Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangsta

[jesmine]

What I'm basically championing is that that "individuals" need to be recognized and the top-down "everybody likes"-type thinking needs to go away

This reminds me of JMG's recent post https://www.ecosophia.net/the-law-of-consequences/ where he writes:

Mass-mindedness is normal for human beings. We outgrow it only slowly, one at a time. When somebody does become a genuine individual, for that matter, everyone around them thinks that they’re really kind of weird, and exerts various kinds of pressure to try to drag them back to one kind of groupthink or another.

One advantage we have just now is that the pressure of collective consciousness is easier to escape than at most times in the past. Yes, I’m well aware of mass media, advertising, and the other gimmickries used by today’s wealthy classes to exploit the mass-minded. None of it is as pervasive or as crushing as the overwhelming groupthink of small town society in the days before cheap printing presses and efficient postal systems opened windows on a wider world.

What I'm interested in here is the process of an individual transitioning from someone who self identifies with a particular group or a collection of groups to someone who is a genuine individual. Both of my parents grew up in the Old Order Amish sect, where the soul crushing groupthink is still alive and well to an intensity few people appreciate. I've inherited this mindset, have been going through this process, and am coming out of a very disorienting phase. Many people who have left the Amish and conservative Mennonite sects never complete this process. They simply find freedom in another group that is not as soul crushing.

For mass-minded individuals it is tempting to think that the current civilization is a result of individuals being mass-minded. For a genuine individual, it may be apparent that this current civilization is an emergent property of genuine individuals. Furthermore, any "progress" civilization has made is a result of genuine individuals innovating from mass-minded culture.

@jacob: Explain more what you mean by, and why you are championing that "individuals" need to be recognized and the top-down "everybody likes"-type thinking needs to go away.

[Henry]

Many people who have left the Amish and conservative Mennonite sects never complete this process. They simply find freedom in another group that is not as soul crushing.

Um...forget it.

[jacob]

@jacob: Explain more what you mean by, and why you are championing that "individuals" need to be recognized and the top-down "everybody likes"-type thinking needs to go away.

The "everybody likes/needs/wants/prefers/..."-trope is a pet peeve of mine. It's a kind of argument by popularity. E.g. "everybody likes Taylor Swift => she must be good => if you don't like TS, there's something wrong with you". However, it is also ERE relevant in the sense that "argument by popularity" is often used to advance positions that aren't questioned. For example, in pop-psychology, perhaps professional psychology, the standard is that "everybody likes/needs to talk with someone else about their feelings". Insofar, "everybody" rather means 70% than 100% or it is meant as a starting point, I doubt this kind of top-down or "everybody fit the square hole" effectively reaches the truth at the individual level. It's a kind of mass-thinking (think mass-media) that humans can be effectively guided with one central voice. This does not recognize these humans as individuals. This is also why the internet pretty much blew up the old model of broadcast communication.

While I think neurodivergence is somewhat oversubscribed---primarily because it turns divergence into a pathology that can be treated with a pill---I also think that neurodiversity is real and that humans are sufficiently different that not one-size-fits-all. For example, it has been generally noted that a bunch of self-declared introverted INTJs apparently completely manages to change their interaction style when they get together, becoming surprisingly outgoing! Why is that? Perhaps it is not because INTJs are failures at "small talk" (to be treated with social lubricants like drinks). Perhaps it is because society is failing at "big talk". This is just one example.

Another example is the common idea that "everybody needs help to stay healthy" and therefore "everybody needs an annual physical". However, staying healthy likely has a lot to do with the individual level of conscientiousness. Not everybody needs a long and boring simplistic lecture to follow a simple plan. While the majority may benefit from it, it is not something that "everybody needs".

Similarly to how not "everybody needs" to spend 12 years learning the high-school curriculum. And so on ...

Having made a bit of a study out of just how wide-ranging human needs and wants are in terms of individual human phenotypes, I hesitate to make blanket statements of what the human genotype needs.

In conclusion, once "individual" needs are recognized, it becomes possible to find solutions to the complex system that is society. A way out of the Cave, so to speak. This is different than trying to change the Cave based on common agreement within the Cave. Note, that this is a dichotomy between the individual approach and the collective approach. I'm on team "vote with your feet"... at least I think that keeping this as an option maintains a certain health to the overall system. Imagine, for example, if people weren't allowed to quit their jobs but instead had to argue for changing working conditions. Imagine people weren't allowed to emigrate but instead had to argue for changing the country. And so on ...

To wit, one giant reason why culture doesn't change when the sample average wants more of something is because those [with leverage] actually wants less of the same thing. And so it balances out. For example, why do are there so many crowded restaurants with a noise level around 90dB when I personally dislike them. Because most people actually enjoy it, hard as that is for me to believe. I just have to accept that.

[7Wannabe5]

I think "small talk" vs "big talk" is kind of a false dichotomy. For instance, there is nothing to stop a human from joining a group of humans chatting about Taylor Swift and then inquiring "Do you think you would be more of less inclined to buy sugary foods while grocery shopping if Taylor Swift music was playing in store?" while remaining oblivious and/or not giving a rat's azz if such behavior was likely to increase her popularity/reputation for eccentricity.

[Jin+Guice]

My claim for everybody is that everybody has emotional needs. My claim isn't that everyone primarily communicates emotionally or that everyone's emotional needs are unmet.

It seems I am not communicating effectively? I'm not building towards a prescriptive fix for everyone. My fix is that everyone considers their various needs, how those needs interact with the consumer-praxis and then determines how to free themselves of the consumer-praxis while still having their needs met. My hope is this inspires some creativity and insight when building a WoGs and finding freedom-to.


The equivalent to what I'm hoping to say, using the "everyone needs a physical examination" example, is that everyone has physical health. Despite massive healthcare spending and yearly physical examinations, preventable physical health problems are still rampant.

I observe that the prevailing attitude towards health is that it is difficult to remain healthful. Trendy health advice focuses on the wrong things. The elephant in the room is that pathological culture/ the consumer-praxis/ the industrial-consumer complex has designed a world that makes it difficult for many humans to remain in good physical health. I argue that we* sacrifice physical health to the gods of w*rk and consumption. I also argue that despite relatively wide knowledge of the simple steps to remain healthful, pathological culture works to convince us that it is difficult, encourages us to focus on the wrong things and obscures its own participation in perpetuating unhealthful conditions and encouraging complicated and thus expensive solutions.

*Perhaps this is the problem, where I use "we" to mean "us" in the broad sense, but not individually. "We as a people..."


There are also clearly people who (1) operate healthfully within the status quo and (2) who consider how the status quo obstructs their health and are able to make alterations so that they can be healthful while the majority remain unhealthful.

It is precisely the recognition of individual preferences and differences that allow an individual to observe someone who operates healthfully in the status quo, the majority who do not, and their own personal situation and then make changes in response to the status quo.



Another example is FIRE, which questions the employment for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years structure and how well it is working for "us." I feel strongly that the status quo doesn't work for most, but still works for some. Most do it because it's the only option they consider, since it's the status quo and the status quo perpetuates itself. Unlike health, I don't think the methods for escaping this lifestyle are well known, despite the fact that they are simple once one recognizes them.



For emotional needs I argue that emotional needs are not widely recognized in their importance. This does not mean that no individual has their emotional needs met. It certainly isn't a prescription for everyone to go to therapy or talk about their feelings continuously as the solution. It's not an argument that emotional relation to the world is the primary motivator of all people**.

What I am saying is that emotions are used to serve the consumer-praxis. I don't think fully experiencing the emotional world is likely to make one a good worker/ consumer, but what will make one a good worker/ consumer is repressing your emotions and then having them manipulated by advertising and the cultural promise turned religious belief, that consuming more is the cause of positive emotions.

Some sidestep this trap due to coincidence and/or temperament and others recognize it and extricate themselves.



**"As I’ve worked to explore emotions more, I’ve come to believe that emotion is the motivation underlying everything. We do things that make us feel good. We subscribe to narratives that make us feel good. We are energized by what feels good. We find meaning through our own emotions and relationships."

I think this section may be causing the problem? Rereading it, I can see how it suggests that the emotional modality is the primary one for human experience. This is not what I wanted to say.

I can restate this to "Without our knowledge, emotion is the motivation behind much human behavior, particularly subconsciously. We are inclined towards doing things that make us feel good***. Meaning is often found through emotions and relationships****. By becoming more aware of our emotions we can move some subconscious motivation to the conscious mind and avoid some emotional manipulation."

***"Feeling good" is also a lens that things can be viewed through. I admit it's a loose term. Being understood intellectually feels good emotionally. Interacting with the world through action feels good. Working out may invoke a sensory feeling that is not good, but it feels good emotionally because of the sense of accomplishment, social status, the resulting increase in strength, etc... I don't think this means that emotion is the only human need or modality.

I think all of the needs I've presented are lenses and it is just as important to consider emotions intellectually and safety aesthetically and socializing physiologically and....


****Relationships do not have to be to other humans (though these relationships are important to many humans).

[7Wannabe5]

21st century neuroscience would indicate that emotion is the primary motivator. The advanced rational part of our brain that allows us to delay gratification must be first fed a collection of rehearsals for future emotional experiences or it is paralyzed. For instance, imagine your choice for next incarnation is between being a tree or being an ant. Quick choose! Compare and contrast with I will mail you a box full of homemade cookies or I will mail you a box full of shit. Quick choose!

[jacob]

I'll just make the claim that it is possible to create a system which takes much emotional decision making out of the process. Examples include business-plans/process, trading strategies, investment-plans, legal matters, exercise-plans, cooking recipes, religious matters,... These are all "what-to-do"-systems of various complexity (on the CCCCCC scale).

A system essentially tells you what to do for a given situation without having to check how it feels, alternatively doing it anyway while ignoring how it feels. A lot of the processes above would "blow up" if they were left to how people felt about a given situation.

It is possible to have a rather elaborate system for everything that is not only externally given, but also internalized. (This is a core INTJ quality (and likely also Thinker-5 quality) which is perhaps why it's not easy for me to grok that the majority of people have not developed such a system although half of humanity have simpler systems like "rules" they follow consistently as opposed to "whatever they feel like or think they will feel like in the future". These people will usually be tell you not only what the choice should be but also why. One might say that's just rationalizing feelings. However, these rationalizations seem to stay remarkably constant over time and the rationalizations are typically quite coherent with each other. They are not randomly made up on the spot. People with intellectual systems have thought a lot about them. People with non-intellectual systems have memorized "the rules" or "how it was done/told in the past".)

I have noticed that Thinkers and Feelers tend to react to "end of the world as they know it" shocks in quite different ways. For example, suppose someone close died---alternatively, pick some other life-transforming form of loss. The Feeler-types undergo a process of grieving. This is a way of processing and transforming past feelings for a loved person into current feelings of acceptance that this person is now dead. Conversely, the Thinker-types undergo a process of sense-making in order to transition for the old situation which is no longer valid and figuring out the systems for the new situation.

How do I know that there are two [stereo]types? Because they have strong immune-systems against each other's processes(*). The Feelers resists "fixers" like the plague. The Thinkers don't want sympathy, they want solutions.

Note the majority who occupies the middle will be able to do both. But they won't be able to do either as well as those who occupy the two extremes. Perhaps a better way to appreciate it is to see thinking and feeling as muscles (complete with a neurochemical mapping). Not everybody has equal development of these muscles. I think of these two muscles as the right arm and the left arm. Not the legs and the arms. Someone who has normal development in both arms can do some bridging. Someone who is super-strong either arm can comprehend things (see the world) in ways that most others miss, but on the other hand also easily miss things that most people consider obvious.

Add: I should also add that the ERE book is very much a Thinker-type book in its solutions. I am aware that it/I have paid scant attention to how someone might feel about the ERE-systems, especially when it comes to how "other people" might feel about one's systems (Fe). I suspect this is why we've have those unresolved threads over the years about aesthetics, selling, marketing, spousal/family-issues, etc. These were all issues that I personally didn't (and don't) feel (ha!) were all that important [to me]. I have therefore not thought/pondered them a lot. So it's good that someone (J+G) is doing this.
Add2: How I feel internally (Fi) is important, but this is also something I've left between the lines since part of my negating Fe is to considered Fi rather personal. IOW, I've left it to people to find their own motivations. Suffice to say, doing the right thing ecologically is very important to me. How I feel about e.g. generating waste is informed by what I know/think are the consequences of such waste. As such this also suggests that I don't think thoughts come from emotions as if it was a one-way street. I think they connect back and forth.

(*) This is likely what's happening here. This is all my fault. I'll dial back on the graffittiing.

[7Wannabe5]

All decision-making is emotional; systems remove the need to make decisions on any basis, so the inherent risk is in over-shooting the mark and/or not responding quickly enough to changes in the environment and/or attaching emotion to the metric/system itself rather than its initial purpose. The primary difference between ENTPs and INTJs isn't that we are necessarily more emotional (although "I" am likely higher percentage F than many/most of the INTJs on this forum); it's that we excel at the quick update. We don't like being offered solutions, because pre-packaged solutions are too boring for us, not because we want emotional support more than solutions. What I liked best about "ERE" the book was that it is uber-generalized. I wasn't sold on it through emotional resonance with feelings about waste, although this was clearly available in the sub-text.

[RoamingFrancis]

I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I think that the Thinker vs Feeler idea presented here is a false dichotomy. I experience plenty of both.

I have long felt that a lack of addressing emotions is a barrier to ERE for many people but have not been able to articulate this in the logical format that is the standard medium of communication on this forum. This is fairly common for me - I will have intuitions that I have to digest for months or years before I can articulate them logically. This is part of why I’m so drawn to poetry - I can throw logic out the window when I need to.

It’s also very common for me to hang out with “Feeler” types and have them label me a stiff intellectual.

Thank you to J+G for initiating deeper emotional investigation on the forum.

[ertyu]

All decision-making is emotional; systems remove the need to make decisions on any basis, so the inherent risk is in over-shooting the mark and/or not responding quickly enough to changes in the environment and/or attaching emotion to the metric/system itself rather than its initial purpose. The primary difference between ENTPs and INTJs isn't that we are necessarily more emotional (although "I" am likely higher percentage F than many/most of the INTJs on this forum); it's that we excel at the quick update. We don't like being offered solutions, because pre-packaged solutions are too boring for us, not because we want emotional support more than solutions. What I liked best about "ERE" the book was that it is uber-generalized. I wasn't sold on it through emotional resonance with feelings about waste, although this was clearly available in the sub-text.

7w5, do you know what book was it, someone from NY (nyu?) writing on precisely that J+G is saying, that neurologically feelings are primary and thinking systems are post-hoc confabulatoins. There's research on this and it's been published for lay audiences.

fwiw, I would argue that emoiton is primary even to someone who considers themselves a thinker. E.g. a person like this might develop their elaborate thinking systems as a means to feel calm and in-control and counteract a basic anxiety of being in the world without them. Being out of touch with or ignoring emotions makes one oh-so-superior and better than all those emotional inferiors running around like chickens with their head cut off, too. Culture's also on your side: it says that being rational is the preferred way to be (we've got capitalist production and exploitation systems to run, it's way too inefficient when labor power goes and has emotions on you) - that's the primary zeitgeist, and it gives you validation. And so forth.

However, I have the sense that everyone, arguing individually, is only extrapolating and projecting their own inner reality. Which is where actual research comes in

[Slevin]

7w5, do you know what book was it, someone from NY (nyu?) writing on precisely that J+G is saying, that neurologically feelings are primary and thinking systems are post-hoc confabulatoins. There's research on this and it's been published for lay audiences.

Jonathan Haidt, the Elephant and the Rider metaphor. From The Happiness Hypothesis.

[ertyu]

Jonathan Haidt, the Elephant and the Rider metaphor. From The Happiness Hypothesis.

Thank you. Heard about it, meant to read it, forgot about meaning to read it, and then this conversation reminded me of it

[7Wannabe5]

fwiw, I would argue that emoiton is primary even to someone who considers themselves a thinker. E.g. a person like this might develop their elaborate thinking systems as a means to feel calm and in-control and counteract a basic anxiety of being in the world without them. Being out of touch with or ignoring emotions makes one oh-so-superior and better than all those emotional inferiors running around like chickens with their head cut off, too. Culture's also on your side: it says that being rational is the preferred way to be (we've got capitalist production and exploitation systems to run, it's way too inefficient when labor power goes and has emotions on you) - that's the primary zeitgeist, and it gives you validation. And so forth.

Sapolsky goes into it in some detail and inclusive of more research than Haidt. The simple answer is that neither is primary. A human needs good input/functioning of the dlPFC(subregion of the prefrontal cortex mostly getting inputs from other cortical regions, thus producing thoughts about thoughts) AND the vmPFC(subregion of the prefrontal cortex mostly getting inputs from the limbic system, thus producing thoughts about feelings.) If you stimulate/boost functioning of the dlPFC, a human will be better able to make completely rational moral decisions such as killing one person in order to save 5. If a human has damage to the vmPFC, they will be more likely to sacrifice a person they love in order to save 5 strangers, and they will also be unable to appropriately respond to negative feedback.

I would also note from the perspective of a rational female that low-functioning feelers can also vibe superior in the manner stereotypical of the Mean Girl. For example, the time I was shunned by girls in 5th grade, because my humorous short story about aliens landing in Ronald McDonald land won the writing contest vs another girl's sad poem about her dog dying. Also, my entire 20 year marriage to man whose personality type would have been characterized as "bitchy ballerina" if female. Humans who are less emotionally reactive/sensitive still get hurt if you do mean things to them, and sometimes more emotional people persist in doing mean things to more rational people. because they want to see an emotional response in order to validate their own way of being. Extreme end game being it's not okay to hit autistic kids even if they don't emotionally respond like you would. Physiological trauma/stress will still occur.

Also, nobody has any free will about any of this anyways.

[jacob]

I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I think that the Thinker vs Feeler idea presented here is a false dichotomy. I experience plenty of both.

Thinking and Feeling is not a dichotomy. It's a bell curve of preference, likely set by individual neurochemistry. Higher set levels of various neurotransmitters make certain parts of the brain in the phenotype more active. That's why I said:

Note the majority who occupies the middle will be able to do both. But they won't be able to do either as well as those who occupy the two extremes. Perhaps a better way to appreciate it is to see thinking and feeling as muscles (complete with a neurochemical mapping). Not everybody has equal development of these muscles. I think of these two muscles as the right arm and the left arm. Not the legs and the arms.

For example, I lean something like 95/5. As far as I know you, you lean 40/60. Since it is a bell curve, the average person leans 50/50. Over time, any preference likely leads to strength in the preference and weakness in the dispreference relative to the average person w/o a preference. For example, I've never been able to appreciate poetry or art because I can't make much sense out of it. It doesn't speak to me. I consider this "a great loss" in the same way that most people consider their inability to do algebra to be a great loss, that is, not that great a loss at all.

Insofar, there's an elephant and a rider (rather than a combined feedback system which is likely more correct), my elephant is about knee height and on a leash. More like a pet that requires regular feeding and walks to avoid eating the flowers or pooping on the floor than a massive animal I can't get down from.

The elephant and the rider can also be likened to Kahneman's system 1 and system 2. Here the elephant&rider metaphor suggests that system 1 is vastly preferred to system 2. This may be so for the average person. And the science of psychology will confirm this because science in its current form deals with averages, standard deviations, and confidence intervals (because psychologists don't receive more advanced training in statistics). However, it does not need to be so and it is not so in everybody.

One of Kahneman's party tricks is the bat and ball problem:

A bat and an ball costs $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. What does the ball cost?

The system 1 way, which is fast, is that "elephant sees numbers, elephant sees the keyword "more", elephant subtracts numbers, elephant says 10 cents". This is the wrong answer though.

System 2 (the rider) exists in different forms depending on how experienced it is. If you've never seen this type of problem before but you know algebra, you might set up something like:
ball+bat=1.1
ball+1=bat
=> ball+ball+1=1.1
=> 2ball=0.1
=> ball=5 cents,
which you'd probably do if you saw the question in a math book with contextual scaffolding. Now, algebra is a very slow process and probably requires pencil&paper.

However, a mathematician, who sees kind of problem a lot, will recognize it for what it is. His elephant is well-trained and will steer around mathematical traps without the rider needing to interfere. If nothing else, it will immediately be recognize as something that requires a logical choice rather than an emotional choice. I can pretty much guarantee that someone dealing in this kind of problems all day will just "know" that the answer is 5 cents and know this as fast as the average system 1 user. This is no different than someone who has practiced the multiplication table for years "just knows" that 7*5=35 without having to count on their fingers.

This kind of system 2 thinking can be built into an elaborate description of the world(*) (not just math) so that when encountering a situation, one intuitively knows what the best choice is without having to set up equations and count on the fingers. The difference between system 2 intuition and system 1 intuition is that system 2 intuition is objectively/rationally constructed. As such it is possible for system 2 to actually explain the thought process underneath. Whereas for system 1 it's just a "gut feeling". This is what lends stability to system 2.

(*) Making a WOG out of reverse fishbones is a way to do this for personal praxis. It's the analogy to make a multiplication table out of summations for arithmetic.

To bring this back on thread. I do see where J+G is going with this. Feelings are generally underrecognized in contemporary/corporate USA culture. However, having experienced (sub)cultures where feelings are overrecognized to the point where rational thinking is actively suppressed or at least ignored, I'm "whoaing" the elephant before it's concluded that "everybody needs to let go of the reins". It's not about the nail is my favorite metaphor for going so far in either direction that communication breaks down (for some). However, this is indeed how humanity tends to "swing", basically coming up with an overcompensating replacement for a previous system, thus in turn creating new problems.

[Jin+Guice]

I've been having the feeling that we need more complicated language for what is getting talked about.

What I think is likely important is taming the elephant through access to F(i). I think F is suppressed in our culture and F(i) is suppressed through the glorification of "not being emotional."

When one is out of touch with F(i) they cage the elephant, so to speak, the problem being that the elephant is prone to breaking lose. If F is sufficiently suppressed, one will deny to others and themselves that this happens, inventing rational justifications for their actions.

Then there is also the matter of the secret caged elephant of trauma.

Becoming more aware of your own F(i) and how to express that (whether internally through F(i)* or externally through F(e)) allows one to more closely join together the rider and the elephant. It allows rider and elephant to go more closely in the same direction. It allows one to at first be more conscious of when System 1 is in control and then eventually direct it.

However, I think the metaphor that one is "taming the elephant" or "eliminating system 1" is inaccurate. What one hopes to do is establish a very quick feedback mechanism between the two as emotional information does convey intellectual information and vice versa.

Imo, this also allows one to lead a more interesting life and appreciate more things. See the algebra in the art and the art in the algebra.

I do agree that people function differently and everyone's capacity for each will be different.

*F(i)= Feeling/ introverted? I understand the MBTI letters and 16 types but I'm still confused about the second letter in brackets and it's purpose.



Editorial Note:

I really appreciate the discussion, please keep it going if you've got more to say!


As far as what my original idea for this series of posts is, one only needs to (1) figure out their needs and (2) work on building a resilient system to meet them. This is partially just trying to figure out wtf I'm doing as I find myself spending time and money on artistic and aesthetic pursuits that do not fit the strictly utilitarian skill system, which was my perception of the initial WL 6-8 characterization.

I'm outlining my framework, where I found it helpful to borrow and then bastardize Maslow's. Any framework will work, with the caveat being if you are blind to a need your system will not be resilient in that need.

[Slevin]

@Jin+Guice have you ever spent time with the authentic relating crowd? This last post of yours is basically straight out of their handbook. I’m not sure how big of a group of them you can find outside either Boulder or the Bay Area, but they come from the Ken Wilber / integral sort of train of thought, and are very focused on understanding the feelings and trauma through high quality intimate ( meaning deep and thoughtful) relating.

Notable examples are T-groups and authentic relating groups, which also includes circling.

I did it for a few years in Boulder, and it helped improve my empathetic relating skills drastically. I’m not sure it “helped” me beyond gaining the empathy much, as I’m extremely private and dislike sharing my feelings even with people close to me, so I would often have to say “I’m not comfortable sharing X or Y or Z”.

It seems more like an endless pool for **F*’s to enjoy and share their feelings; I.e. to no end and without a lot of obvious development happening.

[jacob]

I've been having the feeling that we need more complicated language for what is getting talked about.
[...]
*F(i)= Feeling/ introverted? I understand the MBTI letters and 16 types but I'm still confused about the second letter in brackets and it's purpose.

More precise language always helps.

MBTI posits that the mind is made up of four different kinds of functions:
Thinking and Feeling (correlates with Agreeableness in Big5/OCEAN)
Intuition and Sensing (correlated with Openmindedness in Big5/OCEAN)

All four can be introverted or extroverted (correlates with Extroversion in Big5/OCEAN).

This begets 8 different kinds of functions:
Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, and Si.

According to stack theory, we all have all 8 of those functions. The order of preference defines our temperament. (People without a strong preference do not display a strong type of temperament.)

For example, INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. It is dominated by introverted intuition (the primary focus) as supported by extraverted thinking. Introverted feeling provides background checks on the support (e.g. if the logic doesn't feel right).

The shadow also contains 8 which are the flipped version of the temperament.

The INTJ shadow is Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. The shadow is often ignored. Since it is ignored it is poorly developed. It may still surface under stress and if it does so, it does not come out well since it is poorly developed.

Now ... the actual descriptions of each of the eight functions depend on how mature/developed they are. A well-developed Fi (a strong drive for authenticity) as you would find in an INFP is not the same as a poorly developed Fi (a naive sense of justice) as you would find in a ESTJ. But even these are better developed than the Fi that exists in the shadows of half the types because they're more focused on how others are expressing their feelings than what their own values are.

Overall, the difference is the following:
Fi is about remaining true to your own feelings. The concern is directed inward. It's your internally generated morals based on your gut-feeling about "what is right". Heavy Fi users will seek "authenticity" which is an even stronger form of "principles". Fi is what makes some break the law because "they know in their heart that the law is wrong". Fi will constantly examine whether their values and behavior are in accordance with their feelings. A Fi person will struggle to do something if they're not happy about it.

Whereas ...

Fe is about remaining in harmony with other people's feelings. The concern is directed outward. Ensuring that everybody in the group is comfortable, happy, and feeling good. Heavy Fe users will see to it that everybody else's feelings are seen and validated even if it means sacrificing their own feelings. Fe is the generator of sympathy. A Fe person will struggle to do something if there's tension or conflict in the group.

---

1) Note that Fi and Fe have an inherent conflict between the person and the group in terms of whose feelings get priority. This can make it hard for a Fi-dominant and an Fe-dominant to communicate. While they both talk about feelings, they're talking about different directions for those feelings. For example, the ENTP (Fe in third, Fi in 7th) might give the sad-looking INFP (Fi in first, Fe in 5th) a cookie to cheer her up only to be surprised how this makes the INFP even sadder.

2) Note that these concerns get overall priority depending on how deep in the stack they are. This ranges from "this is who I am as a person" to "couldn't care less" depending on who you ask.

So for example, ... it is a rare US corporation that gives a flying fart about whether its employees feel like their work is true to their feelings (Fi). Instead, work is typically compartmentalized in the work box. "Just doing my job". Conversely, during the lock down and the beginning of WFH, the Fe-style check-in ritual became rather common: People could share how they were feeling today ("The weather is nice and I just ate a fresh tomato, yay!", etc... although I doubt there were any deeper conversations of "the value of a career to me as a person" (Fi) happening during those check-in rounds.

OTOH, in the Nordics and in some ESG sectors, corporations pay much attention to whether their workers are living their values. "It's not a job. It's an expression of who you are", a calling.

I'd say US culture on average is "concrete rule-based" (Si) and "procedurally logical" (Te). However, you can certainly find the droids you're looking for inside the US.

But again, whether you want to depends on the person. I personally find Fe-rituals on par with how most people feel about presenting a math problem (Te) for the class. I've done a few rounds of those "share your emotions with the group" and it's never gone very well. I find the whole exercise dreadful. This was perhaps construed as me not being in touch with my emotions or repressing them, but actually it was more of a "where do I even begin/what do you want to know/why is this relevant to the group in the first place?" Fe is 7th for me, I don't have any need to talk about feelings and I'm not very good at it because I rarely do it. Conversely, because Fi is 3rd, I have a fairly good idea of what I feel about a given situation and I don't need to talk to others about it to figure it out (I'm fine talking to myself about them). Feelings inform my principles---my principles inform my system---my system selects my choices.

[daylen]

*F(i)= Feeling/ introverted? I understand the MBTI letters and 16 types but I'm still confused about the second letter in brackets and it's purpose.

Introverted vs extroverted functions could be thought of as private vs public information processing. Each of Feeling, Thinking, Sensing, and iNtuition being types or patterns of information processing (i.e. in the brain/body or wherever) with the (i) variants privatizing an inner world and (e) variants publicizing an inner world to the outer world. So, for example, someone using F(e) and N(i) will tend to publicize feelings and privatize intuitions.

When measuring or estimating relative preferences of humans based upon their externally apparent behavior, the public information will be seen directly and only need be categorized into S, N, F, or T like processing. The private information will need to be inferred based upon distortion effects in the public information that are best explained by some dense inner processing of private information(*). For instance, in the case of someone using F(e), the F(e) may seem scattered and indecisive almost like something else is directing it. That inner influence could be of a F(i), N(i), S(i), or T(i) flavor. F(i) -> F(e) will tend to look a certain way as will N(i) -> F(e). Different kinds of processing may not translate smoothly between each other and this may hint at what is going on in the inner world of an agent.

(*) Similar to how black holes are detected from their gravitational influences on nearby stuff, introverted processes are detected by their mental and ultimately physical/behavioral influences on nearby stuff (i.e. often other agents).

[Jin+Guice]

Interesting. I am an xNTP, but I HATE those check-in type discussions. They feel inauthentic to me. It feels like forced vulnerability. OTOH if I have an established positive relationship to someone, I care a lot about how they feel and I want to be able to express how I feel. The closer the relationship the more I care. I equate how much I care to how close the relationship is. However, if someone wants to keep their emotions to themselves, this is not a problem for me. It's my own availability to spend time and effort on their emotions, not the actual time and effort spent or emotions emoted that symbolizes the closeness. The exceptions to this are romantic relationships, where I want an exchange of emotional vulnerability and in cases where I am upset with someone, in which case I want to be able to express this to them (this is true even with strangers).

I somewhat enjoy group disharmony, unless I have some sort of ego stake in the outcome, in which case I abhor group disharmony, particularly any negative feelings or statements directed towards me, often to the point where it is somewhat crippling.

[guitarplayer]

MBTI posits that the mind is made up of four different kinds of functions:
Thinking and Feeling (correlates with Agreeableness in Big5/OCEAN)
Intuition and Sensing (correlated with Openmindedness in Big5/OCEAN)

Good work including the linking. This is a PR thing but O stands for 'Openness to experience' - otherwise the above would imply that the other end of the axis is something like Narrowmindedness which you don't intend to say, I don't think.