- Type: FiNe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
A few things come to mind as we try to figure this out:
First of all, I wonder if there are any “Fi” signals that actually appear equally often in all types with have Fi regardless of its priority or development? Is a snarling smile like this?
Another thing to note is that the Fi signals are related to emotion, but not all the different types of emotion. They’re pretty much limited to disgust and happiness, which does seem to make sense with the psychological idea that Fi is telling the user what they like and what they don’t like. I think the idea of Fi either pinging the emotional register or at least activating the emotional register incidentally by thinking about what it likes and what it doesn’t like may be correct. But that may not be unique to the F functions. As you said above, all the functions probably influence emotions and are influenced by emotions (the Pe perk-up is probably related to surprise). So that’s no reason to think that Fi people are any more emotional than anyone else (just for reference, I want to note that I don’t actually consider myself unemotional – I can be quite emotional. My reason for previously considering myself a thinking type rather than a feeling type was not because of a lack of emotion, but because I don’t value feelings as a way of making decisions. I only consider reasons based on logic to be valid for making decisions – which, btw, I am learning is probably not the healthiest or best stance, but that is my default state that I’m trying now to work against to some extent.)
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.
Yes, values are way too broad, but I guess he meant ethical values? Which would also be too broad if I understand it correctly that all J-functions are ethical functions with T being the logical inclined of these.
It seams to me then that all J-functions care for life, some just in an indirect way or in a way where the consequences are more important than how to get there. Further, it seams to me that T tend to be more utilitaristic where F will find it too cynical to sacrifice someone’s well being for the benefit of the many. It would be interesting to see how T and F would react to ‘The Trolley Problem’
Would T kill the fat man?Spoiler:
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by sekundaer.
- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
Ahahaha, I LOVE the trolley problem and many of the variations I saw !
I would honestly not have the determination and courage to attempt to push a fat man on the line. That’s too bloody and dangerous.
But there is also this other version of the trolley problem (I think this is the original one) :
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
If I had all the necessary info and there were no other factors involved (like the person on the side track being a friend or an important person whose contribution to society matters a lot) – I think I’d pull the lever. And even if I did not, I believe this IS the ethical solution. So, if the one person on the side track was someone I cared for, I would NOT pull the lever but I would know I did not take the ethical decision and I would think I am directly responsible for the other 5 people’s deaths.
I actually know many people think the ethical decision is not to pull the lever, because that’s murder (as it involves an action that leads to a person’s death). I guess it’s all about how much agency we think we have. If we start from the view point – who am I to decide, only God or fate can decide !- the answer is to let the train run over the 5 people on the lines. If we start from the view point – I am here, hence I must make the best decision for everyone involved, it is my duty to do so, because I am in the position to decide – the decision will be to pull the lever.
So, it depends a lot on personal faith in God and its particular shape and even more on faith in oneself, that one can know what is the best solution (and actually looking at it closely, one can not know, maybe one of the 5 people tied to the lines is a mass murderer, hence the decision to save those 5 was the worst one. Furthermore maybe this mass murderer will kill a politician who is allowing companies to destroy forests, which ultimately would lead to climatic imbalances that would cause famine and death of hundreds, so then, looking back, pulling the lever was actually the right decision but…etc.).
We never know exactly which is the right choice, but still there is the possibility to accept the burden of duty and the associated risks and to say yes, I will do what I think is the best in this given situation, because my hand is on this lever :)), so I am CALLED to choose and with my limited knowledge and expertise on life and death :p and in complete darkness, not seeing a trace of the future, I believe 5 lives are better than one, may God forgive me if I am wrong. I honestly think that’s better than brushing it off with an excuse like God chose to kill those 5 people and spare this one on the side track or it’s not my responsibility to direct this train, why don’t the authorities solve this issue etc.
Of course, we are just talking hypothetically, as in reality we could become too stressed or overwhelmed to do anything.
And regarding Te vs Fi, because I diverged a bit, I think my view is based on both. Simply because I felt myself Ji gesticulate while thinking about it. :))) It looks like it’s only Te utilitarianism, but I think it’s both.
Regarding Fi signals
Another thing to note is that the Fi signals are related to emotion, but not all the different types of emotion. They’re pretty much limited to disgust and happiness, which does seem to make sense with the psychological idea that Fi is telling the user what they like and what they don’t like. I think the idea of Fi either pinging the emotional register or at least activating the emotional register incidentally by thinking about what it likes and what it doesn’t like may be correct.
I think so too. It seems correct to me.
Also, I think Fi might be more connected to fear and shame and Te to anger and indignation. And I don’t suggest this has anything to do with Enneagram, as I really don’t know enough about Enneagram to express a relevant opinion, but generally Te steamrolling goes well with anger and some Fi signals seem connected to bashfulness. I know this is just me and I’m not even Te conscious, so not a great example, but when I go in Te mode, my general anxiety and feelings of shame tend to decrease and what is fueled is anger and the sense of justice or rather indignation when I sense injustice. There is also a certain state of amusement, often with the temptation to be sarcastic. They usually get all packed together when I modulate Te.
So, I don’t think Te is unemotional, but rather that it tends to be connected to a different set of emotions than Fi.
But then when I use the word “emotional” in a colloquial way, I will rather associate it to Fi than Te. 🙂
We could also try to see in which cases Fi users show their heavy Fi signals and what they are saying while doing it. Because my impression is we tend to show more Fi signals when we are indeed pinging our emotional register but I haven’t done a serious research about it, it’s just an impression and I could be wrong.
You guys said many other very interesting things and I will come back to them these days, I have to go to sleep now.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Bera.
- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
@fayest42 Coming back around to this, there are a few things which might be of note.
First of all, I wonder if there are any “Fi” signals that actually appear equally often in all types with have Fi regardless of its priority or development?
This was also where my thoughts are going now too.
Or perhaps a different way I’d phrase it is: “If we take away manifested emotionality as an positive indicator of higher Fi priority, does that violate what we know of types or complement it?”
I’ve been thinking hard on this question, and my conclusion thus far is that if emotionality itself (like, emotional amplitude) is not directly part of Fi’s metabolism, but instead uncoordinated emotional expression is, then Fi-leads would be uncoordinated just like all Fi types, but not necessarily any more emotional than them.
But if emotionality is part of Fi, then Fi-leads’s would be more emotionally expressive, and not just uncoordinated. Fortunately this is testable.
If emotionality itself is not part of Fi, the difference between Fi-leads and other Fi users would be that Fi-leads would have Ji’s delicacy, poise and meticulousness alongside the uncoordinated emotional expression.
Emotionality in Fi Users
Reframed this way, I actually have to revise what I said before. I don’t know if Fi-leads have the most emotional expressivity, nor even the most volume of signals of Fi. If we are counting Fi signals by instances (say, instances of mouth wobblings, snarls, contempt signals, etc) then I actually don’t think Fi-leads are the clear winners. I think we can check this, but from memory, I suspect PeFi‘s may be the most animate ones and I think this may be due to how PeFi’s are more abundant in their energy.
There has generally been some talk about how PeFi’s are more emotional than FiPe’s, all things being equal, due to how Pe is a much more animate process than Ji. I think @ivory even suggested that Se may be the real ‘feeling’ process, in the normal sense of the word due to sensation causing feelings, and while I disagree with that framing, the notion that Pe would trigger more emotion, due to its enthusiasm towards life and contact with information by immersion, does not seem strange to me.
Oppositely, the J (esp. Ji) functions generally seem reserved or at least decisive, rather than sporadic. So the already sporadic energy of a Pe-lead, combined with Fi, might lead to the most uncoordinated expressivity. Perhaps PeFi’s are the ones that are most “overflowing with emotion”, all things being equal, because of this Pe bubbling momentum + unbridled radiation combo.
A quick look at the SeFi’s and NeFi’s in the database, compared to the FiSe’s and FiNe’s, really shows me that the PeFi’s are far more emotional, in the expressive sense (we can say little about subjective experience).
And the other thing we also see is that Te-leads, even Te l— types that would presumably have Fi as the least developed process, are also quite emotional . TeNi l— Ben Shapiro & TeNi l-l- Camille Paglia show an abundance of asymmetrical mouth expressions, wobbly lips, etc, and they have no conscious development of their polar Fi.
So, overall I do see support for the idea that a person’s level of emotionality is a separate topic than their Fi’s hierarchical position. Instead, the vultology of an Fi-lead is that of an uncoordinated expression of emotion (however much emotion they have) funneled through a Ji-lead vultology.
I’m still teasing apart all the implications of this, and making sure it’s representative of reality from all angles. Curious to know what you guys think.
- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
Higher F Priority’s connection to Emotionality, vs Ethics
Having said the above, I do have to make a distinction here between what F does add, in terms of behavior, versus what it may or may not add in terms of emotionality (i.e. emotional amplitude). I think the two topics have to be decoupled but also compared.
F priority does still generally link up to more preoccupation with topics that content with, or infringe upon, the life-principle, and topics which generally relate to ethics, animals, humans. But I think this is cognitive in origin.
Now, does a more cognitive preoccupation with topics related to biotic/agents ….lead to more emotional affect in a person? Perhaps. But not always. We see a lot of NiFe philosophers (Carl Jung, Humberto Maturana, etc) and FeSi academics (Yuval Harari, Alain De Botton) which are concerned with topics of ethics, and do great work in validating the implicit ontological reality they see. But this does not make them more emotional than other people.
On the other hand, preoccupation with ethical topics can certainly lead to empathy and pain being felt at the suffering of people, animals and the world. The “bleeding heart” syndrome. However, I think this requires a predisposition towards “sensitivity to emotional pain” (i.e. high neuroticism) to begin with. And such a person would feel life more painfully in general. I think heightened emotionality is more closely allied to higher neuroticism than to anything else. And higher neuroticism is partially identifiable by degree of flat affect.
So if there’s anything in CT that might predict the level of emotional affect/pain a person may feel, I think it’s flat affect. And higher F priority really appears to be cognitive in nature to me. High F priority is capable of producing academics who are very level headed, but who spend their career/life champion the values that nevertheless emerge from their F’s ontological priority.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
- Type: SeTi
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Directive
I think this has already been touched on to an extent, but I think that the description of Fi as “uncoordinated emotional expression” isn’t actually that descriptive. The term irrational has the same problem, it only says what perception is not, not what it is. Saying a type of emotional expression is not coordinated isn’t a complete description either. Coordinated emotional expression seems to appropriately combine Je and F, so I would expect that a solid definition of Fi would appropriately combine Ji and F. By combining Ji and F, I would expect a good definition of F to be something along the lines of “nuanced, precise or exact emotional expression”. I think this definition also covers the “compressed” aspect of the introverted functions. Come to think of it, I think that “coordinated emotional expression” only really captures the conductive nature of Fe, but not its decompressed nature.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Supah Protist.
@Bera Yes, it’s a more appropriate version of the Trolley problem you present. Maybe your very careful attention to all the facets of the problem where you look at every little possibility of pain for all the involved, now and in the future, is empathy at work in Fi. I can almost imagine that a psychophysical measurement would have shown emotional arousal while contemplating the different outcomes, not least because you tell that you were Ji-gesticulating while thinking about it. Maybe this is part of the difference between Fi and Ti cognition. I certainly be emotional about it in real life, but presented with the Trolley Problem, i sort of turn down my empathy to “see clear”. Therefore the Fat Man version is not a problem for me because in principle they are just the same (I know they are not, as a lot could go wrong throwing a person on the trails). I think the difference in our spontaneous reaction to this test is significant. We come to the same conclusion but yours are more heartfelt, where I dissociate from feelings. But this is just while making the decision. Seeing the bloodbath afterwards, I would cry as deeply as you.
- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
Yes, it’s a more appropriate version of the Trolley problem you present. Maybe your very careful attention to all the facets of the problem where you look at every little possibility of pain for all the involved, now and in the future, is empathy at work in Fi. I can almost imagine that a psychophysical measurement would have shown emotional arousal while contemplating the different outcomes, not least because you tell that you were Ji-gesticulating while thinking about it. Maybe this is part of the difference between Fi and Ti cognition. I certainly be emotional about it in real life, but presented with the Trolley Problem, i sort of turn down my empathy to “see clear”. Therefore the Fat Man version is not a problem for me because in principle they are just the same (I know they are not, as a lot could go wrong throwing a person on the trails). I think the difference in our spontaneous reaction to this test is significant. We come to the same conclusion but yours are more heartfelt, where I dissociate from feelings. But this is just while making the decision. Seeing the bloodbath afterwards, I would cry as deeply as you.
Yes, I think I used Fi (empathizing and thinking about the details ) but then also Te, as in the end the choice was utilitarian. So I need to take it all through Fi’s filter and then also activate Te to determine which appears to be the most efficient choice. Now, at this point, the “emotional valve” obviously closes, I need to cut off emotional permeability and simply think in numbers. This is actually my point in this whole thread. 🙂
So, the moment I would draw the lever, I would be modulating Te and I would not ping my emotional register the way I’d do it when modulating Fi. Te simply excludes emotional permeability to a certain – pretty high :)) – degree and emotional permeability excludes purely utilitarian thinking. We use both Fi and Te at the same time or rather there are little jumps from one to the other – the hands going forward with force and then turning back and folding. But at the moment of the hit, we are not in an emotional permeability state or we would not be able to do the hit.
Now the hit lasts only some seconds and then the person can go back to Fi but that is a moment in which you can’t be “vulnerable“, for lack of a better word and that vulnerability, which is connected to emotional permeability, gets closed off – this is a mechanical process and I have great difficulty imagining it happening in any other way, as it would not really work, how can I deeply empathize while imposing my views on someone? :))) How can I do sassy emphasis while leaving space for vulnerability??? I can not…simply, mechanically, biologically, however we want to frame it. If I did, I would return to Fi in a fraction of a second and my gestures would stop being Te gestures !
This doesn’t mean you stop having Fi values. Did you see Ben Shapiro talk about abortion?? He was defending an Fi value, but while shaking his head and being sarcastic. So, even though the fight was for an Fi value, at that particular time (and in his case actually all the time :)) ) he was NOT emotionally permeable…because, in my opinion, one can’t do both at the exact same time. Or at least, it is not the default way that Fi-Te users are functioning.
Of course, I could be wrong and I am pretty sure I am simplifying something that has far more complexity to it. This is why I believe what should be followed is not as much who has what functions developed but what the person is saying at each given moment and their emotional state (which actually CAN be seen or at least approximated well enough) coupled with the signals being displayed. Cause if the person is saying “I am emotive, creative, shy “ while displaying Fi signals vs. “the facts clearly show you are wrong” while displaying Te signals, it means in the first case Fi is activated and in the second Te is activated. 🙂 😛 And it means that Fi IS connected to the emotional register. 🙂 Or at least that it is tied to the emotional register in a different way than Te (because I can see Te as easily displaying anger, so it could be more correct to say Fi is pinging for certain emotional responses and Te for others !!! Or Fi is doing the pinging but Te is better at displaying a certain part of the emotional spectrum.
But this is not the same as saying Ben Shapiro is very emotional. At least when in full on Te mode, he is closing off a huge chunk of emotions (especially fear) to do what he is doing and only a certain part of them remains open – basically the part that is useful for Te purposes – mainly anger, but also some excitement…but emotional pain is diminished A LOT, direct unprocessed empathy is turned down…And the opposite is also true, in Fi state anger is blocked out. You can be angry but you will use Te to express anger or burst into tears and run, which is not a proper anger reaction and shows…not super developed Te that will first steamroll the adversary and then maybe cry. Tears of joy. :)))
BUT I do think Fi has the possibility to somehow go above itself to a place that is closer to what Ji is described as. And maybe this is where the confusion is actually coming from; this state should be studied more. I am describing what is happening between Fi and Te, when going from one to the other…but in some cases Fi might simply purify itself so much that it reaches a point in which it is simply closer to…just Ji. I don’t know what that looks like vultologically and if in this place there is still a very close connection to the emotional register or not, I believe there is, but I could be wrong.
“…how can I deeply empathize while imposing my views on someone? :))) How can I do sassy emphasis while leaving space for vulnerability?”
I guess two “parts”, two sub-personalities that are opposites – in this case Fi and Te – can be seen as thesis and antithesis and if there is no synthesis, then one is stuck in either one part OR in the conflict between them. But if water is thought of as a synthesis of C and O, water do not have to speculate if it should C or O, just like it seems that people who have integrated Fi and Te are not split between them anymore. Think of Richard Dawkins or Britt Marling who I think are examples of people who might have reached integration. I use this opportunity to mention that I do not think that developing both functions in a pair is the endpoint – contrary it might be the starting point of a very difficult time (It has been mentioned sometimes on the forum, and it is a common experience with people in therapy). And from here starts the work to integrate what has become conscious (hopefully). Integration could hardly start before, but some are so lucky that development comes little by little, together with stepwise integration. (Btw, how to use power and at the same time keep the hearth open and take care of other people’s feelings is such an universel task- so it cannot be a task just for Fi-Te users, but that’s another subject)
Maybe Dawkins is not a good example, maybe he is too Te’ish, Britt Marling however have Fi’ish Te-movements, by which I mean rather soft and gentle, showing consideration. But I know people, maybe like Dawkins, I cannot think of a good example right now, who are very outright when they deliver their opinion, out of care they lovingly hit you right between the eyes.
I wonder if the integration I am requesting will happen alongside Fi and Ti “purify itself so much that it reaches a point in which it is simply closer to…just Ji” ?
“Did you see Ben Shapiro talk about abortion?? He was defending an Fi value, but while shaking his head and being sarcastic”
No, but I heard him play the violin 🙂 That was interesting as he brings his sassiness into his special and a bit rigid interpretation of the compositions.
“…one can’t do both at the exact same time. Or at least, it is not the default way that Fi-Te users are functioning”
Do you think that it is so that there is a bigger split for Fi-Te than Fe-ti? So that it is almost a compartmentalizing? It could seem to me as if there is, it seems to me that Fi women I have known almost dissociate from their F sometimes, but they do not seem to have a problem with it – I do.
“It means that Fi IS connected to the emotional register. 🙂 Or at least that it is tied to the emotional register in a different way than Te”
Let’s say that the Ti-Fe users would also become more Ti while saying ” I am emotive, creative and shy” (which I think they would), then it’s not so much about F or T, but I vs E. And surely the Ti-Fe user would also be more Fe when telling another “You are wrong!”.
“…emotional pain is diminished A LOT, direct unprocessed empathy is turned down”
I have just seen the interview with Mary Trump where she told that her Te-uncle has been forced to do so with his pain and empathy by his father.
You bring very good arguments for emotions being tied to Fi! It makes so much sense that it is – and at the same time it makes so much sense that it isn’t.
Just want to add that I do not claim to have knowledge about development/integration of CT functions (which it could seem like if I did in the above) but I have many years of experience working with sub-personalities, and since uncovering opposites to conscious parts of our psyche (‘shadows’) and working on the integration of these follow a pattern that seem common to most people, I assume that opposites from the CT palette and their integration will follow the same pattern. (I haven’t yet observed clear examples of work with specific oscillation pairs in sessions, maybe because I just haven’t looked at it trough that lens)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.