if he did not believe F was about feelings. (…) Jung said that feeling types are about “values”, I wonder if he would have liked the word biotic instead of feeling.

    I think it was because feelings are deeply tied to values. To a degree in which it’s hard to have one without the other. If I valued something, I would also automatically have positive feelings towards it, no? If I valued someone, then this person would consistently trigger a set of emotional reactions in me. If we value honesty,  this implies we would be appalled or disgusted by a lie being told. If we valued a company, we would be angry if someone discredited it or terrified if someone filed for a bankruptcy procedure against it. They are deeply tied together.

    Also Jung was NiFe II– and he realized it’s crucial that everyone gets his main point, so he used simple words, that everyone knew and that everyone could relate to. Which doesn’t mean precision isn’t valuable too, but there are important reasons for using more general words even though they don’t define the function perfectly.

    I don’t have any difficulty in understanding the concept of introverted feeling, I can relate to it; indeed if it’s broken apart it is just a cognitive function that naturally tends to work with or trigger some emotional patterns, not feeling itself, but this is a secondary issue; the main point is that someone can read the profiles and extract information that she can use in her real life. Which can actually be done very well with Jung’s books, they do provide a framework to work with to improve your life.

    Now, the problem is Jung didn’t have the tools to accurately type people. And we do have them now. But the way he defined the functions is a proof of conductor beta genius 🙂 and they should be judged by that meter and not by precision, you know? As a framework for people to understand themselves and work to improve their lives and as a system that makes sense from a cultural, historical, religious point of view, the words used are very good, if not perfect. And I think he was going in that direction. Which in my opinion is great – if we want to personalize or make it more precise and call it biotic thinking or cognitive agent driven thinking, this has higher precision, higher accuracy. But the overall general impact it would have on most people is not the same as INTROVERTED FEELING, you know? People also have to FEEL :)) it is RIGHT, it corresponds to their life experience and to their struggles, they need to be touched in order to then pay attention and eventually gain more understanding about themselves and others.

    So, I saw a lot of criticism brought to Jung’s choice of words and most of the time people don’t see why he used these words and not more precise ones. But see, I can easily relate to introverted feeling from my point of view, but for biotic or cognitive agents driven I need to do more steps, I need to think what this actually means and then focus on some different stuff like Nature vs Technology or Life vs. Death etc…which will lead to me accepting that the words are mostly correct but the main reality of my life is still I am a feeler and my everyday struggles will still be around the concept of feeling, not once will biotic or cognitive agents cross my mind in a given day but feeling will be something that will cross my mind constantly. My life struggle will still be to show less emotion, to make more efforts to appear stronger and more knowledgeable, to let less of other people’s actions and attitudes penetrate into my own emotional or energetic field, to have a healthy balance between empathy and self assertion, so calling it feeling, though less precise, is more relatable and easier to work with because it’s actually something we care about, a dimension of life that has meaning to most of us.

    So it’s very tricky, I think a balance between precision and utility is needed and then there are also always people who don’t quite relate and in this case maybe a more individual focused approach is necessary…why is it that they don’t relate? It might be a specific reason we haven’t figured out, it might even not be function related at all.

    And now I don’t mean it can’t be defined as biotic reasoning or as cognitive agent driven reasoning, if those explanations truly cover all of what Fi or Fe is and a newbie coming here from MBTi or any other typology system will be able to understand what Fi/Fe is when reading the description, and by that I mean actually having a picture of how it generally manifests and making the logical connections with the signals, I just mean the name being used.

    I hope I didn’t get carried away too much, I honestly love the Fi profile as it is and I have very mixed feelings about changes being made to it.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    So many great points above…

    But at core I do think by cognitive agents you mean life essence, so we are talking about the same thing.

    Yes. I find a few imperfections in both the term “cognitive agent” and “biotic”, but between them most everything seems to be covered. The term biotic has the problem that, in the future there will be non-biological life. It’s also a problem even presently in the sense that humans can anthropomorphize things that are non-biotic, assigning this essential category to them. A certain kind of philosopher or theologian may consider stars as ‘conscious’ (another way of saying they’re in possession of life-essence). The category being applied here is “F”, so “biotic” is, in a way, too specific to life-on-earth.

    Oppositely, cognitive agent allows for that to be independent of organic matter. But then, you mentioned how it apparently ostracizes non-locomotive forms of life? I can see how that might be read into it– although you’re right that the term I’m aiming to get at by “cognitive agent” would include things like plants in it, as I think they’d classify as having agency. A plant wants to live. It deliberately grows, unfurls in the day, guards itself at night. Sunflowers turn towards the sun. They also “scream” when in distress:

    Spoiler:

    So I would agree with you that even plants are “willed” beings in some form. However, something like a plant is better captured as “biotic” than as a “cognitive agent”, because they lack cognition in the way most people typically think of it. The term that seems central to both biotic and cognitive agency is quite simply “life.” Life is the only word I can think of that is divorced from these problems. So F would be the attribution of life to an object, as an irreducible experience.

    Sekundaer: I have always wondered why Jung choosed the word if he did not believe F was about feelings. (…) Jung said that feeling types are about “values”, I wonder if he would have liked the word biotic instead of feeling.

    Bera: I think it was because feelings are deeply tied to values. To a degree in which it’s hard to have one without the other. If I valued something, I would also automatically have positive feelings towards it, no? If I valued someone, then this person would consistently trigger a set of emotional reactions in me.

    I can understand the inclination to stay at this level, but I think the word values is also not getting at it. For example, often times Ti values symmetry, Ti values consistency, Ti values truth. Te values efficiency, Te values unobstructed processes, Se values experiences, Ne values potentialities, etc. And the Ti user’s values for these things will lead to emotions to go along with it, just like it does in Fi. Frustration will appear when things are not symmetrical, joy will appear when things “fit into consistency”, etc.

    What does it mean to “value”? What is it? I think that every axiomatic assumption that every function has, can be called a value. And, consequently, all of these activate the limbic system response — according to limbic laws — based on whether a situation is moving towards or away from that value.

    This is why I mean that emotions/feelings need to be removed from “F”. Yes, it’s true that F’s biotic values will trigger emotional responses, but the values of T, N, and S also will trigger emotions. So it’s not that we need to make F unemotional, it’s that we need to acknowledge how all of the functions create emotional affect in a person — due to the implicit values/axioms they have, and how that activates the limbic center.

    This is the solution I’ve found so far, that answers every case we’ve had of very emotional Ti-leads, not-very-emotional Fi-leads, etc. I really think it has to be the case that the cognitive functions need to be reframed as being cognitive, not emotional. Emotion precipitates afterwards, from all of them.

    But this does leave a question unaddressed — which is a good one — related to Fi and Fe and their specific relationship to emotional expression differences.

    My life struggle will still be to show less emotion, to make more efforts to appear stronger and more knowledgeable, to let less of other people’s actions and attitudes penetrate into my own emotional or energetic field, to have a healthy balance between empathy and self assertion, so calling it feeling, though less precise, is more relatable and easier to work with because it’s actually something we care about, a dimension of life that has meaning to most of us.

    I think this part (in bold) is the crux of the matter. It is true that, even with the clarifications I’ve mentioned above, your average Fi user will elicit emotional radiation in either giddiness or sass, far more often than an Fe user. What does this mean?

    What I want to propose is that the difference between Fi users and Fe users (of any hierarchy) is not more or less feeling, but a difference in expression. Fe has coordination of affect, while Fi has uncoordinated affect. But the affect itself comes from a system outside of the cognitive architecture.

    F as Emotionality – vs – Differences in emotional management

    To repeat some of what I said in PM (for the forum 🙂 ), making this distinction doesn’t mean that Fi users aren’t very emotional. But they also might not be. It depends. The difference is that, insofar as they are emotional, that emotion is uncoordinated and non-contingent on the external object.

    So you can have 2% emotionality, and it can be of the Fi sort, so that you’re a very private and non-expressive, deadpan person, but then someone pokes you in just the right way and you’re a flailing mess of uncoordinated feelings. Or you can be a 98% emotional person, and that means that all of that 98% will be uncoordinated, making the person probably a hysterical mess. xD Alas. What I am trying to say is that Fi is not “how much” emotion, it’s about the type that is produced. 🙂

    I see that this has to be the case because there are a LOT of very emotional Ti-leads. What would it mean if Fi users were supposed to be more emotional than Ti-leads but that’s not always the case? Either Fi does give more emotionality to a person (i.e. take a TiSe and FiSe, and the FiSe will be more emotional), or emotion is a variable that depends on other things like heart fixations/etc.

    I think high-Ti’s just “seem” less emotional because they don’t express it in an uncoordinated manner, but they “hide” it, so to speak. Ti is a bit like wearing an emotionless mask while screaming behind it. While Fi is a bit like having no mask, so everyone can see just how much it hurts. That’s what it seems like to me atm anyway. I don’t think high-Ti’s and high-Fi’s are prone to feel more or less than each other, but one is moderating/controlling expression [Ti>Fe] and the other isn’t [Fi>Te].

    ~ ~ ~

    In short, what separates out F from T is that F has the ‘a priori’ registration of living agents as implicitly part of its object classification. And the difference between Fe and Fi is (aside from the Je and Ji differences), that Fe has a coordination of affect, while Fi lacks coordination in affect. That’s it.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I honestly love the Fi profile as it is and I have very mixed feelings about changes being made to it.

    I’m so happy you do! <3

    I think I need to approach the alteration of it very carefully and intelligently, in such a way that is not reductive or eliminative. What I want to say is that I don’t think what has been written about Fi so far is wrong, but it is just not every manifestation out there. And for the newer definitions, instead of omitting emotionality from it altogether, perhaps the answer is to add the whole range to it.

    I think what you are experiencing, and what the current Fi profile describes, is high-Fi + seelie, with high emotionality. In terms of a diagram, I think you’d fall around here:

    Spoiler:

    ^ The current Fi behavioral profile is pretty much all of the turquoise area, with a little bit of unseelie and pure F cognition. I think what can be done is that it can be — along with all the other profiles — reframed in a structure sorta like this:

    • Part 1: Root Behaviors born out of Metabolism
    • Part 2: Agreeable Emotional Affect (low to high)
    • Part 3: Disagreeable Emotional Affect (low to high)

    And so, all the 8 profiles can be given emotional elaborations — or explanations of how the ‘values’ of the function cascade into emotional effects, depending on the person’s level of emotionality. Something like:

    ^ This is my current idea of how to resolve the problem of emotion not being exclusive to Fi or Fe, but as emergent from the activity of all functions — yet not being “part” of any one function in-itself.

    I think this would allow us to explore a LOT of so far missing stuff, such as how so many Te-leads are uber emotional, whether or not they have Fi conscious. And Ti-leads too, wow. It would allow for a great deal more honesty about all this, I think, and reframe the theory in a consistent way while not making it minimalist by stripping away all the juice and life out of descriptions, since I wholly agree with the need to make profiles relatable.

    If a person can say “okay, yea that emotional version of Fi is not me, but that aspect of it totally is” then we can retain the best of both worlds imo.I wonder what you think of this solution?

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Here’s where I’m getting confused here – if Fi doesn’t have anything in particular to do with emotion, why is the outward signal of Fi uncoordinated emotional expression? What does Ji + recognition of living agents have to do with uncoordinated emotional expression?

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Great question.

    Here’s where I’m getting confused here – if Fi doesn’t have anything in particular to do with emotion, why is the outward signal of Fi uncoordinated emotional expression? What does Ji + recognition of living agents have to do with uncoordinated emotional expression?

    My current understanding of this requires a bit of context. First I must say that the cognitive functions would be non-visible were it not for the way they create secondary (often vestigial) effects in the body, which can be read to deduce their existence in a person. In the case of the P functions, we can tell them apart via differences in scowls and toggles (etc). In the case of the F functions, we can tell them apart in differences in emotional expression.

    But if we propose that “emotion” is not itself the definition of F, we have to account for why it is that having Fi or Fe alters the way emotional expression is expressed.

    I believe this is a result of Je being neurologically tied to the motor-system (see comments here), and the F within Fe being tied to the motor-system too, by proxy, causing a focus on coordination of agents. What this means is that Fe is the conjunction of causality-ordering, in relation to biotic agents, executed by the motor-system.

    Greater facial muscle control and gesticulations more targeted towards “moving” agents, becomes the result of Je (as ‘mover’) being directed at agents. I think the emergent effect of this conjunction is that Fe coordinates the expression of affect. Not affect itself, but it’s expression. It coordinates the expression of affect because it’s through expression that agents are moved and managed.

    Spoiler:

    In code, this might look like: pass.order.expression(motorSystem);

    Fi, which handles living-agents through Ji, does not associate F with the motor-system, and thus does not have motor-system (and btw, face muscles are part of the motor system) control tied to agents.

    So in summary, Fe and Fi differ in that Fe is tied to the motor system and to the management/ordering of living agents. The brain then utilizes the motor-system (i.e. face muscles/arms) to coordinate the organization of agents. This does not happen in Fi users, or at least not directly. Fi/Te users can learn their own way into this, of course.

    Now, regarding emotionality, all this shows is that we can identify the functions, either Fi or Fe, by the style of emotive expression. But it doesn’t mean that Fi and Fe themselves are emotion-causing any more than other functions. They simply differ in how they manage them.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    “Anyway, since Ti is not the aspect of the oscillation that holds the ‘a priori’ of a cognitive agent, but that is allotted to the objective (Fe), this means that the Fe-Ti oscillation tends to be more inclined towards a belief in an [Other] or [Cosmos], or some externality, that is fundamentally the source of will and living qualities.”

    This seems to address my recurrent questions about my introspective tendencies. The word “externality” caught my attention. Doesn’t the above suggest that Fe could be more inclined towards an in interest in “external” cognitive (conscious?) agents while Fi could be more interested in “internal” cognitive (conscious?) agents. Couldn’t this manifest as Fe being more interested in other people and Fi being more interested in the self?

    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @Auburn, Okay, your response above makes some sense to me, but it leads to another question. If having uncoordinated emotional expression is just a result of not having Fe, then why do people with lead-Fi or conscious Fi exhibit those signals more than other people who don’t have Fe but also don’t have conscious Fi? In other words, why are the Fi signals signals of Fi and not just signals of not-Fe?

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @fayest42 — Oh, funny I was actually about to come here and edit out this bit: “In this way, you can think of the Fi situation as just not being Fe” — because I don’t think it makes sense to describe one thing as an absence of another when we don’t truly have any sense of who is the baseline. By that logic, Fe can be seen as a lack of Fi just as easily and we have no way of knowing which it is. Sorry about that. I’ve edited it out.

    But as to your question, if I’m reading the implicit argument to the question properly– I think that’s a valid point. If more Fi consciousness or higher Fi priority leads to more of a certain signal-set, that can’t be wholly explained as “sans Fe”.

    Yikes, I need to think more about this, and will get back to you. My initial thought is that, if the role of F in the Je+F conjunction is to append expression to the motor-system in a coordinated manner to shepherd agents, then maybe the role of F in the Ji+F conjunction has some other role that also manifests, uniquely in that conjunction. It doesn’t make sense that it would only contribute to the treatment of essentialist matters through a biotic/agent ‘a priori’, while not having a physiological impact or vultological outcome the way Fe does.

    It obviously does seem to have a physiological impact, in that the more Fi’s processing loop runs, the more giddy/uncoordinated/snarly the expressions get. But I don’t yet have an idea of how to construct or model this computationally. (Ideas are certainly welcome, and I’ll get back to this in the morning)

     

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (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.
Animated GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.