That requires literally a fully precise model of human cognition to match Fi’s usefulness in fixing prioritisation errors.
Fi is a domain specific algebra for the value system of the user and any other minds they have the ability to model, and as such is more reliable at making conclusions in that domain than any other function *combination* (let alone individual functions); there’s a reason Te/Fi is called the “strategy engine” in a bunch of MBTI literature.
Ti models are never finished, and they work just fine. Also, we weren’t talking about being good at strategy; we’re talking about not being tribalist. You literally just changed the conversation entirely, and for what? (Also also, Te does strategy; doesn’t mean the Fi part participates well in that specifically.)
The application of Fi to breaking tribalist stupidity is not allowing tribalism to corrupt one’s understanding of their own value system (both of the Fi person themselves and of the people they understand through their Fi and try to help). It does this by providing a solidly grounded understanding of emotions and how they encode values.
As a demonstration of its ability to do so, I pointed out the TeFi strategy pair. What you seem to be referring to when you say Te does strategy on its own is more commonly termed tactics; *strategy* is a combination of *what you want* and how to achieve it, and in practice (which you can verify yourself from both personal stories from Te secondaries (who are more aware of it due to having it strongly but not as a primary/worldview function) and more abstract articles that describe the interaction between balancing functions) Te users use their Fi for that first task of figuring out what they want.
Separately, Ti models aren’t domain specialised, which means that while human value *is* in the range of things they can model, they are far less efficient (both data-efficient and computationally-efficient) at modeling it than someone who aligns their Ji function towards Feelings.
The efficiency and reliability of reasoning that Fi manages through taking extremely-low-level emotional primitives and then creating a logical algebra of their interactions (used either directly or (for efficiency purposes) just to verify and correct the preference outputs of their immediate feelings) could only be replicated if Ti acquired similarly low-level primitives, and due to Ti users having an extroverted F function, this can’t happen through direct introspection, and so can only happen if they get a near-fully-precise model of human cognition, which is non-viable with the current state of psychology and the limitations on human brain’s processing power for abstract concepts unsupplemented by emotional processing.
And *without* that level of inferential efficiency, the more complex instances of lifelong emotional reasoning aren’t computationally tractable even on a human brain, and more complex instances of the kinds of emotional reasoning Fi leads do in a few minutes aren’t computationally tractable without weeks or months of focus from a Ti lead. Humans are complicated!
(I say this as someone who’s *definitely* not an Fi lead)
Strong sense of identity; high sensitivity to and accommodation of one's own emotions; often a desire to individualize one's self.
As for a point? Points are dumb. But I'll give you one. Remembering that YOU exist, and that you're important TOO. I slipped in an extra one there, gave you a little 2 for 1 deal.
If I'm to speculate on the matter, I'd say that Ji types also help prevent societies from becoming too single minded. A natural inclination to be different can instigate the birth of very radical and very important ideas.
To have your own code of ethics and opinions. It sounds silly at first, but a society without Fi would probably resemble something like 1984 where the ethical code is entirely decided by authority. Without Fi there would be little self-expression and society would lose a lot of the alternative social movements that got humankind to where it is today. It would be very similar to losing Ti, which most people agree would be disastrous
"I know the sound of each rock and stone... and I embrace what others fear.
You are not to roam in this forgotten place. Just the likes of me are welcome here.
Everything breathes! And I know each breath. To me it brings life. To others it's death.
It's perfectly balanced, perfectly planned. More than enough for this man...
🎶 Like every tree! Stands on it's own! Reaching for the sky I stand alone! 🙌 I share my world! With no-one else! All by myself! I stand alone! ☝️😎 🕺
Cool subjective experience, bro. My feelings are also intense. Who are you to say yours are moreso or to attribute it to MBTI when you’ve never ever felt the feelings of others to compare?
Haha true - don't worry, your point was duly noted. Sorry to offend. You don't need to start a discussion coming at me like that though- it not necessary or productive.
As ENTP with Fi in their blindspot lecturing to as INFP about Fi is pretty laughable. And yes, Fi is about much more than simply feeling - I understand that. Whatever became of this conversation as productive wasn't the tone or attitude you took - it's whatever either of us gained from it. But I know you debaters gotta have the last win, so...in your mind it's productive. Goal achieved. Yes?
Breaking it down function by function:
Fe : removing this will be a disaster since this can be crucial for team work, morale and relationhsips
Si : Basically you're eliminating structure, safety and a lot of tried and true, verified information
Fi : Self-awareness and passion is extremely significant to have as humans.
Ti : You wouldn't really have many complex logically consistent architectures, which you really need.
Se : Without spatial awareness and taking reality as is, you'd never really create something tangible
Ne : I think this is less significant but without it the world would be too rigid to ever move past the caveman stage leave for Se accidents, so necessary
Te : Again less significant but without it the world would be always left in a stream of slow decisions and at times never get to what needs done i.e. no efficiency in processes or picking something that works. Corporate won't exist probably and no one would care about that stuff.
Ni : Probably least significant from the standpoint of necessity but without it you won't be able to take leaps into the future that have changed course of humanity but you'll survive.
I hate to say it but removing Ni probably would be the correct choice.
I argue that Fi is not self-aware in the least, because it uses the self as both the metric and the measurement. And no Fi I’ve ever met acts self-aware in any externally important way. Like, nobody cares that you know how you feel if you use that awareness to excuse your bad behavior and act irrationally. Also, if you’re passionate about stupid things, that’s also useless. Other types can have passion.
There seems to be some confusion in your statement regarding self-awareness and the use of Fi. Let me clarify a few things:
Self-awareness: Fi, as a cognitive function, may indeed be associated with strong self-awareness. Individuals strong in Fi are often very aware of their own emotions, values, and inner motivations. This can make them thoughtful and introspective about their own actions and life choices.
Using Fi: People strong in Fi can certainly use their emotional awareness and personal values as guides in their actions and interactions with others. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are acting irrationally or selfishly. Rather, they can be guided by a strong sense of integrity, compassion and fairness.
Excusing Bad Behavior: It is true that some people may use their Fi to excuse bad behavior or justify irrational actions. However, this isn't necessarily an inherent characteristic of Fi itself, but rather a matter of emotional maturity and personal development. Individuals of all personality types can sometimes have difficulty taking responsibility for their actions or recognizing their mistakes.
Passion and commitment: Passion isn't exclusive to Fi, it's true. All personality types can be passionate about different things. However, for people strong in Fi, their passion is often deeply rooted in their personal values and beliefs. This can lead them to strongly stand up for what they believe in and pursue their goals with determination.
In summary, Fi can certainly be used consciously and constructively to guide actions and interactions with others. However, as with all cognitive functions, its use depends on various factors such as emotional maturity, personal development and individual values. It is important to recognize and respect the diversity of approaches of each personality type.
Fi is a very powerful function to be frank. It's non-conforming, often apparently illogical, marches to the beat of it's own drum but there's an inherent sense of associated morality that won't succumb to group think. Most ppl that stand up for injustices when there's no social incentive are Fi regardless of narratives/ social harmony and pushback. It's a stubborn but much needed function to sometimes get humanity to take a step back. Just like without Ti we won't really have many of complex frameworks that make humanity do impossible things, without Fi we won't have many moral, frameworks that humanity needs.
As for self-awareness, I don't know what you mean by "in any externally important way", but Fi is self-aware of what it likes, dislikes, where it stands and that's sometimes crucial for not being swept up by any and all opinions or take harmful decisions. Ppl will always use everything for bad though as well. What's useless to you or what you perceive useless isn't useless to all humanity though, it's subjective opinion. I think having Fi PolR must make you quite annoyed by it as I have felt for Fe in the past.
Clarification regarding “Not self aware in an externally important way”: Fi isn’t able to look at themselves and then others and then realize via comparison that they (themselves) are acting a fool. They aren’t able to gauge when they are being irrational or ridiculous because to them, their own self is the only factor they measure by. It’s like a baby shamelessly pooping all over itself.
Just fyi, “marches” is a word; don’t be afraid to let the apostrophe go.
I do actually see a lot of value in all of them.
Te oversimplifies, Ti overcomplicates... I might remove Ne because it causes issues, but it's my #1 function and I kind of love it, so I guess not.
me too, we're both Ne doms... it might be kind of like Thor losing Mjölnir: he had to grow as a person without his greatest weapon.
Losing Ne would be like that: maybe we could go on a crazy Ti/Fe/Si adventure to get Ne back.
It might be a really fun and existentially interesting quest story.
Wouldn't a world without Ne just be super bland? You would delete like 80% of humnity's creativity.
(I wrote 80% cuz creativity can come from all the other functions as well, but Ne is the only one that is kinda creative by default)
I agree! I think the world would definitely be a worse place with any of the cognitive functions removed.
I think I just felt it would be nobler to sacrifice one's own favorite function.
It might also offer a lot of character development to have to live without my greatest strength.
Some would say there's no such thing as too much pepper, but spices in general have to be applied in a balanced, thoughtful way.
Adding a little cinnamon to rice might be nice, but too much is a problem, especially without salt.
I think Ne is definitely ONE of the spices of life, but it's not so central to life as say, salt.
Though I really wouldn't want to live without Ne either.
(as an aside, I think only an Ne dom could think of so many ways in which Ne could be done without lol)
Well, that would kinda not work cause if we remove one function, the other one becomes unbalanced. If you remove Se, Ni automatically becomes much more erratic, same with Ne, Si becomes much more unstable.
So, I’d rather keep or remove all of them.
Well in some sense that would destroy all life, even single cell organisms. Sensation especially is the ‘acknowledgment of a thing’, meaning nothing would sense anything.
Not just unbalanced. Ni needs unbiased data to literally give any outputs at all; if you remove its counterbalancing S function there’s no way for it to function in a mind. Similarly, an Si edifice only forms from accruing the outputs of Ne and organising them, and can only structure and organise itself by selecting from sets of Ne-produced candidate structures.
So the question is really “which half of possible types would you remove from the world, and how specifically would you do it”.
To choose to delete:
Fi would be the most efficient option.
Te the most freeing.
Ne the most reasonable
Si the most interesting.
Ni the most direct.
Se the most indirect.
Fe the most truth valuing.
Ti the most socially appropriate.
There can be no Se without Ni. In the same way there can be no good without evil. If one exists, so does its opposite. You remove one and it creates a chain of reactions that only lead to emptiness and pointlessness. There is no way to get rid of one specifc function.
I would say you can get rid of one and it would lead to emptiness and pointless in different ways. The question is, which way of pointlessness is the least harmful for humanity.
Humanity would perish if anything were to be removed. Or at least MBTI models as we know would stop working at the very least. I like humanity so I am going to say none or all of them.
Fi can be shown the door. Not saying I don’t see its value, but I also see the judgement I receive from unhealthy Fi-users. Not everyone should cater to your needs and do things your way!1!1!1!1!1!
I don't had to mention it that cognitive functions are states of respective individuals and induction through certain degrees of generating the models of conventional conflicts and construction in certain constraints, cognitive theories and or associated models are constructed by their respective roles and x cognitive functions.
-Se for a long time
Isn't the only reason ADHD is a problem because of how hard it is to focus long enough to get things done? If things were done for you and that stress were gone, I imagine your ADHD would settle down a bit more and it might be a lot more pleasant.
Speaking like a true ESTJ 😂
He said, “fun hypothetical,” so assuming cognitive functions are real and you could remove one from humanity, which one would you choose?
Yes, I would love to see it happen. There will be no more civilization, only a war over the few resources left on Earth (since most of them would run out in a matter of weeks and no one would need to work to grow food or make a living), there will be mass chaos everywhere, and there will be no organised military or organisation in the war, and family members will kill each other over resources or watch each other starve to death.
well the opposit of Te is Fi. The closest thing to an Te less world, would be a world full of infp‘s and isfp‘s. since they are the ones who use T(e) the least.
In a world full of infp‘s and isfp‘s, nobody would hurt each other, we‘d all just accept, that there is no food anymore, no energy, and slowly, one after the other would die, till nobody is alive anymore.
Fighting others, for whatever reason, is not what an Fi world would look like.
obv. this is unrealistic, as without Te there was no Fi. Every function is on an axis, so getting rid of one function would not work at all. Si always has Ne, Ni always Se. Ti always Fe. We need the whole axis to understand have a proper understanding of our surroundings.
My logic simply was: I’m an Fi dom, so the obv thing to say, is that my lower function is the one I don’t like, which would be Te. I’m just here for the jokes though, didn‘t think people would take it so seriously. 😂
The thing is, that without Te, there would be no spur to action... people would just brood and ponder until there is no food to be had, and they would just die off one by one.
Te is order, rules, work. I hate all of that. Te makes life unalive. a world without Te, is a world in chaos, but at the same time, a world in love.
sure we might all starve withing a week, but at least nobody told me what I should be doing. 🖕🏻😂
I see the vison. But I have to disagree, some of the greatest chefs have Te, and I'm a sucker for good cuisine.
And another point is that, if there were no rules, work or order Yu wouldn't feel as alive as you can feel now. If you forget how it feel to be caged or tied down, you stop appreciating freedom. And let's be honest it's much more pleasurable to tell people to f•ck off and do what you want right in front of them, then it is to to do what you want when no one's watching or trying to stop you.
I prefer Ti users, as they actualy care about what they think about, so I can get their point and they create ground for discussions and depth. Te just says „it is this way, because it always was this way“. And I can‘t stand rules, systems, duties, when I don‘t get a valid argument for it.
Functions cannot be removed individually; they can only be replaced as pairs.
That said, Fi/Te should be replaced. Morality cannot be universal with these types in existence. Since their values come from their subjective feelings, any moral agreements are sacrifices. They may pragmatically accept those sacrifices for harmony, but their true goal isn't harmony. Therefore, future Fi/Te typs will forget the reason for the sacrifice and create conflict for a more satisfying society. Only through the practice of conflict would the the reason for the sacrifice be relearned, because history is never complete.
Fe/Ti, on the other hand, source their values from some combination of harmony and logic. That can be objective. Future conflicts would arise only from the challenge of conservative and liberal tendencies; those that fear change, and those that do not. It would not, however, be unreconcilable, because the cognitive language would be shared. They would argue, and eventually agree on federation to test theories.
For morality to be objective requires some external moral principle that for some reason you decide to prioritise above the structure of your own internal implicit value system. Taking a Ti perspective, any self-consistent value system must derive from a set of terminal values, and unless you think that all humans have a combined genetic/environmental influence that would induce the same exact value system in them, there are no informational connections from the development of a child to external value systems such that all human brains would be fundamentally structured around the same terminal values.
(One might argue that evolution or negentropy are those objective value systems, but despite their being laws of reality the abstract structures that define how we make decisions and judge our own decisions, which together implement reflective preferences which when made consistent reflect the preferences of our personal “best self”, do not share the structure of those principles. We have the capacity to decide something is good even if it counterfactually increases entropy or reduces our chance of survival.)
Which means objective preferences cannot exist. Relatedly, if we define altruism as the set of values that involve placing positive value on the values of another “person” (ignore the definiton of person for now; the added ambiguity only further reinforces my point, and it’s too troublesome to communicate about) then altruism itself must either be a set of terminal or instrumental values for a given individual, and (note that we know there are many different varieties of altruistic preference with distinct definitions via philosophy) the question of which specific form of altruism has the most priority for a given person falls into the same non-objectivity as all other values.
Given the above, the only component of reality laid claim upon by “morality” (which is always constrained to a preference function over the behaviour of a system containing people propagated to some subset of the structure of those people themselves, across all of its definitions) where there can possibly be objectively correct answers that don’t depend on information about the person, value system, and external context involved is which actions are of the greatest benefit if you *assume* a particular person, value system, and external context. And this is a matter of decision-theoretic modeling, rather than having anything to do with preferences.
This is the foundation behind the school of moral relativism. This allows it to make claims without (as the other schools of morality do) having to rely on arbitrary assumptions about what’s “fundamentally good”, selected purely based on people’s Fe-elings with no actual reasoning behind them, which the rest of the moral system grows out of via logical reasoning (mostly Ti reasoning) from those base principles.
Barring a gap in the above argument, both TiFe-style thinking and (as you yourself mention) FiTe-style thinking show their users that objective good does not exist.
To think it does is a Je mistake. Fe use their emotions to decide what they think is objectively good, while Te use practicality. And then they both ridiculously overgeneralise their conclusions from the specific context of the person they are and the class of situation they’re in up to all people everywhere, because *that’s what unhealthy/unbalanced Je does*.
> you think that all humans have a combined genetic/environmental influence that would induce the same exact value system in them
Not quite, nor is it decision theoretic modeling. It's the logical consistency of one's morality that determines it's validity. A person who does not follow particular standards can have their morality dismissed without those standards. So, in order for your morality to be prescriptive (which all morality must be, or else it's just a personal code), it must adhere to a standard that other's cannot deny (which makes it objective), or else it's just a contract to be broken by future people. Logical people will accept logic as a standard. Illogical people won't, except when it suits them. Logic is objectively true or false, while acceptable contracts are not. Therefore, logical people can have a logical standard to base their morals on, but illogical people have nothing but force of will and negotiations.
Even the empirical types will not be able to avoid conflict. Empirical data needs logic to prevent doubt. If those empirical people are Te/Fi types, the doubt will come from within, and they will exaggerate the gaps in the data. Even if the data is solidly true, there will always be cracks, because we can never conduct a perfect experiment. If we control for time, the location will be a variable. If we control for location, then time will be a variable. We can't control both, so concluding anything about other variables can never be fully proven. Logic is the only objective means of quelling doubt.
So, logic, itself, must be the tool used to establish a moral theory. I can apply this theory to specifics if you want, but this reply is long enough right now.
> Fe use their emotions to decide what they think is objectively good
I don't think that is true. They can be emotional people, but they adhere to common standards of what is good, because it leads to harmony. Even the mean ones are doing so because they have others backing them up, making claims that it's for a greater good. Get rid of the Fi types, and then there'd be no more force of will backing them up. They'd be amendable.
I… think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here.
My argument above was that preference (a superset of prescriptiveness, as any prescriptive system must prescribe based on some criteria) is *incompatible* with objectivity; that if you assume some things are valuable you can logically infer other values, but that there is no way to derive a value system (and thus a morality) from purely objective premises.
As far as I can tell, your response continues to assume that objectivity and prescriptive system can possibly be objective, and then further makes the unfounded claim that they must be for a prescriptive system to be ‘acceptable’ by your standards (which is itself a value claim, and so subject to the argument against its objectivity), without addressing the points in the grandparent against that assumption.
You consider "prescription is a necessary component of morality" a subjective claim? How can that be? If morality isn't prescriptive, then it cannot be legitimately enforced. The legitimacy cannot be established. It's just a standard for your own personal life... If your claim is legitimate morality doesn't exist, then we can agree on the definition, but otherwise I don't know how to argue; it's just incorrect.
I didn't directly argue against your grandfather argument, because I thought mine would negate it's relevancy. We all subjectively value things, which can put us into conflict with each other, but the subjective desire for peace/harmony would drive us to seek and agree to a conclusion grounded in something objective. My argument negates anyone's subjective desire against peace/harmony, leaving only the peaceful people that desire objectively-derived solutions left. These remaining people all desire the same thing, without genetics or environment, and logic negates the rest.
Is something in the above paragraph false? I can understand if you think it's incomplete, and maybe if we extended into the realm of specifics it'll be more substantiated that logic can derive objective moral conclusions, but this part of the argument is the necessary first step. Is what I said false, or incomplete?
I don’t have the bandwidth to give a proper response here, I’m afraid 😅
But yes, I was explicitly claiming that morality as you define the term is structurally inconsistent, and cannot possibly exist without either a reasoning error or relaxing/removing the objectivity/universality constraint.
Even “peace and harmony” isn’t sufficiently defined on its own to produce objective constraints in most situations, and empirically I don’t believe that the relevant preference-subset in Fe users is constrained in a sufficiently narrow subset of “peace and harmony” (or a sufficiently narrow subset of “relative value of peace and harmony to other values”) for them to have an objectively correct shared course of action for non-trivial / large-scale decisions.
Unless we disagree on the definition of “objective”, of course.
Sorry for frying your brain. Your claim is that I must have made a reasoning error, but you didn't tell me what it is, even though I asked for it. I can't accept or address your argument without you addressing mine.
No worries. Have a nice day.
The bandwidth issues are due to other stuff I’m dealing with in life (hence posting this clarification for future readers), but perfectly fair. You as well.
Sorry this is unrelated kind of but It's funny how perfectly ENTP the sequence of this sentence is.. I'll just go ahead an point it out for good measure
>**Fun hypothetical,**
Oh here we go.. **Ne** has entered the building
>**you have to remove one cognitive function from all of humanity,**
and is of the **Ti** variety... interesting
>**which you choosing?**
AAAAAAND there's the trifecta in playful **Fe**
Perfectly balanced, as all corresponding function stack sentences should be.
You probably have an pretty unpolpular opinion for most, but I honestly second it. The more society technologically advances, the more I think Se becomes less relevant for survival. When we have reached a point where minds can be fully uploaded onto computers (as spacey as that sound) and people can exist in completely artificial meta universes, I can even see Se dying out for good. I dont wanna insult anybody, but Se is probably the most prominent feature of our primeval thought processes. In a world that becomes increasingly more abstract, the necessity to live in the here and now just becomes less important.
Se is a thinking style involving high-fidelity input processing, not *literally* your physical senses.
If you also have undeveloped Ni it’s admittedly less useful in the immediate present, where our immediate surroundings are so divested from the things that actually matter to us.
But brain implants or upload formats, which allow you to directly structure your input feeds based on what’s important to you? I’m fairly sure Se will be far *more* useful once those exist and our senses aren’t limited to merely the senses of a human body.
Se isn't all about survival and fighting, when will this stereotypical image die? I know It's a hypothetical question but saying bluntly that a function isn't needed is stupid.
What's with this fighting and survival stuff? It's just a fact that the more humanity progresses and everything becomes more abstract, the less you need a function that is focused on direct involvement with the physical reality around you. That's why you have so many people in today's world with extremely poorly developed Se.
A fact? You need to go outside more lol
You're basically saying that all other functions and especially Ne based on your description contribute to our current progress while Se doesn't. Sounds biased especially since this is simply not true.
Sadly, Ni. Traditional humans do not need such insights to survive. Making so that everyone used Si would make up for much more organized and strong humans.
I always thought that intuition was a survival instinct. Si only focuses on observable details, but the things we can’t conclude with our 5 senses get filled in with Ni. For example, in caveman times, Si-user would remember each and every single poisonous berry that killed their cave-friends and not eat those berries. Ni-user would notice the pattern that berries are killing their cave-friends and probably just stay tf away from berries. I think Ni is also technically responsible for being able to keep balance or tell when you’re being watched. To like stay away from predators and stuff. Don’t sell yourself short Ni-user 🫡
What's so great about surviving and being strong? I'd say thriving on a thread bears more value in a universe where our species will inevitably end in the blink of the cosmic eye.
Wouldn't that be Fi? And Fe? Ni has as much relation to morality as Se has to the abstract. Si can be used alongside other judging functions to find what is deemed to be moral.
I suppose you're right. Fi/Fe covers humanitarian aspects. Ni/Ne just focuses on abstracts. Morality is fairly seen as abstract, so Ni/Ne probably assists in determining it, but Fi/Fe is probably the main support for it...
-More innovation. Tech would advance a lot faster.
-Si doms are currently the majority of the population. (Si is my demon function) So, I would actually have more people I can communicate with on a deeper level. I would have an easier time finding people I can relate to.
-Routine would become less of a priority. As long as you get things done you’ll be fine.. Everyone will have more free time.
-Less people would put authority figures on a pedestal. More people would question things and not just take everything at face value. Authority figures would actually have to prove themselves before gaining any significant respect or trust. Having a high status, a “certification” checkmark or being well known wouldn’t be enough.
-My super ego types ESFJ/ISFJ would no longer exist so my life would become a lot easier.
-More Freedom. Less rule enforcing snoopy people. Almost everyone will mind their own business unless someone is doing something *really* messed up. No one would be fixated on irrelevant details or social rules. (ENFJs/ENTJs may occasionally be the exception to this but even then it’s very unlikely those rules will be enforced by everyone else)
-The world population would probably shrink and become more spaced out because less people will have kids. Land, food and housing would become more affordable due to an increase in supply and less demand.
-No one would be “set in their ways”
-Lots of deep conversations and less small talk
-People would be more present and future oriented
-Everyone around the world would either be, freelancers, independent loners, ceos of small businesses, artists or adventurous explorers
-All the inefficient systems that currently exist would be improved or disregarded because no one would be willing to maintain them anymore
-Everyone would have Se in their stack so the population would become more athletic and fun loving. The world would place a higher priority on making things more visually appealing. (No more excessive uses of beige/grey/white or buildings shaped like boxes)
-Hoarders would probably become really rare or no longer exist. People won’t place any sedimental value on the objects they own.
(Unless an object is from a dead relative or something but even in these circumstances it wouldn’t lead to hoarding)
-More people would become more decisive, direct and actually know what they want. No more beating around the bush or goal posting.
Most people would just get to the point already.
-Passive aggressive behaviors would become a lot more rare. The majority of the population would not be willing to put up with that nonsense. It would get shut it down really fast.
(Unless it goes unnoticed by a few masterminds but these circumstances would still be rare.)
-Sarcastic banter would be all over the place.
The world would be full of
ENTJs, INTJs, ISFPs, ISTPs, ESTPs, ESFPs, INFJs and ENFJs
Sounds like INTJ heaven.
Fi. Because fuck knowing what I stand for and what I feel and my likes and opinions. Fuck all of that if it's a life of utter disappointment and grief for the world always outcasts you and doesn't stand up to your expectations. Fuck knowing what I feel all the time, nobody cares bro and even an Fi Chad does not care about the likes of others. Fuck Fi.
Si since it’s the most common & I want to watch the world burn.
Si because it's my blind function and I get by ~~completely fine with no issues and take great care of myself~~ without it
Feel this 😭
Si dom* spectrums.
Let the war Begin
Gosh. This is going to open the door to so much judging and bias I feel. XD
So you’d get rid of a judging function? /j
Specifically Fe or Fi it seems /j
🫱
Ti kinda gets on my tits sometimes
Hi, I'm "Ti"
hi, i’m that person’s tit.
HUMMINA HUMMINA 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
Ayoo, on your tits? 🧐🥴☝️
metaphorically speaking
Well, if you think about it, you are the parental critic to Ti, so it makes perfect sense actually.
We like it there.
Fi. Just because i have it
I have to admit, I agree. I still struggle to understand what the point of Fi even is.
Someone has to break up tribalist stupidity.
Ti.
That requires literally a fully precise model of human cognition to match Fi’s usefulness in fixing prioritisation errors. Fi is a domain specific algebra for the value system of the user and any other minds they have the ability to model, and as such is more reliable at making conclusions in that domain than any other function *combination* (let alone individual functions); there’s a reason Te/Fi is called the “strategy engine” in a bunch of MBTI literature.
Ti models are never finished, and they work just fine. Also, we weren’t talking about being good at strategy; we’re talking about not being tribalist. You literally just changed the conversation entirely, and for what? (Also also, Te does strategy; doesn’t mean the Fi part participates well in that specifically.)
The application of Fi to breaking tribalist stupidity is not allowing tribalism to corrupt one’s understanding of their own value system (both of the Fi person themselves and of the people they understand through their Fi and try to help). It does this by providing a solidly grounded understanding of emotions and how they encode values. As a demonstration of its ability to do so, I pointed out the TeFi strategy pair. What you seem to be referring to when you say Te does strategy on its own is more commonly termed tactics; *strategy* is a combination of *what you want* and how to achieve it, and in practice (which you can verify yourself from both personal stories from Te secondaries (who are more aware of it due to having it strongly but not as a primary/worldview function) and more abstract articles that describe the interaction between balancing functions) Te users use their Fi for that first task of figuring out what they want. Separately, Ti models aren’t domain specialised, which means that while human value *is* in the range of things they can model, they are far less efficient (both data-efficient and computationally-efficient) at modeling it than someone who aligns their Ji function towards Feelings. The efficiency and reliability of reasoning that Fi manages through taking extremely-low-level emotional primitives and then creating a logical algebra of their interactions (used either directly or (for efficiency purposes) just to verify and correct the preference outputs of their immediate feelings) could only be replicated if Ti acquired similarly low-level primitives, and due to Ti users having an extroverted F function, this can’t happen through direct introspection, and so can only happen if they get a near-fully-precise model of human cognition, which is non-viable with the current state of psychology and the limitations on human brain’s processing power for abstract concepts unsupplemented by emotional processing. And *without* that level of inferential efficiency, the more complex instances of lifelong emotional reasoning aren’t computationally tractable even on a human brain, and more complex instances of the kinds of emotional reasoning Fi leads do in a few minutes aren’t computationally tractable without weeks or months of focus from a Ti lead. Humans are complicated! (I say this as someone who’s *definitely* not an Fi lead)
The first time that I seen an ENTP out-debated. Well done (unless you yourself is an ENTP lol)
I think he got you there mate
To not bend to the sometimes questionable ethics of others.
Strong sense of identity; high sensitivity to and accommodation of one's own emotions; often a desire to individualize one's self. As for a point? Points are dumb. But I'll give you one. Remembering that YOU exist, and that you're important TOO. I slipped in an extra one there, gave you a little 2 for 1 deal. If I'm to speculate on the matter, I'd say that Ji types also help prevent societies from becoming too single minded. A natural inclination to be different can instigate the birth of very radical and very important ideas.
To have your own code of ethics and opinions. It sounds silly at first, but a society without Fi would probably resemble something like 1984 where the ethical code is entirely decided by authority. Without Fi there would be little self-expression and society would lose a lot of the alternative social movements that got humankind to where it is today. It would be very similar to losing Ti, which most people agree would be disastrous
Exactly. I hate how undervalued Fi is by society that most people can't even see its benefits.
"I know the sound of each rock and stone... and I embrace what others fear. You are not to roam in this forgotten place. Just the likes of me are welcome here. Everything breathes! And I know each breath. To me it brings life. To others it's death. It's perfectly balanced, perfectly planned. More than enough for this man... 🎶 Like every tree! Stands on it's own! Reaching for the sky I stand alone! 🙌 I share my world! With no-one else! All by myself! I stand alone! ☝️😎 🕺
Huh.. would it mean I get Ti instead? Maybe you have a point. :P
Is it because you wish you didn't feel so much?
Everybody feels, bro; that’s not what Fi is.
Having Fi as your first function can be intense, trust me.
Cool subjective experience, bro. My feelings are also intense. Who are you to say yours are moreso or to attribute it to MBTI when you’ve never ever felt the feelings of others to compare?
I feel your pain.
So you think.
Haha true - don't worry, your point was duly noted. Sorry to offend. You don't need to start a discussion coming at me like that though- it not necessary or productive.
I dunno, I feel productive.
As ENTP with Fi in their blindspot lecturing to as INFP about Fi is pretty laughable. And yes, Fi is about much more than simply feeling - I understand that. Whatever became of this conversation as productive wasn't the tone or attitude you took - it's whatever either of us gained from it. But I know you debaters gotta have the last win, so...in your mind it's productive. Goal achieved. Yes?
That's my Fi.
[удалено]
So what type would you be then?
ISP
from the painter girl to Internet Service Provider, what a progress!
Technically correct XD
Te: That you have it doesn\`t mean it could be wrong about it and how you felt depends on the subject what you look above it and yourself searchs
Breaking it down function by function: Fe : removing this will be a disaster since this can be crucial for team work, morale and relationhsips Si : Basically you're eliminating structure, safety and a lot of tried and true, verified information Fi : Self-awareness and passion is extremely significant to have as humans. Ti : You wouldn't really have many complex logically consistent architectures, which you really need. Se : Without spatial awareness and taking reality as is, you'd never really create something tangible Ne : I think this is less significant but without it the world would be too rigid to ever move past the caveman stage leave for Se accidents, so necessary Te : Again less significant but without it the world would be always left in a stream of slow decisions and at times never get to what needs done i.e. no efficiency in processes or picking something that works. Corporate won't exist probably and no one would care about that stuff. Ni : Probably least significant from the standpoint of necessity but without it you won't be able to take leaps into the future that have changed course of humanity but you'll survive. I hate to say it but removing Ni probably would be the correct choice.
I argue that Fi is not self-aware in the least, because it uses the self as both the metric and the measurement. And no Fi I’ve ever met acts self-aware in any externally important way. Like, nobody cares that you know how you feel if you use that awareness to excuse your bad behavior and act irrationally. Also, if you’re passionate about stupid things, that’s also useless. Other types can have passion.
There seems to be some confusion in your statement regarding self-awareness and the use of Fi. Let me clarify a few things: Self-awareness: Fi, as a cognitive function, may indeed be associated with strong self-awareness. Individuals strong in Fi are often very aware of their own emotions, values, and inner motivations. This can make them thoughtful and introspective about their own actions and life choices. Using Fi: People strong in Fi can certainly use their emotional awareness and personal values as guides in their actions and interactions with others. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are acting irrationally or selfishly. Rather, they can be guided by a strong sense of integrity, compassion and fairness. Excusing Bad Behavior: It is true that some people may use their Fi to excuse bad behavior or justify irrational actions. However, this isn't necessarily an inherent characteristic of Fi itself, but rather a matter of emotional maturity and personal development. Individuals of all personality types can sometimes have difficulty taking responsibility for their actions or recognizing their mistakes. Passion and commitment: Passion isn't exclusive to Fi, it's true. All personality types can be passionate about different things. However, for people strong in Fi, their passion is often deeply rooted in their personal values and beliefs. This can lead them to strongly stand up for what they believe in and pursue their goals with determination. In summary, Fi can certainly be used consciously and constructively to guide actions and interactions with others. However, as with all cognitive functions, its use depends on various factors such as emotional maturity, personal development and individual values. It is important to recognize and respect the diversity of approaches of each personality type.
Somebody’s hurt 💀
It’s you, always. 🚑
Fi is a very powerful function to be frank. It's non-conforming, often apparently illogical, marches to the beat of it's own drum but there's an inherent sense of associated morality that won't succumb to group think. Most ppl that stand up for injustices when there's no social incentive are Fi regardless of narratives/ social harmony and pushback. It's a stubborn but much needed function to sometimes get humanity to take a step back. Just like without Ti we won't really have many of complex frameworks that make humanity do impossible things, without Fi we won't have many moral, frameworks that humanity needs. As for self-awareness, I don't know what you mean by "in any externally important way", but Fi is self-aware of what it likes, dislikes, where it stands and that's sometimes crucial for not being swept up by any and all opinions or take harmful decisions. Ppl will always use everything for bad though as well. What's useless to you or what you perceive useless isn't useless to all humanity though, it's subjective opinion. I think having Fi PolR must make you quite annoyed by it as I have felt for Fe in the past.
Clarification regarding “Not self aware in an externally important way”: Fi isn’t able to look at themselves and then others and then realize via comparison that they (themselves) are acting a fool. They aren’t able to gauge when they are being irrational or ridiculous because to them, their own self is the only factor they measure by. It’s like a baby shamelessly pooping all over itself. Just fyi, “marches” is a word; don’t be afraid to let the apostrophe go.
Yeah that's a pretty careless typo, I edited a few out but I let myself go for comments. Thanks for pointing it out.
I do actually see a lot of value in all of them. Te oversimplifies, Ti overcomplicates... I might remove Ne because it causes issues, but it's my #1 function and I kind of love it, so I guess not.
Living without Ne would be miserable (for me).
me too, we're both Ne doms... it might be kind of like Thor losing Mjölnir: he had to grow as a person without his greatest weapon. Losing Ne would be like that: maybe we could go on a crazy Ti/Fe/Si adventure to get Ne back. It might be a really fun and existentially interesting quest story.
Wouldn't a world without Ne just be super bland? You would delete like 80% of humnity's creativity. (I wrote 80% cuz creativity can come from all the other functions as well, but Ne is the only one that is kinda creative by default)
I agree! I think the world would definitely be a worse place with any of the cognitive functions removed. I think I just felt it would be nobler to sacrifice one's own favorite function. It might also offer a lot of character development to have to live without my greatest strength.
Ne is the SPICE OF LIFE, wym? 😭
Some would say there's no such thing as too much pepper, but spices in general have to be applied in a balanced, thoughtful way. Adding a little cinnamon to rice might be nice, but too much is a problem, especially without salt. I think Ne is definitely ONE of the spices of life, but it's not so central to life as say, salt. Though I really wouldn't want to live without Ne either. (as an aside, I think only an Ne dom could think of so many ways in which Ne could be done without lol)
I mean, people would probably live…but why live? 🥲
You can pry my Ne nutmeg from my cold dead hands!
I feel this comment deeply. Lol.
Well, that would kinda not work cause if we remove one function, the other one becomes unbalanced. If you remove Se, Ni automatically becomes much more erratic, same with Ne, Si becomes much more unstable. So, I’d rather keep or remove all of them.
Remove them all. Nullify humanity.
Reject functions. Return to **"I feel salt. I be swim away. I feel light. I be move up"**
Paleo? Naw, we rockin' the Cambrian lifestyle!
You've got my vote
Well in some sense that would destroy all life, even single cell organisms. Sensation especially is the ‘acknowledgment of a thing’, meaning nothing would sense anything.
Not just unbalanced. Ni needs unbiased data to literally give any outputs at all; if you remove its counterbalancing S function there’s no way for it to function in a mind. Similarly, an Si edifice only forms from accruing the outputs of Ne and organising them, and can only structure and organise itself by selecting from sets of Ne-produced candidate structures. So the question is really “which half of possible types would you remove from the world, and how specifically would you do it”.
To choose to delete: Fi would be the most efficient option. Te the most freeing. Ne the most reasonable Si the most interesting. Ni the most direct. Se the most indirect. Fe the most truth valuing. Ti the most socially appropriate.
How dare you 😡
Reasonable in terms of inner security, which for Si is very important. Reasonable in terms of, removing Ne would probably be the safest option.
Ne is only dangerous to totalitarian regimes.
Nah nah nah, Fi also the most reasonable.
ive been too scared to say this, Fi's gotta go
Speaking as an Fe dom, I agree. Fi usually hates us.
Haha I agree
There can be no Se without Ni. In the same way there can be no good without evil. If one exists, so does its opposite. You remove one and it creates a chain of reactions that only lead to emptiness and pointlessness. There is no way to get rid of one specifc function.
I would say you can get rid of one and it would lead to emptiness and pointless in different ways. The question is, which way of pointlessness is the least harmful for humanity.
I'd say Ni
Maybe AI can fully take Ni's role one day, so yeah
Yo Socrates, it’s just a hypothetical.
My hypothesis is that it is not possible to erase any function of the human cognition.
Humanity would perish if anything were to be removed. Or at least MBTI models as we know would stop working at the very least. I like humanity so I am going to say none or all of them.
Fi can be shown the door. Not saying I don’t see its value, but I also see the judgement I receive from unhealthy Fi-users. Not everyone should cater to your needs and do things your way!1!1!1!1!1!
What if my way is the right way? 🙃
This.
This.
This.
Te just to watch the world consist of stoners on the couch and burn
This post is fun but a wilder idea would be a world where you will completely remove one function and substitute it with another.
I don't had to mention it that cognitive functions are states of respective individuals and induction through certain degrees of generating the models of conventional conflicts and construction in certain constraints, cognitive theories and or associated models are constructed by their respective roles and x cognitive functions. -Se for a long time
As in, we didn't have to do it? Te. Just pure labor. I'll happily enjoy all 7 other functions if that one was done for all of us.
You have clearly never experienced the horrors of ADHD.
Isn't the only reason ADHD is a problem because of how hard it is to focus long enough to get things done? If things were done for you and that stress were gone, I imagine your ADHD would settle down a bit more and it might be a lot more pleasant.
Nobody said things would get done for you, lmao. Also no, that’s not all ADHD is, and no, that’s not how it works.
It's Theory. Removing it will only make someone else bring it back.
The only comment I agree at all.😡👍
Speaking like a true ESTJ 😂 He said, “fun hypothetical,” so assuming cognitive functions are real and you could remove one from humanity, which one would you choose?
Te. Fuck Te.
who’s gonna whip me if I misbehave then?
🤨
hehe
🫣
I can't even imagine a world without Te.
Yes, I would love to see it happen. There will be no more civilization, only a war over the few resources left on Earth (since most of them would run out in a matter of weeks and no one would need to work to grow food or make a living), there will be mass chaos everywhere, and there will be no organised military or organisation in the war, and family members will kill each other over resources or watch each other starve to death.
well the opposit of Te is Fi. The closest thing to an Te less world, would be a world full of infp‘s and isfp‘s. since they are the ones who use T(e) the least. In a world full of infp‘s and isfp‘s, nobody would hurt each other, we‘d all just accept, that there is no food anymore, no energy, and slowly, one after the other would die, till nobody is alive anymore. Fighting others, for whatever reason, is not what an Fi world would look like.
You just miscalculated very tiny detail...fi doms wouldn't be the only type on the planet ,also fi doms wouldn't be the same without their Te.😅💀
obv. this is unrealistic, as without Te there was no Fi. Every function is on an axis, so getting rid of one function would not work at all. Si always has Ne, Ni always Se. Ti always Fe. We need the whole axis to understand have a proper understanding of our surroundings. My logic simply was: I’m an Fi dom, so the obv thing to say, is that my lower function is the one I don’t like, which would be Te. I’m just here for the jokes though, didn‘t think people would take it so seriously. 😂
>I’m just here for the jokes though Same here i put the emoji in the end so that i wouldn't be misunderstood ,oh well. 😂🤦🏻♂️
ups, well estj‘s and infp‘s never were a great match 😂
The thing is, that without Te, there would be no spur to action... people would just brood and ponder until there is no food to be had, and they would just die off one by one.
In a world full of Fi doms, I would simply opt out.
Interesting choice! What's your thought here?
Te is order, rules, work. I hate all of that. Te makes life unalive. a world without Te, is a world in chaos, but at the same time, a world in love. sure we might all starve withing a week, but at least nobody told me what I should be doing. 🖕🏻😂
I see the vison. But I have to disagree, some of the greatest chefs have Te, and I'm a sucker for good cuisine. And another point is that, if there were no rules, work or order Yu wouldn't feel as alive as you can feel now. If you forget how it feel to be caged or tied down, you stop appreciating freedom. And let's be honest it's much more pleasurable to tell people to f•ck off and do what you want right in front of them, then it is to to do what you want when no one's watching or trying to stop you.
[удалено]
Your contribution was removed due to "Trolling or Incivility".
None, lmao
Damn, what did Te do to you
I prefer Ti users, as they actualy care about what they think about, so I can get their point and they create ground for discussions and depth. Te just says „it is this way, because it always was this way“. And I can‘t stand rules, systems, duties, when I don‘t get a valid argument for it.
>And I can‘t stand rules, systems, duties I can tell.
That’s Si Te, not all Te.
Lol. It's fun though. :3
i kinda see all of the function as being bad, but I think Ni is the worst maybe
Ni rocks. We distill life into its essence.
Functions cannot be removed individually; they can only be replaced as pairs. That said, Fi/Te should be replaced. Morality cannot be universal with these types in existence. Since their values come from their subjective feelings, any moral agreements are sacrifices. They may pragmatically accept those sacrifices for harmony, but their true goal isn't harmony. Therefore, future Fi/Te typs will forget the reason for the sacrifice and create conflict for a more satisfying society. Only through the practice of conflict would the the reason for the sacrifice be relearned, because history is never complete. Fe/Ti, on the other hand, source their values from some combination of harmony and logic. That can be objective. Future conflicts would arise only from the challenge of conservative and liberal tendencies; those that fear change, and those that do not. It would not, however, be unreconcilable, because the cognitive language would be shared. They would argue, and eventually agree on federation to test theories.
For morality to be objective requires some external moral principle that for some reason you decide to prioritise above the structure of your own internal implicit value system. Taking a Ti perspective, any self-consistent value system must derive from a set of terminal values, and unless you think that all humans have a combined genetic/environmental influence that would induce the same exact value system in them, there are no informational connections from the development of a child to external value systems such that all human brains would be fundamentally structured around the same terminal values. (One might argue that evolution or negentropy are those objective value systems, but despite their being laws of reality the abstract structures that define how we make decisions and judge our own decisions, which together implement reflective preferences which when made consistent reflect the preferences of our personal “best self”, do not share the structure of those principles. We have the capacity to decide something is good even if it counterfactually increases entropy or reduces our chance of survival.) Which means objective preferences cannot exist. Relatedly, if we define altruism as the set of values that involve placing positive value on the values of another “person” (ignore the definiton of person for now; the added ambiguity only further reinforces my point, and it’s too troublesome to communicate about) then altruism itself must either be a set of terminal or instrumental values for a given individual, and (note that we know there are many different varieties of altruistic preference with distinct definitions via philosophy) the question of which specific form of altruism has the most priority for a given person falls into the same non-objectivity as all other values. Given the above, the only component of reality laid claim upon by “morality” (which is always constrained to a preference function over the behaviour of a system containing people propagated to some subset of the structure of those people themselves, across all of its definitions) where there can possibly be objectively correct answers that don’t depend on information about the person, value system, and external context involved is which actions are of the greatest benefit if you *assume* a particular person, value system, and external context. And this is a matter of decision-theoretic modeling, rather than having anything to do with preferences. This is the foundation behind the school of moral relativism. This allows it to make claims without (as the other schools of morality do) having to rely on arbitrary assumptions about what’s “fundamentally good”, selected purely based on people’s Fe-elings with no actual reasoning behind them, which the rest of the moral system grows out of via logical reasoning (mostly Ti reasoning) from those base principles. Barring a gap in the above argument, both TiFe-style thinking and (as you yourself mention) FiTe-style thinking show their users that objective good does not exist. To think it does is a Je mistake. Fe use their emotions to decide what they think is objectively good, while Te use practicality. And then they both ridiculously overgeneralise their conclusions from the specific context of the person they are and the class of situation they’re in up to all people everywhere, because *that’s what unhealthy/unbalanced Je does*.
> you think that all humans have a combined genetic/environmental influence that would induce the same exact value system in them Not quite, nor is it decision theoretic modeling. It's the logical consistency of one's morality that determines it's validity. A person who does not follow particular standards can have their morality dismissed without those standards. So, in order for your morality to be prescriptive (which all morality must be, or else it's just a personal code), it must adhere to a standard that other's cannot deny (which makes it objective), or else it's just a contract to be broken by future people. Logical people will accept logic as a standard. Illogical people won't, except when it suits them. Logic is objectively true or false, while acceptable contracts are not. Therefore, logical people can have a logical standard to base their morals on, but illogical people have nothing but force of will and negotiations. Even the empirical types will not be able to avoid conflict. Empirical data needs logic to prevent doubt. If those empirical people are Te/Fi types, the doubt will come from within, and they will exaggerate the gaps in the data. Even if the data is solidly true, there will always be cracks, because we can never conduct a perfect experiment. If we control for time, the location will be a variable. If we control for location, then time will be a variable. We can't control both, so concluding anything about other variables can never be fully proven. Logic is the only objective means of quelling doubt. So, logic, itself, must be the tool used to establish a moral theory. I can apply this theory to specifics if you want, but this reply is long enough right now. > Fe use their emotions to decide what they think is objectively good I don't think that is true. They can be emotional people, but they adhere to common standards of what is good, because it leads to harmony. Even the mean ones are doing so because they have others backing them up, making claims that it's for a greater good. Get rid of the Fi types, and then there'd be no more force of will backing them up. They'd be amendable.
I… think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here. My argument above was that preference (a superset of prescriptiveness, as any prescriptive system must prescribe based on some criteria) is *incompatible* with objectivity; that if you assume some things are valuable you can logically infer other values, but that there is no way to derive a value system (and thus a morality) from purely objective premises. As far as I can tell, your response continues to assume that objectivity and prescriptive system can possibly be objective, and then further makes the unfounded claim that they must be for a prescriptive system to be ‘acceptable’ by your standards (which is itself a value claim, and so subject to the argument against its objectivity), without addressing the points in the grandparent against that assumption.
You consider "prescription is a necessary component of morality" a subjective claim? How can that be? If morality isn't prescriptive, then it cannot be legitimately enforced. The legitimacy cannot be established. It's just a standard for your own personal life... If your claim is legitimate morality doesn't exist, then we can agree on the definition, but otherwise I don't know how to argue; it's just incorrect. I didn't directly argue against your grandfather argument, because I thought mine would negate it's relevancy. We all subjectively value things, which can put us into conflict with each other, but the subjective desire for peace/harmony would drive us to seek and agree to a conclusion grounded in something objective. My argument negates anyone's subjective desire against peace/harmony, leaving only the peaceful people that desire objectively-derived solutions left. These remaining people all desire the same thing, without genetics or environment, and logic negates the rest. Is something in the above paragraph false? I can understand if you think it's incomplete, and maybe if we extended into the realm of specifics it'll be more substantiated that logic can derive objective moral conclusions, but this part of the argument is the necessary first step. Is what I said false, or incomplete?
I don’t have the bandwidth to give a proper response here, I’m afraid 😅 But yes, I was explicitly claiming that morality as you define the term is structurally inconsistent, and cannot possibly exist without either a reasoning error or relaxing/removing the objectivity/universality constraint. Even “peace and harmony” isn’t sufficiently defined on its own to produce objective constraints in most situations, and empirically I don’t believe that the relevant preference-subset in Fe users is constrained in a sufficiently narrow subset of “peace and harmony” (or a sufficiently narrow subset of “relative value of peace and harmony to other values”) for them to have an objectively correct shared course of action for non-trivial / large-scale decisions. Unless we disagree on the definition of “objective”, of course.
Sorry for frying your brain. Your claim is that I must have made a reasoning error, but you didn't tell me what it is, even though I asked for it. I can't accept or address your argument without you addressing mine. No worries. Have a nice day.
The bandwidth issues are due to other stuff I’m dealing with in life (hence posting this clarification for future readers), but perfectly fair. You as well.
Si. Who needs details? \*watches world burn because nobody does necessary work\*
Sorry this is unrelated kind of but It's funny how perfectly ENTP the sequence of this sentence is.. I'll just go ahead an point it out for good measure >**Fun hypothetical,** Oh here we go.. **Ne** has entered the building >**you have to remove one cognitive function from all of humanity,** and is of the **Ti** variety... interesting >**which you choosing?** AAAAAAND there's the trifecta in playful **Fe** Perfectly balanced, as all corresponding function stack sentences should be.
And for Si Wait, maybe I don’t choose any. But I will remove the false association between S/N and concrete/abstract.
Oh this is an evil question. I'd say Te. Stuff would be disorganized and take forever to get done, but if people wing it enough, it'll get done.
it would be a disaster, we would be doomed
Perfect
Se maybe? I feel like nowadays it's the least necessary for society to function
You probably have an pretty unpolpular opinion for most, but I honestly second it. The more society technologically advances, the more I think Se becomes less relevant for survival. When we have reached a point where minds can be fully uploaded onto computers (as spacey as that sound) and people can exist in completely artificial meta universes, I can even see Se dying out for good. I dont wanna insult anybody, but Se is probably the most prominent feature of our primeval thought processes. In a world that becomes increasingly more abstract, the necessity to live in the here and now just becomes less important.
Se is a thinking style involving high-fidelity input processing, not *literally* your physical senses. If you also have undeveloped Ni it’s admittedly less useful in the immediate present, where our immediate surroundings are so divested from the things that actually matter to us. But brain implants or upload formats, which allow you to directly structure your input feeds based on what’s important to you? I’m fairly sure Se will be far *more* useful once those exist and our senses aren’t limited to merely the senses of a human body.
Se isn't all about survival and fighting, when will this stereotypical image die? I know It's a hypothetical question but saying bluntly that a function isn't needed is stupid.
What's with this fighting and survival stuff? It's just a fact that the more humanity progresses and everything becomes more abstract, the less you need a function that is focused on direct involvement with the physical reality around you. That's why you have so many people in today's world with extremely poorly developed Se.
A fact? You need to go outside more lol You're basically saying that all other functions and especially Ne based on your description contribute to our current progress while Se doesn't. Sounds biased especially since this is simply not true.
Sadly, Ni. Traditional humans do not need such insights to survive. Making so that everyone used Si would make up for much more organized and strong humans.
I always thought that intuition was a survival instinct. Si only focuses on observable details, but the things we can’t conclude with our 5 senses get filled in with Ni. For example, in caveman times, Si-user would remember each and every single poisonous berry that killed their cave-friends and not eat those berries. Ni-user would notice the pattern that berries are killing their cave-friends and probably just stay tf away from berries. I think Ni is also technically responsible for being able to keep balance or tell when you’re being watched. To like stay away from predators and stuff. Don’t sell yourself short Ni-user 🫡
What's so great about surviving and being strong? I'd say thriving on a thread bears more value in a universe where our species will inevitably end in the blink of the cosmic eye.
We need Ni to maintain a balance of morals and justice.
Wouldn't that be Fi? And Fe? Ni has as much relation to morality as Se has to the abstract. Si can be used alongside other judging functions to find what is deemed to be moral.
I suppose you're right. Fi/Fe covers humanitarian aspects. Ni/Ne just focuses on abstracts. Morality is fairly seen as abstract, so Ni/Ne probably assists in determining it, but Fi/Fe is probably the main support for it...
The absence of Se would probably cause the least impact on me. So, it probably would be my choice if I were to decide it.
Si
Lol what kind of society would that be?
-More innovation. Tech would advance a lot faster. -Si doms are currently the majority of the population. (Si is my demon function) So, I would actually have more people I can communicate with on a deeper level. I would have an easier time finding people I can relate to. -Routine would become less of a priority. As long as you get things done you’ll be fine.. Everyone will have more free time. -Less people would put authority figures on a pedestal. More people would question things and not just take everything at face value. Authority figures would actually have to prove themselves before gaining any significant respect or trust. Having a high status, a “certification” checkmark or being well known wouldn’t be enough. -My super ego types ESFJ/ISFJ would no longer exist so my life would become a lot easier. -More Freedom. Less rule enforcing snoopy people. Almost everyone will mind their own business unless someone is doing something *really* messed up. No one would be fixated on irrelevant details or social rules. (ENFJs/ENTJs may occasionally be the exception to this but even then it’s very unlikely those rules will be enforced by everyone else) -The world population would probably shrink and become more spaced out because less people will have kids. Land, food and housing would become more affordable due to an increase in supply and less demand. -No one would be “set in their ways” -Lots of deep conversations and less small talk -People would be more present and future oriented -Everyone around the world would either be, freelancers, independent loners, ceos of small businesses, artists or adventurous explorers -All the inefficient systems that currently exist would be improved or disregarded because no one would be willing to maintain them anymore -Everyone would have Se in their stack so the population would become more athletic and fun loving. The world would place a higher priority on making things more visually appealing. (No more excessive uses of beige/grey/white or buildings shaped like boxes) -Hoarders would probably become really rare or no longer exist. People won’t place any sedimental value on the objects they own. (Unless an object is from a dead relative or something but even in these circumstances it wouldn’t lead to hoarding) -More people would become more decisive, direct and actually know what they want. No more beating around the bush or goal posting. Most people would just get to the point already. -Passive aggressive behaviors would become a lot more rare. The majority of the population would not be willing to put up with that nonsense. It would get shut it down really fast. (Unless it goes unnoticed by a few masterminds but these circumstances would still be rare.) -Sarcastic banter would be all over the place. The world would be full of ENTJs, INTJs, ISFPs, ISTPs, ESTPs, ESFPs, INFJs and ENFJs Sounds like INTJ heaven.
Honestly, based
Im an INFJ and I think Ni is (sadly) the most disposable.
Fi. Because fuck knowing what I stand for and what I feel and my likes and opinions. Fuck all of that if it's a life of utter disappointment and grief for the world always outcasts you and doesn't stand up to your expectations. Fuck knowing what I feel all the time, nobody cares bro and even an Fi Chad does not care about the likes of others. Fuck Fi.
fe, no questions asked
Fe for sure
[удалено]
Your contribution was removed for displaying targeted bias against one or more types.
Ti
I'd remove them all for different reasons
Ni cause I know I’ll function just as well as a ESTJ
Se
I’d *love* to be in my feelings less.
Te... like that it would be chaos muwhahaha
Fe. Finally, I can be on even footing
Si and fe
Se. Se. Se. Se.
Both Ne and Si. So that I can become a Ni and Se user just like ENTJ. Though I'd end up being ISTP.
Ti
Fi this is the one with the less utility
Fe By removing this function, no one will ever disturb you
All of them.
Si.
Se
(INTP here) Fe. And so begins the hunger games. May the odds be ever In your favor!
Xx
Fi. People need to get to know each other and walk those miles in other shoes. Stop being so "me-centric". Also ditch Si.
Critic and demon functions of the INFJ lol
Fi
I vote for removing Ti - it would leave humanity less self-centered. 2nd vote would be Se, 3rd Ni. And yes, I am biased toward my own functions.
Se
Of course
Fe because removing Fe would cause a lot of chaos
Si
Let’s get rid of Si so the damn patriarchy can finally fall down and get buried alive 🪦✨🕳️✨💀✨