Why is INFJ the rarest type?

[o2b]

Re: #139

(select all/copy/paste/save to file)

 

[Ren]

Re: #139

(select all/copy/paste/save to file)

lol. If there's anything I can clarify, let me know.

 

[Wyote]

@Ren per your video on the shadow, I agree it is the content and not the cognitive functions that is what we must examine and reconcile with in whatever personal ways.
I think people get confused, as you mentioned. Cognitive functions themselves are sort of just loose labels of psychological mechanisms.
I do wonder though, if generally speaking people with similar types really do have such similar struggles. Some struggle with certain pieces more or for longer than others as well perhaps.
As you said, it's just very difficult to pinpoint elements of the unconscious.

 

[Anomaly]

Sure, I can give elaborating a go.

Let's say Johnny is an ENTP programmer who one day decides that he wants to deal with the stuff that he's been repressing in his unconscious. He goes to see a psychoanalyst and they begin the process of analysis. As he's lounging in his plush divan, Johnny talks about himself while the psychoanalyst is listening and subtly guiding him with his questions. After a number of sessions, certain patterns begin to emerge about Johnny's unconscious. They manifest in certain slips of the tongue, seemingly nonsensical asides and detours, mood shifts at the mention of certain words or events, etc. Over time, Johnny gets to have a clearer grasp of the content he's been repressing. He can begin to 'face his shadow'.

In this thought experiment, it's clear that Johnny is facing a certain quantity of repressed content. This content could include, for instance, resentment towards his father for humiliating him in front of his friends when he was 6. The unconscious content is allowed to come to the surface of consciousness. As he works towards facing what happened and acknowledging it, he works towards integrating his shadow. But so far this has nothing to do with learning to reckon with the use of the shadow functions. It has purely to do with content, not functions (in this regard, cf. the function/content fallacy). Johnny seeks to make the formerly repressed content a part of himself, so as to attain psychical quietude. This may, of course, require confronting his father about what happened. But whatever he undertakes to do to integrate the repressed content is undertaken in a conscious fashion. It is not undertaken by means of the shadow functions.

So how do the shadow functions hypothetically manifest themselves? We would have to assume that when the analyst asks Johnny questions and eventually succeeds (with the full involvement of Johnny himself) in laying bare the unconscious content he's been repressing, that unconscious content is expressed through the shadow functions. In other words, when Johnny uncovers the unconscious content by means of slips of the tongue, asides and meandering detours, mood shifts, etc., he does so in the register of a shadow INTJ. In other words, the unconscious content that Johnny has been repressing has a substance of its own, almost like an independent existence, and it is structured cognitively through the shadow stack: Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

So there are not one, but two kinds of 'uncovering' happening during the analysis: the uncovering of raw content (the repressed thoughts); and the uncovering of the personality articulating cognitively the raw content (the INTJ shadow).

I accept the first as more or less uncontroversial. People, including Johnny, do have unconscious repressed thoughts, and analysis can help to bring them to the surface of consciousness. It is notoriously difficult to make full sense of the complexity, structure and depth of those thoughts, sometimes to make sense of them full stop (which includes telling them apart from conscious thoughts). Hence why analysis, as a process, usually takes at least 5 years.

But if it is already very difficult to make sense of the content of the repressed thoughts, how much more difficult it must be to elucidate a full-blown personality, with associated cognitive function-stack, articulating those thoughts! Elucidating such a personality, like shadow INTJ, presupposes an already very well-structured constellation of thought-content. But we have already just seen that the said constellation of thought-content is elusive, messy, mushy... like all repressed content must be. It seems to me somewhat arbitrary to say, on the basis of uncertain premises, that the conclusion is "certainly INTJ". I struggle to see how an articulate shadow-personality could be inferred from inchoate, messy, loosely structured thought-content.

Which brings us back to this idea of differentiation: the more thought-content is undifferentiated, as in the unconscious domain, the more undifferentiated the personality articulating the thoughts must be. But the category: "INTJ shadow" is the opposite of undifferentiated. It is precise and cognitively well-structured. Now, perhaps the unconscious thought-content of an ENTP really is structured by means of an INTJ shadow personality. I am only claiming that I cannot see enough empirical evidence of this. And on this basis, I take the position with reserve and caution. Maybe Jung was such a spectacularly intuitive psychoanalyst that he was able to derive differentiated structure from undifferentiated thought-content. Maybe. I can't say for certain that he is right or wrong, because, as a non-spectacularly intuitive analyst, I lack the empirical basis to make an informed judgement on the matter.

Poor Johnny, always dragged into the hypotheticals.

 

[Ren]

@Ren per your video on the shadow, I agree it is the content and not the cognitive functions that is what we must examine and reconcile with in whatever personal ways.
I think people get confused, as you mentioned. Cognitive functions themselves are sort of just loose labels of psychological mechanisms.
I do wonder though, if generally speaking people with similar types really do have such similar struggles. Some struggle with certain pieces more or for longer than others as well perhaps.
As you said, it's just very difficult to pinpoint elements of the unconscious.

That's an interesting question, Wy. I have been thinking about this as well.

I collected some further thoughts yesterday in a 25' long video, which I haven't published yet. I might share it today. I warn you though, for some reason I look annoyed af at certain points lmao

 

[Ren]

Poor Johnny, always dragged into the hypotheticals.

No matter where they hide, the ol' hypotheticals always catch up with Johnny, Tommy and Teddy

 

[Wyote]

That's an interesting question, Wy. I have been thinking about this as well.

I collected some further thoughts yesterday in a 25' long video, which I haven't published yet. I might share it today. I warn you though, for some reason I look annoyed af at certain points lmao

Cool, no rush getting it out. I look forward to you and your annoyed face

 

[John K]

I truly hope this makes more sense now that I've outlined my viewpoints on the subject. Again, these aren't completely Jungian, but only stem from Jungian theory moving towards my own internal framework. This is my sad attempt at trying to explain what I've come to utilize as my own system of recognizing these behaviors in others.

There are two separate issues in this thread - what Jung actually said, what he meant by it; and what each of us actually think is the correct model of the human psyche. There two issues seem to be getting awfully tangled up in the way the discussion is taking place, but that's both inevitable, and it's fun .

I posted this in response to @Ren 's video but it should probably have been posted here:
https://www.infjs.com/threads/the-anteroom.34881/page-294#post-1357426

The better questions are: Where is your shame found? What can you do about it?

These are profound questions. It seems to me that we supress into our shadow so much that brings us shame, but I think the shadow is bigger than that: it contains our suppressed response to fear and trauma for example, and for people who are consciously and deliberately evil, it will contain their suppressed good side.

 

[Anomaly]

I posted this in response to @Ren 's video but it should probably have been posted here:
https://www.infjs.com/threads/the-anteroom.34881/page-294#post-1357426

I read through it, John. I appreciate your insights. I agree that the content is what is integral, but I can admit that I may have appeared to note structure over substance, which was not my intention. I fully agree that there is a possibility that the structure could be completely arbitrary, and that the shadow is just a vessel to house those things which we have 'locked' away. I just think there is equal possibility that there exists similar form in the shadow as we surmise is in the ego. I tend to like continuity, so it's a natural way to carry this structure over to other parts of the psyche regardless if they aren't as accessible.

In Ren's video, he refers to 'slips of the tongue' revealing those repressed parts of ourselves which we've only brought to the conscious state through a particular circumstance that hits us 'out of the blue'. I agree, and it's what I have said is the gut/visceral reaction that causes someone to utter, "I don't know what came over me. I shouldn't have said that/done that. I must have been 'out of my mind'." Of course, what they really mean is that they must have been 'out of their ego'. haha. I'm not saying that I'm gifted in determining where someone has repressed those portions of themselves that come out in those instances, but I am gifted at observation; noticing those little slips of the tongue, those tense moments when someone who is usually quiet, yet explodes in anger when someone touches a nerve (a deep-seated nerve that was once repressed). It's true that to be remotely accurate, you'd have to observe someone for a long time, noting those 'slips of the tongue' each time they occur, and discerning why. When you apply a structure to the 'shadow', then those occurrences apply to that structure just as they would in the 'ego'. This is why I enjoy the simplistic beauty in those things which are symmetrical, a theme abundant in the physical aspects of nature, so I can only help to apply this same theme to the metaphysical. Yes, while Jung didn't speak on this specifically, he did talk about hierarchy of preference, and this is why I merely replicate it within the 'theory' to encompass all aspects of the psyche. I cannot say that the collective unconscious would be similar in structure. Of course, going back to what I mentioned previously, the structure is not as important as the actual substance and thus if one is to determine what is within their suppressed 'shadow', then it would require a balance of understanding the structure and facing the content of that structure.

I can admit that it is convenient that one could observe another person, note their 'slips of the tongue', and then applying the similar structure as the ego, determine the placement of where and why those 'slips of the tongue' occur. This is not to say that it would be prudent to focus merely on the structure, and say, "Oh, well, I have Fi critical parent in my shadow, so that's why I'm so amoral; it cannot be helped." Or similar, "Oh, you also have Fi critical parent? We relate on having an inner critical voice, which consistently questions our moral compass and identity! Let's form a club!" I'm noting the irony of saying this in a forum constructed on the very premise of individuals who share the same functions of the ego, doing that very thing as they interface. haha.

It is far more integral, as Ren pointed out in his video (which I also commented on in agreement), to focus on that content which is repressed, and why. I wrote a similar blog post recently as on this as I'm coming to terms with the simplistic nature of the replication of a structure. I just long to be clear in representing my true stance, that I only see it as the initial step in a process of drawing out that which is suppressed, and working through how to deal with it. I wouldn't cultivate a garden by merely tossing seemingly random plants I've found popping up around my yard into a pile, and hope that they will produce. I would first determine what they are and why they cropped up. That would be the first step, and then I'd work towards tilling the ground, figuring out how they fit into the garden or if I should remove them completely. Then, I'd carefully refine them by cutting away things which don't belong, by observing their fruit and savoring it, etc. I apply the same metaphor to 'shadow work'. The content is what is integral, but the structure and functions therein, are helpful in navigating that content, in my opinion.

 

[John K]

@Anomaly I like what you are saying. It's really very limiting to look only at MBTI without its context within Jung's overall psychology, and it's refreshing to have discussions that go into that territory. I can't help feeling that the development of the 16-fold MBTI model actually renders it in one or two ways an awkward fit within his wider psychology model. That's because Jung himself doesn't seem to differentiate between the extraverted and introverted forms of the functions as distinct, but as the same function taking on the colouration that comes from the quite independent orientations of I or E. I don't think he conceived of the less preferred functions as having a preferred orientation for each of us, because they are not that distinct and differentiated. Let me make it clear that I'm talking about what I understand about Jung - rather than whether you or I actually agree with it.

I think that this all fits in reasonably well with what you are saying when you consider the concept of a complex, an idea that came from both Freud and Jung I believe - these are autonomous knots of independent personality that lie in our unconscious, and we all have a number of these. They are the kind of thing you are referring to by 'out of their mind', etc, and are certainly (but not exclusively) associated with grippy behaviour (they can be associated with more profound things such as spooky prophetic behaviour that appears out of the blue). I think you are quite right that when these things are extraverted, they will manifest some of the functions, and they typically won't use our dominant or secondary, but one of our less preferred functions. Typically we won't use them with the ease and competence of a preferred function - on the contrary they will be charged with involuntary emotion.

(Sorry if you know all this - I'm really just seeing if I have understood you correctly by writing it out . )

The complexes in our unconscious, primarily those in our shadow, consume a lot of psychic energy and cause distress, fear, anxiety, depression, shame - in principle bringing them to consciousness and dealing with the inner conflicts heals us and discharges that energy and makes it accessible. It's the devil's own job to get at them though, which is why therapy can be so hard and painful - think of facing the dream monster instead of fleeing it by waking up. This process not only makes the contents of the complexes conscious and gives us the possibility of resolving them, but it also gives us access to the less preferred functions which we gradually gain more conscious control over as we get older.

Where do I stand myself? All scientific theory is based on modeling - intellectual constructs that parallel the real world, and can predict and explain it within their bounds of validity. No scientific theory / model covers all of reality and they all have boundaries beyond which they become inaccurate. Being only human, it's easy to take the predictive accuracy of a model as proof that it's premises are reality, but this is very misleading - it's easy to see this in the great theories of physics. So with Jungian psychology, it has given a good set of tools for understanding in part the way that human psyches work, but it's a model not the reality. Other models that I'm familiar with myself are the Enneagram, and Transactional Analysis - these overlap with Jungian psychology but are not congruent with it and deal with aspects of human behaviour that maybe lie outside Jung's theory, or which it isn't configured easily to deal with. Transactional Analysis in particular is concerned with the dynamics of human interactions which is not so much the focus of the Jungian model. What's a treat to see though is how they complement each other, with Parent and Child behaviour in TA fitting nicely with the Jungian concepts of shadow behaviours and complexes. So I don't take a dogmatic view on any of these models - they all provide profound insights from different angles and for different purposes. It's like taking the car for a ride in the country, the train into a city centre, and a plane to visit New Zealand.

 

[Ren]

In Ren's video, he refers to 'slips of the tongue' revealing those repressed parts of ourselves which we've only brought to the conscious state through a particular circumstance that hits us 'out of the blue'. I agree, and it's what I have said is the gut/visceral reaction that causes someone to utter, "I don't know what came over me. I shouldn't have said that/done that. I must have been 'out of my mind'." Of course, what they really mean is that they must have been 'out of their ego'. haha.

Exactly. This is a point Lacan made. Now, he took this to be evidence that the unconscious was 'structured like a language' (a very influential position in psychoanalysis since Lacan). I think what he meant was that if an unconscious thought-content is capable of being expressed by means of a slip of the tongue, that is, in language, then it must stand in an internal structural relation to the language we speak in everyday, conscious experience. It may not itself be a language, but it is structured like one. Otherwise, it would be untranslatable into what we notice, for instance, as slips of the tongue. It's quite a profound insight.

The short entry on Lacan in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quite good. He is a penetrating, if sometimes wildly speculative, analyst. In some circles, his concept of the unconscious has been more influential than that of Jung, so he is also an interesting contextual counterpoint.

(And I'm not saying this because he's French. : p)

I can admit that it is convenient that one could observe another person, note their 'slips of the tongue', and then applying the similar structure as the ego, determine the placement of where and why those 'slips of the tongue' occur. This is not to say that it would be prudent to focus merely on the structure, and say, "Oh, well, I have Fi critical parent in my shadow, so that's why I'm so amoral; it cannot be helped." Or similar, "Oh, you also have Fi critical parent? We relate on having an inner critical voice, which consistently questions our moral compass and identity! Let's form a club!" I'm noting the irony of saying this in a forum constructed on the very premise of individuals who share the same functions of the ego, doing that very thing as they interface. haha.

An observation I would be tempted to make here, again just as a counterpoint for further discussion, is that there must in principle be a clear difference between how Fi critical parent and Fe critical parent are manifested. Do we have enough data of unconscious thought-content, with regard to any given individual, to accurately pinpoint the difference in practice? I myself cannot say that I'm sure about that. An example would be illuminating, Lore.

 

[Ren]

@Anomaly I like what you are saying. It's really very limiting to look only at MBTI without its context within Jung's overall psychology, and it's refreshing to have discussions that go into that territory. I can't help feeling that the development of the 16-fold MBTI model actually renders it in one or two ways an awkward fit within his wider psychology model. That's because Jung himself doesn't seem to differentiate between the extraverted and introverted forms of the functions as distinct, but as the same function taking on the colouration that comes from the quite independent orientations of I or E. I don't think he conceived of the less preferred functions as having a preferred orientation for each of us, because they are not that distinct and differentiated. Let me make it clear that I'm talking about what I understand about Jung - rather than whether you or I actually agree with it.

It's definitely true that there is no direct fit between present-day function theory and Jung's original psychology model. The way I try to bridge this gap is by taking the following stance: while our current theories will not be the same as Jung's, they can at least be articulated so as not to contradict what he said. In this sense, they could be seen as a further development, a kind of further determination (and differentiation). Now, I don't oppose in principle the idea that a theory could also contradict some of Jung's positions, as after all he is not a God. The problem is that, as I have seen online, most theories that contradict Jung do so unwittingly, and are themselves internally inconsistent (e.g. Davesuperpowers, C.S. Joseph, etc.)

The advantage of seeking not to contradict Jung is that we may hope, in the process, to preserve the internal consistency of his own theory, hehe.

Where do I stand myself? All scientific theory is based on modeling - intellectual constructs that parallel the real world, and can predict and explain it within their bounds of validity. No scientific theory / model covers all of reality and they all have boundaries beyond which they become inaccurate. Being only human, it's easy to take the predictive accuracy of a model as proof that it's premises are reality, but this is very misleading - it's easy to see this in the great theories of physics. So with Jungian psychology, it has given a good set of tools for understanding in part the way that human psyches work, but it's a model not the reality.

I agree with this, of course. The language of a theory is not the language of the external world. It is, for lack of a better word, an interpretation.

 

[o2b]

Exactly. This is a point Lacan made. Now, he took this to be evidence that the unconscious was 'structured like a language' (a very influential position in psychoanalysis since Lacan). I think what he meant was that if an unconscious thought-content is capable of being expressed by means of a slip of the tongue, that is, in language, then it must stand in an internal structural relation to the language we speak in everyday, conscious experience. It may not itself be a language, but it is structured like one. Otherwise, it would be untranslatable into what we notice, for instance, as slips of the tongue. It's quite a profound insight.

A digression, ren, but are you familiar with Julian Jayne's stance on consciousness? That it requires language and thus was not something humans inherently had?

 

[Anomaly]

Exactly. This is a point Lacan made. Now, he took this to be evidence that the unconscious was 'structured like a language' (a very influential position in psychoanalysis since Lacan). I think what he meant was that if an unconscious thought-content is capable of being expressed by means of a slip of the tongue, that is, in language, then it must stand in an internal structural relation to the language we speak in everyday, conscious experience. It may not itself be a language, but it is structured like one. Otherwise, it would be untranslatable into what we notice, for instance, as slips of the tongue. It's quite a profound insight.

The short entry on Lacan in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quite good. He is a penetrating, if sometimes wildly speculative, analyst. In some circles, his concept of the unconscious has been more influential than that of Jung, so he is also an interesting contextual counterpoint.
(And I'm not saying this because he's French. : p)

I left a comment on your recent You Tube video regarding this, so in hopes not to entirely repeat myself, I'll just say that I can appreciate Lacan's viewpoints. I have looked into the link you provided as well, so I appreciate it, Ren. I think I would say that I side more with Lacan than Jung, regarding my own personal stance and internal framework. Though, I deeply value some of Jung's insights, and influence.

An observation I would be tempted to make here, again just as a counterpoint for further discussion, is that there must in principle be a clear difference between how Fi critical parent and Fe critical parent are manifested. Do we have enough data of unconscious thought-content, with regard to any given individual, to accurately pinpoint the difference in practice? I myself cannot say that I'm sure about that. An example would be illuminating, Lore.

Well, of course you know that Fi is wholly different to Fe.

Fi being an internal system of categorized judgements that are sorted into 'valued'/'not valued', 'moral'/'amoral', 'better'/'worse'. Each of these judgements existing in levels of importance (with deeper core values which are unwavering and stubborn). These value judgements are often confused with emotions, but are actually concerning things like individual authenticity, logic, justice, identity, or consistency. It is self-referencing ("What would I do if I were in their shoes? What should they do based on what I would do?").

Fe being an external set of values, behaving 'appropriately' considering the external societal constructs/norms/environment
("There is a time and a place for this behavior"). The focus is on what people want or need, what is appropriate given the other's hierarchy/social status, what is appropriate for the environment. Fe users view people, circumstances, and events in relation to their impact on each one, highly attuned to how others are influenced by them (especially how powerful Fe manipulation can be if aware).
Continuously making assessments based on their observations of people, interactions, pre-existing knowledge (could be stemming from Ni/Ne pattern recognition of things which are interconnected and observed/gathered through Se/Si input), understanding how people work, and then building an external framework in order to improve interactions with others.

(I only outlined these differences to distinguish between the two prior to looking at the critical manifestations of Fe, not because I think you don't already know these things).
---
With this in mind, it is easy to see how one could emulate those critical aspects of Fe, in that they would call into question those morals/values of others in favor of their Fi parent values to remain authentic to themselves (being seen as the 'right' way/course). It would come out in saying things like, "Why must you always worry about others? Don't your values matter? Do you even know what your values are? Why are you such a people pleaser? Don't you even know yourself? Stop trying to make me conform to the group, I am not them and they are not me! You cannot control me, and make me do what you want me to do, or believe what you want me to believe. I am my own person!" They become critical of others' use of Fe, and can be critical of their own use of Fe, picking up on those things which weren't considered 'acceptable'. These expressions are often externalized in negativity and can be seen as judgements being cast, criticisms, or complaining about other people's conformity to norms or values of the group, instead of their own individual values.

I hope some of these examples help with the difference of how they might be manifested, and give evidence to some semblance of a 'structure' within the unconscious when it is made conscious, if that is in fact the case. I think there is plenty of observable evidence to suggest that there is at least a discernable pattern, if not a structure. What do you think?

 

[John K]

Well, of course you know that Fi is wholly different to Fe.

I very much applaud the way you differentiate between emotion and the feeling function. It seems to be a common error that people confuse the two. In fact there is a lot of apparent F about but all too often it’s shadow or inferior and even when someone uses it a lot, if involuntary emotion is driving it then it cannot be primary or secondary. Genuine primary or secondary F is a judging function that is in full control and is used consciously and deliberately. It may well actually conflict with and override the emotion of the person concerned in the same way that T can more obviously transcend a thinker’s emotions.

Where I diverge from what you said is that I hold I v E orientation to be orthogonal to the functions. There is only F, and this is bound up with human values. The same values have a different significance to us though when either introjected or projected, and so the imperative ranking in importance we give them is going to be very different across this boundary. This can create the illusion of two different functions but I think this is like the difference between magnetic and electric forces - they seem to be very different but on deeper exploration turn out to be manifestations of the same basic force of nature.

 

[Anomaly]

I very much applaud the way you differentiate between emotion and the feeling function. It seems to be a common error that people confuse the two. In fact there is a lot of apparent F about but all too often it’s shadow or inferior and even when someone uses it a lot, if involuntary emotion is driving it then it cannot be primary or secondary. Genuine primary or secondary F is a judging function that is in full control and is used consciously and deliberately. It may well actually conflict with and override the emotion of the person concerned in the same way that T can more obviously transcend a thinker’s emotions.

Where I diverge from what you said is that I hold I v E orientation to be orthogonal to the functions. There is only F, and this is bound up with human values. The same values have a different significance to us though when either introjected or projected, and so the imperative ranking in importance we give them is going to be very different across this boundary. This can create the illusion of two different functions but I think this is like the difference between magnetic and electric forces - they seem to be very different but on deeper exploration turn out to be manifestations of the same basic force of nature.

I agree that emotions are separate from cognitive functions, and a separate 'structure' weaving and winding within the framework itself. Affecting changes and creating nuances, but not connected entirely.

While reading your latter paragraph, I immediately pictured each function on an axis, which was positioned on a pendulum. The movement determined by other functions within the framework, external forces, emotion repressed but released as an 'exhale' to turn and twist the function on its side. I cannot say that this abstract notion is correct, but it was pleasing to experience your writing in a moving image. I agree that there is only F, but depending on how it is expressed either in behavior or expression, one could determine the likely side of the 'pendulum' it tends to gravitate towards, whether it were manifested outwardly or more internally, and then work to determine still within that 'framework' whether that specific F axis is amplified over or in conjunction with other functions either in development or preference.

John, I am grateful for your insights, and the way you expound upon those things, which (at times) seem to be difficult for me to articulate. I have already learned from you, and I'm sure that will only continue.

I found a photo of what my mind imagined, though it wasn't nearly as colorful as this. haha. I hope it will help you in visualizing what I meant. : )

 

[John K]

@Anomaly that's a great visualisation. In fact just blending a couple of the thoughts we were discussing, a good analogy would be if each rod was a bar magnet with the N and S poles concentrated in the coloured balls at each end. There's a big difference between them, but they are part of the same magnet.

John, I am grateful for your insights, and the way you expound upon those things, which (at times) seem to be difficult for me to articulate. I have already learned from you, and I'm sure that will only continue.

I really must return the compliment, because you raise issues that get me thinking and crystalising stuff out. I fear I sometimes sound a bit too definite in the way I express myself, by the way - but virtually everything i come out with is a rumination rather than a dogmatic thing. It's just a pain in the backside, and fogs the meaning, to keep adding conditionals to everything lol.

I've had a bit of a campaign going about how F is misunderstood for a while now - I kicked off a thread about Fe a couple of years ago which is lying about somewhere. There are a lot of misconceptions because as a preferred function, it's voluntary rather than something driven by emotion - in fact a good F user will actully generate the relevant emotions at will to a great extent, and override their involuntary ones in given circumstances. Nor in its Fe form is it simply a Harmony function - a competent bully could be an Fe maestro, using it to great and damaging effect.

 

[Anomaly]

@Anomaly that's a great visualisation. In fact just blending a couple of the thoughts we were discussing, a good analogy would be if each rod was a bar magnet with the N and S poles concentrated in the coloured balls at each end. There's a big difference between them, but they are part of the same magnet.

I really must return the compliment, because you raise issues that get me thinking and crystalising stuff out. I fear I sometimes sound a bit too definite in the way I express myself, by the way - but virtually everything i come out with is a rumination rather than a dogmatic thing. It's just a pain in the backside, and fogs the meaning, to keep adding conditionals to everything lol.

I've had a bit of a campaign going about how F is misunderstood for a while now - I kicked off a thread about Fe a couple of years ago which is lying about somewhere. There are a lot of misconceptions because as a preferred function, it's voluntary rather than something driven by emotion - in fact a good F user will actully generate the relevant emotions at will to a great extent, and override their involuntary ones in given circumstances. Nor in its Fe form is it simply a Harmony function - a competent bully could be an Fe maestro, using it to great and damaging effect.

John, I think we are similar in that drive to find the truth. I can see that you are a life-long learner, and being such, it requires flexibility as new things are constantly coming into focus. I enjoy the process very much. I think you do too, and I'm grateful to glean from you while I can. It doesn't bother me that you consistently question, refine, and re-state. I'm glad that I could help you to settle on some things as you mull them over. I've enjoyed our discussions here.

I will look to see if I can find the thread about Fe. It sounds interesting.

What you said about Fe being used in a way which is in contention with harmony, is so true. I've tried to understand my own use of it, and how it manifests in others. I've experienced Fe manipulation before from a friend and a past co-worker. I am ever aware of my own capacity to manipulate another. I have those kinds of questions looming in the back of my mind, "Am I manipulating them? How do I know? What is my part in this?". Sometimes, I ask, just in case to be held accountable. I think it's why I'm so open about my perceptions, that 'knowing' that come to the surface. I feel that they deserve to know that I have access to their secrets, to their wants, to their needs. Then I try the best of my ability to protect them, instead of harm them. Sometimes, I fail, and am devastated to find out. Have you ever gone through this, John?

Further, I think F can also lead to a bitter irony. You desire harmony, but given all you know about the other, you end up losing your voice in the pursuit of providing for them. You grow sad, resentful, passive. It's a false harmony, built on tip-toes and tight lips. However, if you faced conflict, and shared your voice, then they would be given the opportunity to truly know you. Thus... harmony of two in relationship, fully known. I agree that you can generate emotion to empathize when appropriate. I think it gives others a sense of peace, as sometimes all you want is for someone to laugh or to weep alongside you instead of covering you in pleasantries and platitudes. Do you find that you are able to cry when others cry? It never fails, when someone cries I cannot help it, I am compelled to weep with them (for some reason, especially when a man cries).

 

[Ren]

Well, of course you know that Fi is wholly different to Fe.

Fi being an internal system of categorized judgements that are sorted into 'valued'/'not valued', 'moral'/'amoral', 'better'/'worse'. Each of these judgements existing in levels of importance (with deeper core values which are unwavering and stubborn). These value judgements are often confused with emotions, but are actually concerning things like individual authenticity, logic, justice, identity, or consistency. It is self-referencing ("What would I do if I were in their shoes? What should they do based on what I would do?").

Fe being an external set of values, behaving 'appropriately' considering the external societal constructs/norms/environment
("There is a time and a place for this behavior"). The focus is on what people want or need, what is appropriate given the other's hierarchy/social status, what is appropriate for the environment. Fe users view people, circumstances, and events in relation to their impact on each one, highly attuned to how others are influenced by them (especially how powerful Fe manipulation can be if aware).
Continuously making assessments based on their observations of people, interactions, pre-existing knowledge (could be stemming from Ni/Ne pattern recognition of things which are interconnected and observed/gathered through Se/Si input), understanding how people work, and then building an external framework in order to improve interactions with others.

(I only outlined these differences to distinguish between the two prior to looking at the critical manifestations of Fe, not because I think you don't already know these things).
---
With this in mind, it is easy to see how one could emulate those critical aspects of Fe, in that they would call into question those morals/values of others in favor of their Fi parent values to remain authentic to themselves (being seen as the 'right' way/course). It would come out in saying things like, "Why must you always worry about others? Don't your values matter? Do you even know what your values are? Why are you such a people pleaser? Don't you even know yourself? Stop trying to make me conform to the group, I am not them and they are not me! You cannot control me, and make me do what you want me to do, or believe what you want me to believe. I am my own person!" They become critical of others' use of Fe, and can be critical of their own use of Fe, picking up on those things which weren't considered 'acceptable'. These expressions are often externalized in negativity and can be seen as judgements being cast, criticisms, or complaining about other people's conformity to norms or values of the group, instead of their own individual values.

I hope some of these examples help with the difference of how they might be manifested, and give evidence to some semblance of a 'structure' within the unconscious when it is made conscious, if that is in fact the case. I think there is plenty of observable evidence to suggest that there is at least a discernable pattern, if not a structure. What do you think?

This makes perfect sense, Lore. Thank you for providing me with this outline of the contrast between Fi/Fe and Fi/Fe critical parent.

I think this also usefully spotlights the 'problem', as I see it. Consider the part of your quote that I have highlighted. Could it really be argued that someone could be saying these things unconsciously? It seems to me that, when someone says those things, they are very much conscious of what they are doing. They might, of course, not be in their usual mood. But it is not as if they would be able to unconsciously structure thoughts and sentences like that.

A good indication that they are conscious of what they are doing is that, if the criticised interlocutor were to challenge them on the spot, it would be absurd for them to respond: "What are you talking about? I never said any such thing!" -- as they would non-absurdly if, in fact, their thought process has been unconscious.

On the face of it, there is a way around this issue. After all, it is perfectly possible for an INFJ to make conscious use of Ne, Fi, Te, and so on. But when the use of these functions is conscious (as when an INFJ working in an administration of some kind has to make use of Si and Te a fair bit) they are not yet manifested as their 'critical' side. In other words, it seems to me that the 'critical' side is only manifested at an unconscious level. But as I have tried to suggest above, at an unconscious level, the person is not able to formulate thoughts and sentences as coherently and clearly as in your example. The consequence is that functions such as 'critical parent' should never come to the surface of everyday, normal conversation. When that happens, the function use is conscious, and therefore not in the 'critical parent' mode.

This is the paradox as I see it currently.

 

[Anomaly]

This makes perfect sense, Lore. Thank you for providing me with this outline of the contrast between Fi/Fe and Fi/Fe critical parent.

I think this also usefully spotlights the 'problem', as I see it. Consider the part of your quote that I have highlighted. Could it really be argued that someone could be saying these things unconsciously? It seems to me that, when someone says those things, they are very much conscious of what they are doing. They might, of course, not be in their usual mood. But it is not as if they would be able to unconsciously structure thoughts and sentences like that.

A good indication that they are conscious of what they are doing is that, if the criticised interlocutor were to challenge them on the spot, it would be absurd for them to respond: "What are you talking about? I never said any such thing!" -- as they would non-absurdly if, in fact, their thought process has been unconscious.

On the face of it, there is a way around this issue. After all, it is perfectly possible for an INFJ to make conscious use of Ne, Fi, Te, and so on. But when the use of these functions is conscious (as when an INFJ working in an administration of some kind has to make use of Si and Te a fair bit) they are not yet manifested as their 'critical' side. In other words, it seems to me that the 'critical' side is only manifested at an unconscious level. But as I have tried to suggest above, at an unconscious level, the person is not able to formulate thoughts and sentences as coherently and clearly as in your example. The consequence is that functions such as 'critical parent' should never come to the surface of everyday, normal conversation. When that happens, the function use is conscious, and therefore not in the 'critical parent' mode.

This is the paradox as I see it currently.

Hm, I understand what you mean, Ren. I think I'm trying to make sense of whether these manifestations could still be formed from the unconcious and subsequently move to the conscious side of that function.

For now, what you've said makes me question my previously held thought, but I also posed a similar response to your YouTube on the unconscious, which I'll post here (for those who may wish to answer or have thoughts on it and haven't seen it):

"The notion that the conscious is the rational, and the unconscious could only be 'rational' due to the structure of language is interesting. Does the fact that we are able to articulate those things which come to the surface, in the instance of those things which were once unconscious becoming conscious (exploring those things which surprise us for example), mean that those unconscious desires/wants/needs only have a 'structure of language' because they have 'exited' the irrational (unconscious) and have been given 'meaning' in the rational (conscious)? In that when we compile this empirical data of those instances, we can extrapolate a sort of pattern which leads to some semblance of that very structure?

If we are rational creatures, in that we can not only experience that drive that compels us to not only survive, but to live in a meaningful way, why would it be absurd to assume that the unconscious could be rational at least in structure, even if it takes time to work out the why behind those innate impulses that rest beneath everything we will ourselves towards?"

I suppose we are revolving around the same topic again and again, but it feels like we are getting closer to being more concise in our understanding of just what structure, if any, there could be. I really enjoy the discussion so far, Ren.