Fe.Fi thought

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Fe judges the individual by the benchmark of society

Fi judge society by the benchmark of the individual


I may actually have got it the wrong way round depending on whether I am right in thinking I use Fe and the people I'm thinking about are in fact using Fi. But here goes anyway.

Friend who is probably INFP

A friend has let her down - "This has shaken my faith in humanity" (this is an example from what my INFP friend actually said.)

Me
INFP's "friend" who I lived with has let us down (again) - "This person is [category E] of society and is unrepresentative of anything. She is quite simply a bitch and always was, end of. Nothing has been learned. It doesn't mean anything"
Now to make this wider.
A lot of British papers are running with "Anders Breivik means we should legislate more on right-wing groups"

A lot of readers' comments on the papers are saying the same thing

This annoys me because they are judging the category by the individual
Their philosophy
The individual has committed a horrific act and believed in "Christianity", "anti-multiculuralism" and "right-wing politics" - thus the individuals actions show that "Christianity", "anti-multiiculturalism" and "right-wing politics" are wrong and dangerous.

My philosophy
Regardless of whether I actually think these factors are dangerous, (I think the last two are, as it happens), I do not believe the individual madman's actions are representative of the group - thus teach us nothing about the three stated beliefs. To judge the category by the individual is bad logic.

Am I on to something or completely wrong?

 

[roxtehproxy]

Nope, you're intuition is correct. She may well be INFP, but all it needs is just some closure.

Consider her taking a test. If you need links, just ask me.

 

[Carola]

Just a question.
Why this behaviour is tipical of Fi in your opinion?
I understand why Fe judges the individual by the benchmark of society , but not why Fi has to do the opposite.Shouldn't Fi consider more the individual than the category? Should it consider the concpet of ''category'' just useless, or arbitrary or something like that?

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Just a question.
Why this behaviour is tipical of Fi in your opinion?
I understand why Fe judges the individual by the benchmark of society , but not why Fi has to do the opposite.Shouldn't Fi consider more the individual than the category? Should it consider the concpet of ''category'' just useless, or arbitrary or something like that?

Yeah, that was running through my mind, too. I wonder whether it has more to do with Te? I'm not sure. I'm just looking at the differences between perception and trying to decide where they'd fall in the MBTI model. There must be a different function at play there if so many people can judge society by the individual - I mean, I think that standpoint's really weird but so many people do it! The only reason I wondered if it was Fi was because I'd seen my friend do and consider her to probably use Fi - but I guess this has a certain type of logic to it maybe. Maybe it is that if people see category A (islamophobia) plus category B (massacre) they assume the two are connected - I mean, especially as the killer said they were. Of course, it's ridiculous to just believe the delusions of a psychotic, but there you go, apparently people do.

I was just wondering about it really, because I felt like I'd come up against the same strange logic twice. That the acts of one person can shake an individual's view of humanity as a whole (what?) and that people could see an individual's behaviour as being representative of a greater group. I mean, you see it in other things too. When somebody talks about race or gender and talks about specific individuals they know and assume the entire category is the same - "I knew someone who was Asian and they're like this" - you see that logic a lot. And I'm not just talking about bigotry here, that's just one example - it's the way people see logic as if the act of an individual is the act of a group. Perhaps it's Te? Perhaps it's not covered by MBTI? But it definitely is a way of processing info, so why wouldn't it be part of the theory?

What do you think? I'm just playing around with it here!

 

[roxtehproxy]

Just a question.
Why this behaviour is tipical of Fi in your opinion?
I understand why Fe judges the individual by the benchmark of society , but not why Fi has to do the opposite.Shouldn't Fi consider more the individual than the category? Should it consider the concpet of ''category'' just useless, or arbitrary or something like that?

As it suggests, Fi is internal feelings from in. It's more like morals. Fe derives all that is good relationalay, outside of you. You're values are shared, and you are constantly aware of how what you say affects others, their moods, etc etc. The reason why INFJs are called seers or healers is due to their remarkable intuition and relational capacity. You should figure out quickly whether someone is more inclined towards Fe or Fi, but the motivations take some time to pick up on.

 

[Carola]

Yeah, that was running through my mind, too. I wonder whether it has more to do with Te? I'm not sure. I'm just looking at the differences between perception and trying to decide where they'd fall in the MBTI model. There must be a different function at play there if so many people can judge society by the individual - I mean, I think that standpoint's really weird but so many people do it! The only reason I wondered if it was Fi was because I'd seen my friend do and consider her to probably use Fi - but I guess this has a certain type of logic to it maybe. Maybe it is that if people see category A (islamophobia) plus category B (massacre) they assume the two are connected - I mean, especially as the killer said they were. Of course, it's ridiculous to just believe the delusions of a psychotic, but there you go, apparently people do.

I was just wondering about it really, because I felt like I'd come up against the same strange logic twice. That the acts of one person can shake an individual's view of humanity as a whole (what?) and that people could see an individual's behaviour as being representative of a greater group. I mean, you see it in other things too. When somebody talks about race or gender and talks about specific individuals they know and assume the entire category is the same - "I knew someone who was Asian and they're like this" - you see that logic a lot. And I'm not just talking about bigotry here, that's just one example - it's the way people see logic as if the act of an individual is the act of a group. Perhaps it's Te? Perhaps it's not covered by MBTI? But it definitely is a way of processing info, so why wouldn't it be part of the theory?

What do you think? I'm just playing around with it here!

Really , to me it seems a lot a ''group logic''. I mean , as if the membres of a group must share the same exact views and behaviours.That's why i thought that wasn't acceptable by an Fi dom.
It could be related to some other function , as you sugggested.
I think that a similar inference could be done by an Fe as well , because it ''categorizes'' people and it has a greater drive to do this , i guess, for what i understoood.
I think that your INFP friend could do this because she sees her ideal of internal harmony and goodness (of Man) disappointed by the reality.

I don't know if it is right , only a thought , tell me what do you think about this.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Really , to me it seems a lot a ''group logic''. I mean , as if the membres of a group must share the same exact views and behaviours.That's why i thought that wasn't acceptable by an Fi dom.
It could be related to some other function , as you sugggested.
I think that a similar inference could be done by an Fe as well , because it ''categorizes'' people and it has a greater drive to do this , i guess, for what i understoood.
I think that your INFP friend could do this because she sees her ideal of internal harmony and goodness (of Man) disappointed by the reality.

I don't know if it is right , only a thought , tell me what do you think about this.

It does seem to be group logic. I've just been thinking that actually, when it is a behaviour like this, there are many different reasons why so it is probably that one function plus another function will lead to a similar behaviour of thought?

For instance, if you had Si and Fe you might be more us vs them maybe? Because you'd be more loyal to a group - more about "our" traditions and "our" way of life - connecting to the group as a shared unit according to shared experience? So that could produce an Us vs Them feeling?

Then perhaps Te is where you get people talking information A and information B and assuming they are connected due to the being concurrent? For instance, I read a lot that people think we should stop airbrushing models because it causes anorexia - which is blatantly untrue, though it may have an indirect effect. These people say this is true because there has been a rise in anorexia as models are further airbrushed and more thin people are in the media. In reality, it's more that info A and info B have the same root, not that one causes the other exactly, although one possibly perpetuates the other. So Ti is more likely to be logical by looking at the root and plausibly of information and whether apparent connections are actually connections or coincidences or - in this case - indirect connections rather than the direct connections other people see. So seeing two metrics (models and anorexics) apparently correlating would seem to Te to be that one causes the other but Ti would realise that there is more to it than that. So this could be why Te would see info A (massacre) and info B (right-wing views) and assume one caused the other without looking at the root?

And yes - my friend does have a strong ideal of "the goodness of man" - choosing to believe that man is essentially good but bad things happen. This has been so extreme that I've felt she is putting herself in the path of great stress through stubborn faith. So absolutely, this could be the disappointment of finding that ideal to be contradicted.

 

[Carola]

It does seem to be group logic. I've just been thinking that actually, when it is a behaviour like this, there are many different reasons why so it is probably that one function plus another function will lead to a similar behaviour of thought?

For instance, if you had Si and Fe you might be more us vs them maybe? Because you'd be more loyal to a group - more about "our" traditions and "our" way of life - connecting to the group as a shared unit according to shared experience? So that could produce an Us vs Them feeling?

Then perhaps Te is where you get people talking information A and information B and assuming they are connected due to the being concurrent? For instance, I read a lot that people think we should stop airbrushing models because it causes anorexia - which is blatantly untrue, though it may have an indirect effect. These people say this is true because there has been a rise in anorexia as models are further airbrushed and more thin people are in the media. In reality, it's more that info A and info B have the same root, not that one causes the other exactly, although one possibly perpetuates the other. So Ti is more likely to be logical by looking at the root and plausibly of information and whether apparent connections are actually connections or coincidences or - in this case - indirect connections rather than the direct connections other people see. So seeing two metrics (models and anorexics) apparently correlating would seem to Te to be that one causes the other but Ti would realise that there is more to it than that. So this could be why Te would see info A (massacre) and info B (right-wing views) and assume one caused the other without looking at the root?

And yes - my friend does have a strong ideal of "the goodness of man" - choosing to believe that man is essentially good but bad things happen. This has been so extreme that I've felt she is putting herself in the path of great stress through stubborn faith. So absolutely, this could be the disappointment of finding that ideal to be contradicted.

Yes , i agree with what you wrote.
Then why so many people use the kind of generalization you were taking about , i don't know.
It could be related to the S as well : i don't mean that Sensors are stupid , i mean that it could be that people in general are disinterested to the deep roots and more likely to be interested to facts as they are.
(this could as well be reversed : the N is more likely to do inferences with less proofs in the exernal reality so even if it is more likely to go behind the apparence , it could as well draw prejudicial conclusions ). But that's again an hypothesis.

(sorry for my english , it is not so good , i hope it is understandable without problems however).

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Yes , i agree with what you wrote.
Then why so many people use the kind of generalization you were taking about , i don't know.
It could be related to the S as well : i don't mean that Sensors are stupid , i mean that it could be that people in general are disinterested to the deep roots and more likely to be interested to facts as they are.
(this could as well be reversed : the N is more likely to do inferences with less proofs in the exernal reality so even if it is more likely to go behind the apparence , it could as well draw prejudicial conclusions ). But that's again an hypothesis.

(sorry for my english , it is not so good , i hope it is understandable without problems however).

No, I think you're right. I think prejudice could come from Ni as well, as it goes by knee jerk reactions. Perhaps if Ti is strong enough against Ni then it cancels out any broad generalisations (because they are usually illogical and Ti does not like inconsistencies in logic).

You're English is fine! I understand everything you're saying

 

[grt$5vb]

My INFP beau reminds me not to make generalizations, actually, and his Fe is highly developed, where I score almost equal percentages in Fi and Fe. *shrugs*

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

Fe judges the individual by the benchmark of society

Fi judge society by the benchmark of the individual

yep, that's the core of it!

i see no more subjective function than Fi - that's why INFPs and INFJs are so different! (i recommend not looking at J or P, but at the difference of the functions). Ni is not subjective, 'cause Ni does not know if the unconscious stream of perception is his and what should be his, and since it's a perceiving function, on what basis would a Ni-person take a stand in the name of the subject? (Fe would counter-act the individualized subject).

if a Fi-dominant person is not aware of this highly subjective approach, he or she will be prone to generalize...
on the other hand Fe-dominant persons will give in too easily when society constructs roles, standards, norms for people.

flowing on the stream of unconscious perception and looking to comply with roles, infjs have an ever evaporating sense of self, as opposed to infps (they can doubt the self or look for a deeper understanding of it, but they have a basis, which Ni-firsts do not have). why can infjs stubbornly follow their path? cause unconscious perception attracts them like a torch in a black night. it looks like it's their path, but quite often, it's the path of their perception only, and this is frequently a mix of something of their own and something coming from the outer world... and it's not clear, what exactly is mine and what is not.

 

[Morgain]

I think that your INFP friend could do this because she sees her ideal of internal harmony and goodness (of Man) disappointed by the reality.
QUOTE]

I think this is the case with your INFP friend. It is not that she judges whole society by the actions of one person. It is more that her deep internal believe in the goodness of man is disappointed by reality which gives her a really hard time to trust in humanity again. At least that would be the case for me. I would never judge a person by predjudice or first impression. Although it can seem like I do on the outside, internally I always keep an open mind and are willing to re-evaluate my opinion on a person based on new information. So it happens that I have a general opinion about a group of people based on information of others but on the insight I'm always open to change my view on individuals of that group when my own experience proves I was wrong. But I will never make a definate decission on someone.

And yes - my friend does have a strong ideal of "the goodness of man" - choosing to believe that man is essentially good but bad things happen. This has been so extreme that I've felt she is putting herself in the path of great stress through stubborn faith. So absolutely, this could be the disappointment of finding that ideal to be contradicted.

what is so wrong about having faith in mankind? I think it is essential to have faith or see a purpose in life because without life gets really depressing.
I believe man is essentially good and does what he can do live a good life but this doesn't always turn out to be good for everybody. If you look close to "bad things that happen", in most cases the bad person thought he was doing a good thing. I could try to be a good person but you can never do good for everybody so bad things will always happen...