Fi and authenticity

Wyote said:
(lol)
ac65f73752c194652d21d8cdb08114d9.gif
Click to expand...
Lmao
 
Honey said:
In my daily working life I meet a lot of XXFP types. I rarely find any of them genuine. All the people who I think are deeply fake and hypocritical is usually some sort of Fi type, especially XSFPs. Very often they seem to have values that many other people would consider warped/immoral or downright selfish but many Fi types seem to think that these same values make them "real" or something.

Would someone explain to me how Fi in MBTI came to be so closely aligned to genuineness and authenticity? I honestly just don't see or get it.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is is not symptomatic of the normal behaviour of mature people with Fi at primary or secondary and who have good conscious control of it. In my experience it comes from people with Fi lower down the stack and who allow uncontrolled value judgements to contaminate their main functions. We all have value convictions regardless of our type and they can be immature and extremely black and white when they are accessed only partially consciously - this often takes the form of odd dogmatic assertions dressed up as logic or observation.
 
John K said:
I suspect this is is not symptomatic of the normal behaviour of mature people with Fi at primary or secondary and who have good conscious control of it. In my experience it comes from people with Fi lower down the stack and who allow uncontrolled value judgements to contaminate their main functions. We all have value convictions regardless of our type and they can be immature and extremely black and white when they are accessed only partially consciously - this often takes the form of odd dogmatic assertions dressed up as logic or observation.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this mean that people with even less conscious control of Fi are even more vulnerable to this kind of 'inauthenticity'?
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Wouldn't this mean that people with even less conscious control of Fi are even more vulnerable to this kind of 'inauthenticity'?
Click to expand...
Definitely. When it’s out of control it’s as obviously as inauthentic as shadow Ti, which at least has some redeeming comedy about it. That doesn’t mean someone is deliberately faking it, just that it’s not their strong point, but they don’t see that themselves.
 
Be around long enough and you will see it all regardless of type or function as humanity can be pretty low these days as ever especially when there is greed or fear involved. For me personally the socials are some of the worst lacking empathy be it for other people or animals.
 
John K said:
I suspect this is is not symptomatic of the normal behaviour of mature people with Fi at primary or secondary and who have good conscious control of it. In my experience it comes from people with Fi lower down the stack and who allow uncontrolled value judgements to contaminate their main functions. We all have value convictions regardless of our type and they can be immature and extremely black and white when they are accessed only partially consciously - this often takes the form of odd dogmatic assertions dressed up as logic or observation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply and that of all the others.

These people in life who are causing me to question Fi and authenticity are most definitely XXFP types who I have been around for a long time. I currently work in an area that calls for very heavy use of extroverted sensing and so I work with mostly XSFPs and to a much lesser extent, XSTPs. It is a very inharmonious, contentious, high conflict environment because they all want to just be "bitchy" and do their own thing I have observed.

Generally, I actually do not like dealing with Fi types and I have made no secret of that and I will not make any politically correct declaration or excuses about that either. The ideal to me is being able to balance the needs of others and your own needs but few get to that point and Fi bothers me because it often is accompanied by intense selfishness in the same way Fe can be bothersome for the reverse. I find it easier to deal with this potential Fe weaknesses than potential Fi weaknesses.

It is just this idea of Fi being authentic that is concerning me a bit because I honestly just do not see this most of the time and I do not think authenticity is really related to Fi. They have internal values but most people have some sort of internal values. In general, I have met more authentic XXTPs, especially IXTPs. This is not to say that I have not met any Fi type that I consider authentic or lacking in selflessness but usually I do not see that in them despite their other strengths which I might get into in another thread when I am not so busy.
 
Fi types that I am around tend to be firm and consistent in one matter only...soon or immediately after first meeting you, they seem to decide whether they like you or not based on the system they use to judge others. They will then stick to this and treat you accordingly no matter what. You can treat them like shit or like a god and they will stick to their initial feeling about you for a very long time or permanently it seems. Fe types, I think are more fluid/dynamic in how they feel about a person and if they detect that you are not what they first thought, then they will shift their feelings and opinion of you far more quickly. Fi types even if they do not know about MBTI tend to easily spot other Fi types and usually immediately like them and dislike Fe types.

I think in socionics they consider Fi "internal static of feelings" or some such thing and Fe dynamic feelings and I agree with this though socionics is a somewhat different system.
 
Honey said:
Generally, I actually do not like dealing with Fi types and I have made no secret of that and I will not make any politically correct declaration or excuses about that either.
Click to expand...
I can understand that though I don't share your experience. The closest I can relate to it is by comparing my own reaction to being in predominantly Sensor company. Essentially it overloads me and I need to withdraw frequently. It isn't just a straight fatigue, because S types bond with each other very powerfully socially and give each other strokes that reinforce the group. I am forever excluded from these either because I can't play their game competently, or because it takes too much effort to sustain for long. I'm OK with mixed groups of sensors and intuitives, but I'm very much the bottom of the social pecking order with sensor dominated groups and it's emotionally a disaster zone for me. I just withdraw as quickly as I can. I don't have this problem at all with T dominated groups and can live indefinitely with them, though I tire far more quickly than I do in groups with a good NF representation.
 
John K said:
I can understand that though I don't share your experience. The closest I can relate to it is by comparing my own reaction to being in predominantly Sensor company. Essentially it overloads me and I need to withdraw frequently. It isn't just a straight fatigue, because S types bond with each other very powerfully socially and give each other strokes that reinforce the group. I am forever excluded from these either because I can't play their game competently, or because it takes too much effort to sustain for long. I'm OK with mixed groups of sensors and intuitives, but I'm very much the bottom of the social pecking order with sensor dominated groups and it's emotionally a disaster zone for me. I just withdraw as quickly as I can. I don't have this problem at all with T dominated groups and can live indefinitely with them, though I tire far more quickly than I do in groups with a good NF representation.
Click to expand...

I hear you on the sensor company matter. I do prefer to work with certain sensors than I do with certain NF types in general though and it took me quite a long while and experience to realise this. My closest friends/colleagues all have at least two functions in common with me. I do not yet know how an INFJ can survive happily in the company of sensors. I do not even know how a typical INFJ can happily survive and prosper in either the eastern or western world. XNFPs far outnumber XNFJs and even on this forum, it has long seemed to me to be the case so I do not come here as much.

In the workplace, generally I find if you are very, very good at your work and sort of helpful to them sensors will kind of leave you alone or even respect you even though I think they will probably not really understand who you are and might even be wary of you. Extroverted sensing plays a huge under-handed sort of role in my life unfortunately and I am actually only really happy in a working environment were extroverted sensing is at work in some way at the moment so I cannot easily avoid sensors.
 
Well first off ExFPs are probably less authentic than IxFPs.

But I really would need to know the situation and how you're defining authenticity to answer. I suspect what might be happening is Fi users with a larger system of values being forced to choose between them and shutting down, but I dunno.
 
John K said:
I can understand that though I don't share your experience. The closest I can relate to it is by comparing my own reaction to being in predominantly Sensor company. Essentially it overloads me and I need to withdraw frequently. It isn't just a straight fatigue, because S types bond with each other very powerfully socially and give each other strokes that reinforce the group. I am forever excluded from these either because I can't play their game competently, or because it takes too much effort to sustain for long. I'm OK with mixed groups of sensors and intuitives, but I'm very much the bottom of the social pecking order with sensor dominated groups and it's emotionally a disaster zone for me. I just withdraw as quickly as I can. I don't have this problem at all with T dominated groups and can live indefinitely with them, though I tire far more quickly than I do in groups with a good NF representation.
Click to expand...

I am with @acd into not taking this thread seriously, so derailing a bit...

I did some search about type and friendships... Havent posted it yet... I ended up with hundreds of people in total. In general, the overall pattern is that intuitives tend to not mark sensors as their best friends. All search is intuitive biased through net, so I had some sensors that were more like borderline N/S than really sensors that created a mix, but in the sensors side there is some sensor dominance on the best friend list too.

I had also perceived that Extraverted Sensors, in average, tends to be more Extraverted than their Extraverted Intuitive counterpart. Taking into account countries in general, with a few exceptions such as Japan, have 60-80% of sensors in general, I would explain that with the friendship "research": ENs in general have a harder time getting friends than ESs in general, because they are less compatible with general environment.

So what happens to you is pretty normal in one extend or another, I dont think there is much to do. Oh, here it is the result of the search I had done for INFJ (and since you identify yourself today as enneagram 5 it is worth to consider the INTJ one as well):
Most common type in INFJs friends/best friends list (based on several "[INFJ] What is your best friend?" threads among several different websites/forums):
1 - ENFP (14%)
2 – Another INFJ (14%)
3 - ISFJ (12%)
Click to expand...

Most common type in INTJs friends/best friends list (based on several "[INTJ] What is your best friend?" threads among several different websites/forums):
1 - INTP (22%)
2 – Another INTJ (18%)
3 - ENTP/INFJ (15%)
Click to expand...
 
Vendrah said:
I am with @acd into not taking this thread seriously, so derailing a bit...
Click to expand...
It’s not helpful to describe any type in as intrinsically flawed - in fact it’s ironic that to describe Fi users as inauthentic is itself a very strong Fi value judgement. Inevitably this leads to irritation and some value judgment reactions.

Behind the container in which the thought was expressed there is an important idea - that each type has difficulty relating to some of the other types, and that is simply a feature of the way the functions interact with each other. Once we filter out any idea of culpability then understanding this can be helpful in shaping the way we relate to others. It’s symmetric too so each type will present in ways that at least some of the others cannot relate to and seems flawed to them. I’m sure Fe appears inauthentic to some T and Fi users for example because it often sacrifices the objective or ethically best outcome for peace within a community. T can appear cruel and heartless.

Understanding the rationale behind each of the functions and how each of them carry their own strengths and weaknesses helps us to become more tolerant of each other, and to become aware of our own blind spots. Personally I don’t dislike sensors and admire many of the things they are and do - I find the company of certain undiluted sensor types intolerable for long, but that’s just nature and nobody’s fault. One of them would probably struggle in the company of undiluted intuitives.

Your analysis of best friend type is interesting and bears all this out. I could be friendly with a strong ESxJ in short bursts but we could never be best friends and spend a lot of time in each other’s company. I had to go on an overseas business trip once with a group predominantly of this type and I was shattered after 5 days!
 
All this against Fi is just ridiculous though I agree wholeheartedly against sensors and I have some real loathing towards extroverts but come on Fe types can be pretty bad in their own right especially those who will do anything to be part of the group even if it meant kicking the dog just to get a laugh out of the group. Really I despise the mental and emotional gymnastics people are put through these days as all the toxic social shit is taking a toll on society. The days where there was some middle ground for people in general are as dead as the American dream and the dream of western prosperity but God damn why do people have to be like this.
 
Sir Jung rummaged in the coffin and wanted to share his own opinion about this issue:

Carl Jung said:
[272] His observation that the introvert’s love of pleasure is “genuine”
seems to me important. This appears to be a peculiarity of introverted
feeling in general: it is genuine because it is there of itself, rooted in the
man’s deeper nature; it wells up out of itself, having itself as its own aim;
it will serve no other ends, lending itself to none, and is content to be an
end in itself. This hangs together with the spontaneity of any archaic and
natural phenomenon that has never yet bowed to the ends and aims of
civilization. Rightly or wrongly, or at any rate without regard to right or
wrong, suitability or unsuitability, the affective state bursts out, forcing
itself on the subject even against his will and expectation. There is nothing
about it that suggests a calculated motivation.
Click to expand...

Just to give context to my quotation, Jung was analyzing Jordan typing (a typist prior to Jung), and here are the paragraphs before and after:
271 Let us suppose that Jordan himself is on the side of the introverts. It
would then be intelligible that a description like the one he gives of his
opposite number with such pitiless severity would hardly have suited his
book. I would not say from lack of objectivity, but rather from lack of
knowledge of his own shadow. The introvert cannot possibly know or
imagine how he appears to his opposite type unless he allows the extravert
to tell him to his face, at the risk of having to challenge him to a duel. For
as little as the extravert is disposed to accept Jordan’s description as an
amiable and apposite picture of his character is the introvert inclined to let
his picture be painted by an extraverted observer and critic. The one would
be as depreciatory as the other. Just as the introvert who tries to get hold of
the nature of the extravert invariably goes wide of the mark, so the
extravert who tries to understand the other’s inner life from the standpoint
of externality is equally at sea. The introvert makes the mistake of always
wanting to derive the other’s actions from the subjective psychology of the
extravert, while the extravert can conceive the other’s inner life only as a
consequence of external circumstances. For the extravert an abstract train
of thought must be a fantasy, a sort of cerebral mist, when no relation to an
object is in evidence. And as a matter of fact the introvert’s brain-weavings
are often nothing more. At all events a lot more could be said of the
introverted man, and one could draw a shadow portrait of him no less
complete and no less unfavourable than the one Jordan drew of the
extravert.
[272]
273
I do not wish to discuss the remaining chapters of Jordan’s book. He
cites historical personalities as examples, presenting numerous distorted
points of view which all derive from the fallacy already referred to, of
introducing the criterion of active and passive and mixing it up with the
other criteria. This leads to the frequent conclusion that an active
personality must be reckoned a passionless type and, conversely, that a
passionate nature must be passive. I seek to avoid this error by excluding
the factor of activity as a criterion altogether.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Psychological types, chapter IV. The cognitive functions chapter is chapter X, Jung is weird in writing about introverted feeling before he introduces introverted feeling.
 
I've found the scariest people I know are male Fi doms. Especially the INFP men. They scare me so so much. One of them joined a cult to "sanctify" his soul. Another talked about dropping a nuke on America because "everyone is complicit: nobody is innocent". Yet another literally worships his own values by keeping a blog about them, sending it out to people and then scolding anyone that doesn't recognize his "superiority".

All of them make decisions based on whether it "feels right". And all of them have admitted that they are "absolute" in their moral judgements. Its scary because these men remind me of zealots and extremists. In fact, that's what they are, and its impossible to change them. I'm not saying all INFP's are like this, but the ones I know are.
 
Last edited:
Aaron Thyne said:
I've found the scariest people I know are male Fi doms. Especially the INFP men. They scare me so so much. One of them joined a cult to "sanctify" his soul. Another talked about dropping a nuke on America because "everyone is complicit: nobody is innocent". Yet another literally worships his own values by keeping a blog about them, sending it out to people and then scolding anyone that doesn't recognize his "superiority".

All of them make decisions based on whether it "feels right". And all of them have admitted that they are "absolute" in their moral judgements. Its scary because these men remind me of zealots and extremists. In fact, that's what they are, and its impossible to change them. I'm not saying all INFP's are like this, but the ones I know are.
Click to expand...

NFs are susceptible to quackery.
But most learn not to fall into the same traps, with time.
It's tough to differentiate between beneficial quackery and harmful quackery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top