Personality Cafe banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Fi vs Fe 101

Jump to Latest
178K views 226 replies 107 participants last post by  Super Luigi  
T
#1 ·
People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

Most Common Positives:
People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and making others feel good tends to be their goal
People who use Fi are always aware of how they would feel when treated a certain way. self actualisation tends to be their goal

Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

note: the two functions are mutually exclusive (although the end conclusion is sometimes the same) and every F type faces a decision to go one way or the other in every moral decision/conclusion. 1st function types are more likely to go with one or the other from a young age and show a strong preference, 2nd function types are more likely to mix it up or remain neutral at a young age, but increasingly choose the route most natural to them as they get older.

2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.
 
C
#2 ·
This is to add into negative stereotypes. Both Fe-types and Fi-types can take each other's display of emotions as fake, manipulative, or shallow. I think it is important for both sides to realize that how the other displays their feelings is simply what is most natural for the other person, so don't rush to judge them harshly for it.
 
K
#120 ·
Im new here so I hope I'm using this reply with quotes correctly.
Cyamitide: Your comment was gorgeous. Fi always wants to put something in place morally but I'm a Fe so I don't judge. I think your words were progressive and spoke at large of harmony. If we all stop passing judgments based on biased opinion then we can see the beautiful person underneath.
 
#3 ·
My Fe self agrees with this. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDarknessInTheSnow, Sugarpot, Gilly and 9 others
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#4 ·
Hmm I find my self in a conflict often. I think it is between Fe and Fi.

The conflict is between what I feel is right in a situation and what is expected of me to feel is right in a situation. Basically what I want to do and what I should do.

If I go with my option then people will reject me and if I go with the expectation, then i will reject myself. Because of this I'm often stuck between 2 things.

It seems to be normal for type 6, but it is annoying me a lot. I also find it hard to decide what xNFx type I am -.-.
 
X
#23 ·
Anarchy said:
Hmm I find my self in a conflict often. I think it is between Fe and Fi.

The conflict is between what I feel is right in a situation and what is expected of me to feel is right in a situation. Basically what I want to do and what I should do.

If I go with my option then people will reject me and if I go with the expectation, then i will reject myself. Because of this I'm often stuck between 2 things.

It seems to be normal for type 6, but it is annoying me a lot. I also find it hard to decide what xNFx type I am -.-.
Click to expand...
Likewise. I'm quite positive I must have 6 in my tritype. This is one of the biggest reasons I decided I must be a social variant. I'm definitely an Fi.
 
U
#5 ·
People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision
Click to expand...
-I don't think this is true at all.

-I think this can be true for both Fe and Fi.
People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)
Click to expand...
-People who use Fi can also be aware of other people's feelings, especially if they can relate to their situation.


Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.
Click to expand...
-From what I understand, Fe users tend to have a code of ethics that is externally based or that they feel needs to be externally validated, not necessarily by the 'group' or culture as a whole, this means they base their decisions on the reactions of other people. An Fe user might become a vegetarian because they think that cruelty toward non-human animals is wrong, despite the fact that it's (more or less) socially acceptable, they feel connected to the victims of factory farming, vivisection etc. and base their decision on what they think is in their best interests. I think an Fi user is more likely to become a vegetarian because it gives them a sense of inner peace to know that they aren't contributing to the suffering of others, it's in sync with the kind of person they want to be, but they're not as concerned (directly) with actually ending factory farming or cruelty toward animals, it's not about 'justice' or changing the world for them, their concern is with the internal and not the external, they're less likely to 'push' their ethics on to other people in the same way that Ti is less likely to push it's logic on to other people. If this is an unfair characterization of Fi (or Fe), I could be way, way off.

-I don't think Fe users are more likely to be bullies at all. I think that's completely off. I can see Fe being more vengeful against (perceived) wrong-doers but not bullying someone for dressing unusually or being socially awkward, I thought Fe was concerned with ethics and social harmony. Again, I could be wrong.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.
Click to expand...
I don't think Fe necessarily has anything to do with conformity and it is just as concerned with 'the individual' as Fi is, it's just concerned with *other* individuals. Feeling is the same function, whether it's introverted or extroverted, Fe is just concerned with the *external*. Even one other individual is external to you, I don't think that Fe should be associated with social conformity.


2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.
Click to expand...
I don't think numbers has anything to do with it, Fe is just concerned (directly/consciously) with the external instead of the internal.
 
X
#25 ·
Ubuntu said:
-I don't think this is true at all.

-I think this can be true for both Fe and Fi.
-People who use Fi can also be aware of other people's feelings, especially if they can relate to their situation.


-From what I understand, Fe users tend to have a code of ethics that is externally based or that they feel needs to be externally validated, not necessarily by the 'group' or culture as a whole, this means they base their decisions on the reactions of other people. An Fe user might become a vegetarian because they think that cruelty toward non-human animals is wrong, despite the fact that it's (more or less) socially acceptable, they feel connected to the victims of factory farming, vivisection etc. and base their decision on what they think is in their best interests. I think an Fi user is more likely to become a vegetarian because it gives them a sense of inner peace to know that they aren't contributing to the suffering of others, it's in sync with the kind of person they want to be, but they're not as concerned (directly) with actually ending factory farming or cruelty toward animals, it's not about 'justice' or changing the world for them, their concern is with the internal and not the external, they're less likely to 'push' their ethics on to other people in the same way that Ti is less likely to push it's logic on to other people. If this is an unfair characterization of Fi (or Fe), I could be way, way off.

-I don't think Fe users are more likely to be bullies at all. I think that's completely off. I can see Fe being more vengeful against (perceived) wrong-doers but not bullying someone for dressing unusually or being socially awkward, I thought Fe was concerned with ethics and social harmony. Again, I could be wrong.

I don't think Fe necessarily has anything to do with conformity and it is just as concerned with 'the individual' as Fi is, it's just concerned with *other* individuals. Feeling is the same function, whether it's introverted or extroverted, Fe is just concerned with the *external*. Even one other individual is external to you, I don't think that Fe should be associated with social conformity.


I don't think numbers has anything to do with it, Fe is just concerned (directly/consciously) with the external instead of the internal.
Click to expand...
I think that was basically what he was getting at, but just much more simply put. Also, both FJ's and FP's are capable of being mean if they want to. However the difference may lie in the fact that FP's may act out because they are actually emotionally hurt. Whereas, FJ's may act out because they deem someone else to be acting out of accordance with what is proper behavior, be it towards another individual or a group. My sisters an ESFJ, and FJ's certainly are capable of acting out.


bionic said:
Actually, you are incredibly incorrect. I suggest reading these:

Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion

Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Click to expand...
I thought it was pretty spot on. Though there apparently are some complaints on clarity. They made perfect sense to me.



CynicallyNaive said:
@Tridentus: Thank you for your civil and intellectually honest reply. I realize that i'm questioning a theory in which you've clearly invested a good deal of time and thought, so i appreciate that you're willing to discuss the merits of your case.

Summary: I'm willing to be convinced of the validity of CFs, but nothing i've seen on this site, and particularly nothing on this thread, has convinced me that's it's anything more than a parlor game. I would like to be convinced otherwise, but more than that, i'd like to understand objective truth on the matter.
________

For all of the following, i will take it as a given that my MB personality type is INFP, as a marginal I. If you take I/E to be strictly dichotomous, with no gradations between a strong I and a marginal I, then your understanding of MB is too different from mine for this conversation to move forward.

My view is probably inconsistent with Jung's, but so what? Jung isn't the final arbiter of psychological reality, and i have yet to see the empircial backing for the idea that the types are strictly dichotomous. In fact, the reams of paper they give you when you take the MBTI Step II strongly suggest the opposite.

________



That's fine, and i really am posting on threads in the hopes that someone can explain what i'm missing. It doesn't help that i asked for empirical evidence about type dynamics and got treated as though i'd made a ridiculous request, because obviously everyone knows that psychological theory isn't supposed to have empirical backing. So you might say CF and i got off on the wrong foot.

_________

Let's step back. Why do i care about MBTI? Because it has predictive and explanatory value. Some examples:


  • I'm waiting in line (queue) somewhere. Someone cuts in line (jumps the queue). I get angry and want to make a scene. Then I recall that INFPs tend to lash out when something threatens our core values. Because i recognize this pattern in myself, and recognize that the injustice of cutting is fairly minor, i calm down and deal with the situation more productively.
  • I have an INFJ friend whose actions toward me i don't understand. I talk to other INFJs; based on their explanations, her actions make more sense.
  • Suppose i have to interact with an SJ at work. Because i know that SJs see the world differently, i can adapt my behavior to their predicted response and gain in influence.

That's why i like MBTI. If you take away the predictive and explanatory value -- in other words, if people are telling me INFPs act one way but taken as a whole i tend to act the opposite of how they say -- then it's not a very valuable theory.

________

I don't see much explanatory or predictive value to what you've written above. To be fair, it's a small sample.




Upon reflection, i realize that i make moral judgments based on how things should be. Score: Fe 1, Fi 0




My primary moral compass is the Christian bible, but i'm willing to use my own views to modify my interpretation thereof. Let's be generous and call it a draw.

Fe 1.5, Fi 0.5



This dichotomy doesn't even make any sense. I'm hyper aware of both. If i have to choose one, i'll go with Fe, but the way you've phrased it calls the validity of your observations into question.

Fe 2.5, Fi 0.5



This dichotomy makes no sense. I try to pursue both goals without a clear difference in intensity. If i have to choose one, i'll go with Fe.

Fe 3.5, Fi 0.5



I strongly identify with the Fi description.

Final score: Fe 3.5, Fi 1.5

Sample size is too small to mean anything. Also, this assessment doesn't reflect intensity of feeling (except in the draw). I relate most strongly to the first and last items, one of which favors Fe, one of which favors Fi.



In taken with the above, this should mean that my Fi preference is even stronger than the mean. Therefore, this note calls the validity of your approach into question even more.


________

Recently i asked an acquaintance on here who's a fan of CFs/type dynamics to answer this question:



I think that's a reasonable request. (Obviously, it doesn't have to be about ESFPs.) If CFs don't add any explanatory value above the basic MBTI taxonomy, then there's no reason to go beyond the taxonomy.

So do you have any examples?

__________________

Conclusion: I'm just one individual, and i would rather see empirical research based on adequate random samples rather than just going with what "feels" correct. I mostly go with the 4-dimension MB taxonomy because it feels correct; views expressed by other NFs resonate with me more than views expressed by other types. However, if CFs neither have empirical backing nor feel correct, they have no value to me.

Your OP hasn't done a thing to convince me of the validity of your views. I could just as well have read the morning horoscope. Based on the fact this is a front-page article, i would have hoped for something more convincing.
Click to expand...
For an NF, you're not very nice. I personally found it to be a nice summary of the two functions. If you're wanting something more empirical, perhaps avoiding amateur forums like this would be best. There are many books, websites, and even workshops dedicated to this stuff, that I'm sure you could gain a lot from, if you so desire. Also, like yourself, I think we're all quite sick of the "such and such type is like ___" conversations. You're right in that the purposes of MBTI is for self discovery, growth and understanding others. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say, predicting others. But understanding why you and another type may clash on a particular subject, MBTI can be useful for building compassion.

To some of the things you said that I highlighted, such as making moral judgments on how things should be: I think you're actually taking what he meant out of context. Though I followed where he was meaning to go with this, I suppose I can see how others may misconstrue. And this is one of the reasons for why Fe/Fi lines are often blurred. Rather, Fe works with Ti and uses a more objective point of view. Fi works from a subjective point of view and uses Te to execute it. An Fi is still going to make moral judgments on how they believe things should be, but it's going to be worked out from their own internal subjective feelings. They'll reason with these things based upon their own values, beliefs and also from knowing how they themselves would feel or have felt in a particular situation and how others will then feel if put in the same position. Fe concerns itself less with how they might feel in a particular situation, and is more concerned with how everyone else should be treated regardless. (From my understanding, anywho.)
 
#6 ·
I agree completely with everything you've listed.

For others to see, here are the definitions to these two process off of cognitiveprocesses.com

Fe - Extroverted Feeling
The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. The “social graces,” such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

Fi - Introverted Feeling
It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words. As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, “Sometimes, some things just have to be said.” On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions. It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.
 
C
#7 ·
Tridentus said:
People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel
Click to expand...
I came here open-mindedly, to try to learn more about cognitive functions, even though i put very little stock in them. Reading the first two sentences certainly doesn't encourage me that pressing onward is going to be a fruitful endeavor.

Oh, wait, i use Fe, so obviously i must be an INFJ! Except that, i'm not all that much like an INFJ. Oooh, then maybe i just have a well developed shadow function. Or maybe if we keep pulling letters out of a hat, a couple of them will fit.

No wonder the forums seem to be full of people who change their perception of their own type every week or two.
 
T
#15 ·
i'm sorry you're a doubter- i dislike seeing it just as much as i dislike seeing the people who you mentioned changing their type constantly or saying things like "am i ENTP or ENFP?" (since anyone who really knows their stuff knows the two types do not blur), but with respect i think you should actually make an effort to understand and research functions before you doubt them.

i've been on this forum for two years discussing this stuff- i was addicted, i wanted to be able to understand it perfectly, and went travelling for a year in which i would constantly be asking people questions about which functions they used.. and to me this stuff lines up perfectly; it didn't at first, and if you see my threads for the first 12 months or so i frequently make mistakes in my understanding of mbti.. but that's how long it takes to figure this stuff out so i got it right.

it's applying a logical framework to the complicated makeup of people, and that always takes a while to figure out. apologetically i'd say this to @Ubuntu also..
example: "People who use Fi can also be aware of other people's feelings, especially if they can relate to their situation."
yes you've described Fi perfectly, but you've failed to understand that the end result is not the be all of function process. the two functions are sensitive, but only because the Fi resonates with how that person feels- that proves my point. just because the two cross over occasionally doesn't mean the process of getting there is any less important.

also psychology is broad, and mbti is only about how people view and make judgements about their world- you need a far broader understanding of psychology in order just to recognise where mbti stops and environment starts.

for example- i met a woman on my travels who looked at me and said "you're a single child from a broken family aren't you?", surprised i said "yeah, how did you know?".. she could just tell. i later figured it out- it's in your behaviour, single children are often more likely to have an attitude of being used to getting what they want, and my vibe of trusting only myself is broken home. HOWEVER, 99% of people couldn't possibly have guessed that about me, i'm confident, humorous and seem well balanced on the outside, but she could.. she was a single child from a broken home- AND she was an ENFP with Fi, well equipped to relate to my emotional state as a person, she saw herself in me as an Fi type to psychic accuracy. so that's an example of how environment and mbti can mesh to make things more complicated to understand.
 
#10 ·
#9 ·
I agree that I have seen quite a few users on here change their type multiple times. I think half of those users are teens because they took a test when they were not emotionally mature enough to do it. I've seen other types just have a limited amount of information to base their decisions on. I've seen quite a few people say, "Oh well all the cognitive processes sound like me." Well yes, of course they do because we ALL use them in various degrees every day. Then you have a small percentage of people who just don't want to be typed. Perhaps they want to be unique and cute or perhaps they are just that ignorant of what MBTI really is. Beats me why they stay as "unknown".

But the fact of the matter is, MBTI is real and it is stable. My father-in-law is a retired ENTJ military sergeant who taught MBTI for building teams. There are tons of businesses who use MBTI not only for team building but for increased communications, career counseling and relationship counseling. But you didn't ask whats the purpose of MBTI or question the fundamentals of MBTI. You are frustrated with the people who use MBTI assessments. You know what? I'm right there with you.

John Hackston, the sole European MBTI distributor, says extensive research proves the questionnaire is at least 75% accurate. What about the other 25%? If you focus on the percentages of validity, then you miss the whole point. Not one person is going to fit EXACTLY the descriptor of their types profile. For one, everyone is truly unique and secondly there are unhealthy types and healhty types. Which simply means, you could be an INFJ and I could be an INFJ but my shadow functions are stronger than yours making me "more healthy" and more developed. Hence, If an individual disagrees with the findings of their final typing then this should be discussed, and through this process, the results are refined for them. Thats what those kind of threads ON THIS SITE are for anyway.

Isabel Briggs Myers has a book titled "Gifts Differing", (which is very fitting for the purpose of why she took Jung's theory a step further) I'd like to highlight what it says on page 10.
Creation of "type" by exercise of the preference
Under this theory, people create their "type" through exercises of their individual preferences regarding perception and judgment. The interests, values, needs, and habits of mind that naturally result from any set of preferences tend to produce a recognizable set of traits and personalities.

Individuals can, therefore, be described in part by stating their four preferences, such as ENTP. Such a person can be expected to be different from others in ways characteristics of his or her type. To describe people as ENTPs does not infringe on their right to self-determination: they have already exercised this right by preferring E and N and T and P. Identifying and remembering people's types shows respect not only for their abstract right to develop along lines of their own choosing, but also for the concrete ways in which they are and prefer to be different from others."

Page 12: "Some people dislike the idea of a dominant process and prefer to think of themselves as using all four processes equally. However, Jung holds that such impartiality, where it actually exists, keeps all of the processes relatively underdeveloped and produces a "primitive mentality," because opposite ways of dong the same thing interfere with each other if neither has priority. If one perceptive process is to reach a high degree of development, it needs to undivided attention much of the time, which means that the other must be shut off frequently and will be less developed. If one judging process is to become highly developed, it must similarly have the right of way. One perceptive process and one judging process can develop side by side, provided on is used in the service of the other. But one process - sensing, intuition, thinking or feeling - must have clear sovereignty, with opportunity to reach its full development, if a person is to be really effective."


So its quite obvious that not everyone who is on this site is using their processes for top effectiveness. What those reasons are, who knows? Maybe they do not know how? Maybe they refuse. Maybe they are on this site not even taking MBTI seriously. But one thing is for certain - do not let others deter you from gaining all the accurate knowledge you can about MBTI. Do not let others stand in your way from developing your functions for top effectiveness.
 
U
#14 ·
Beats me why they stay as "unknown".
Click to expand...
Possibly because they don't know their type.. or maybe because they don't think the MBTI is very credible to begin with.
But the fact of the matter is, MBTI is real and it is stable
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely convinced of this although I'm less skeptical than I was when I first started reading about it.
 
#17 ·
....And as with any wiki page, its known for not being as creditable. Don't get offended on Wiki's behalf. The proof is on the page when it says "Encyclopedia of Socionics." Even if Socionics uses partials of Jung's theory to form their theories why don't you use reference materials that are based entirely off of MBTI? Don't refer us to materials based on entirely different assessment....because everyone can agree that just because it has a partial common basis doesn't mean its the same.

Besides, if you are less ignorant than me, why don't you explain why @Tridentus is so wrong about his explanations rather than just providing links and saying "youre wrong". Chances are, you know everyone clicking on those links won't read the information anyway....so go ahead...show me my ignorance....or shall I say show all of us our ignorance.

Oh and btw, I'm married to ENTP and my best friend is an INTJ - you can't offend me with your smartass biting remarks. So you might as well save your time.
 
T
#20 ·
@CynicallyNaive
thanks for you clear post and i can see how you would think that.

i think the problem is communication styles- i tend to just say things in a way that makes sense to me, and rely on others to fill in the gaps as far as context and meaning is concerned.

for example: i stated that Fe types follow the majority, Fi types resist conformity.. clearly i don't as an Fi type spend everyday fighting conformity- i conform in lots of ways because that's necessary for survival- it's important to know which decisions are the ones that make the difference, where personal choice rather than common choice is more prevalent. so i might feel something is just slightly off about a group i've just met, they invite me out to go to a bar, an Fe type is much more likely to accept such a request; i as an Fi type, if i feel badly enough about the group, will refuse even though i would never normally refuse an invitation to go out.

lines are going to be blurred, it's important to recognise where on the line is important and where isn't.
 
P
#22 ·
I can empathize with a lot of situations, for example, a divorce. To me, although a lot of events can cause a certain emotion usually a lot of emotional reactions feel similar. So I recall a time when I felt the same or similar emotion that was caused by something else, and that's how I empathize and I might even feel it more intensely than the person I'm supposedly empathizing with. I'm not sure if it relates to Fi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnnycoconut, Sina, Snowflurri and 1 other person
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#27 ·
This is a very good thread. Fe vs. Fi is a very difficult topic to understand, and most of your post is very enlightening and very accurate.

Tridentus said:
2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.
Click to expand...
@Tridentus

I'm sorry to say, but this addendum doesn't quite explain the phenomenon. I hope you read this, because the misconception in your post is very subtle... and many believe it.

It is not common, but entirely possible for Fe-users to become fierce individualists without majority thought playing any role. Of course, this is rare, because Fe tries serve and improve the entire group, rather than the self.

Allow me to explain: The difference between Fe and Fi is between objective and subjective morality in philosophy.

Fe users believe in Objective Morality. This means, they are constantly trying to find a set of rules that they can apply to everyone. These rules are supposed to govern our behavior, and, most importantly, improve the world overall.

When looking for an Objective Morality, many (but not all) Fe-users will look to mainstream opinions and rules, and adopt those as their objective moral standard, deciding that these rules best serve the majority. (Fe-opinion: "Why do you have to be gay? You make the majority uncomfortable you should stop!")

However (And as a fiercely individualist INFJ, this is a BIG however), some INFJs simply conceptualize an objective rule-set on their own, and doubt the validity of the moral objectivity of society at large. (Counter example: "Individuals should not be constrained in their freedom simply due to the discomfort of less tolerant individuals.)

To people like me, constantly hearing "Your Fe makes you a sheep." or "Your Fe makes you just adopt majority opinions" feels enormously invalidating, because I have struggled against majority ethics for most of my life. Most of my most profound beliefs about religion and morality, contradict what I was taught and exposed to as a child and I have often been an outspoken critic.

I believe that INTPs/ENTPs are also unjustly served by your post, as it does not represent them and their individual moral objectivism.

But does my individualism make me an Fi user? No, it does not. I still believe in the creation of a universal standard of ethics, to which all are held, and by which, humanity at large is improved.

I believe this would be far more accurate in explaining Fe vs. Fi.

"Fe believes in the creation of a moral standard by which to judge all people, for the betterment of all people. Fi believes that individuals are best suited by each moral situation being judged from a subjective, situational standpoint."

Once more, hope you read this post. As this concept is very important to me.
 
T
#28 ·
@Btmangan
i agree with every word you said- i think it's simply your interpretation of what i'm trying to get across that is the issue.
i actually hope people do see this post because i understand how it can be confusing to people who interpret it in the same way. my goal wasn't to frame Fe types in a certain way or anything like that- it was to serve up some examples of the tendencies of an Fe type in order to demonstrate examples of Fe in use, allow people to isolate the function, and conceptualize it for themselves.. once done the concept of Fe can be imagined in any different role or in combination with any different function in order to understand how it can play out.
it's just how i learn, and of course it'll be more useful to those who understand the same things as me. i could look at someone else writing this stuff and instantly know that what you are saying can be true also.

however, of your quote of me.. i would argue that you've simply proved it although i admit i could have worded it better. your ethic would have come from certain influences such as media, books, parents etc. INFJs are (as i think i mentioned) one of the more individualistic Fe types and get that from Ni which allows them to be decisive about their perceptions. a.k.a. they're so directive in conceptualising how the world WORKS and therefore how it will progress, that they are more likely to filter morals through with what they KNOW to be true.

having said that i definitely hope people read your post because i realise that people who don't interpret information in the way i do would get confused.
 
#29 ·
Yes, I agree with this entirely.

Hope I didn't come across as too butthurt w/ my long post. :tongue:

Recently I've been doing a lot of thinking about how I differ from my fellow INFJs (on our subforum) and this was one of the top topics I was considering. Many INFJs can be very group oriented and consensus building. Compared to them, I'm a firebrand. :laughing:

I've seen enough Fe vs. Fi clash on these boards to value this thread. If people read it, it should cut down on the squabbling.
 
L
#32 ·
Tridentus said:
People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

Most Common Positives:
People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and making others feel good tends to be their goal
People who use Fi are always aware of how they would feel when treated a certain way. self actualisation tends to be their goal

Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

note: the two functions are mutually exclusive (although the end conclusion is sometimes the same) and every F type faces a decision to go one way or the other in every moral decision/conclusion. 1st function types are more likely to go with one or the other from a young age and show a strong preference, 2nd function types are more likely to mix it up or remain neutral at a young age, but increasingly choose the route most natural to them as they get older.

2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.
Click to expand...
I like it! Explained very well!
 
#34 ·
Perhaps this can be helpful as well.
Here are the comparisons from "Gifts Differing" by Isabel Briggs Myer on Fe & Fi:

Fe: Determined chiefly by the objective factor, it serves to make the individual feel correctly, that is conventionally, under all circumstances.
Fi: Determined chiefly by the subjective factor, it serves as a guide to the emotional acceptance or rejection of various aspects of life.

Fe: It therefore adapts the individual to the objective situation.
Fi: It therefore adapts the objective situation to the individual, by the simple process of excluding or ignoring the unacceptable.

Fe: Depends wholly upon the ideals, conventions, and customs of the environment, and is extensive than deep.
Fi: Depends upon abstract feeling-ideals such as love, patriotism, religion, and loyalty, and is deep and passionate rather than extensive.

Fe: Its soundness and value do not lie in the individual, but outside int he collective ideals of the community, which are usually accepted without question.
Fi: Its soundness and value depend solely upon the individual himself, his inner wealth and his powers of appreciation and abstraction.

Fe: Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people.
Fi: Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal.

Fe: Expresses itself easily and so shares itself with others, creating and arousing similar feeling, and establishing warm sympathy and understanding.
Fi: May be too overpowering to be expressed at all, and so appear cold to the point of indifference, and be completely misunderstood.

Fe: Danger lies in the tendency to suppress the personal standpoint entirely, and become a feeling process instead of a feeling personality, giving the effect of insincerity and pose.
Fi: Danger lies in tendency to find no objective fulfillment or realization, or outlet or expression and therefore to live upon sentiment, illusion and self pity.
 
T
#39 ·
@CynicallyNaive

both. ask anyone in corporate america who has enough standing to be part of recruitment projects and i garuntee they know about mbti as part of their prospectus.

dude you really need to grasp your limitations- you think about things in a too logical and rigid way, which may be a strength in certain situations, but in personality theory which requires a mix of science and humanities you just don't get it. that's it, if you don't listen to this piece of advice i have nothing else to help you with and you can happily dismiss mbti theory for all i care with the knowledge that you are wrong since you lack the necessary insight. our goal in life should be to become an all rounded person- not to run off our strengths as you appear to do to understand something that JUST isn't in your field of natural understanding.
 
B
#133 ·
Tridentus said:
@CynicallyNaive

both. ask anyone in corporate america who has enough standing to be part of recruitment projects and i garuntee they know about mbti as part of their prospectus.

dude you really need to grasp your limitations- you think about things in a too logical and rigid way, which may be a strength in certain situations, but in personality theory which requires a mix of science and humanities you just don't get it. that's it, if you don't listen to this piece of advice i have nothing else to help you with and you can happily dismiss mbti theory for all i care with the knowledge that you are wrong since you lack the necessary insight. our goal in life should be to become an all rounded person- not to run off our strengths as you appear to do to understand something that JUST isn't in your field of natural understanding.
Click to expand...
This sounds totally sanctimonious. Praise you then. You don't by any chance also drive a Prius, do you?
 
C
#40 ·
Tridentius said:
both. ask anyone in corporate america who has enough standing to be part of recruitment projects and i garuntee they know about mbti as part of their prospectus.
Click to expand...
Could you please give me some referrals via PM?

Could you please explain your assertion, "you don't sound like an Fe user to me"?

Yes, we're at an impasse. You reject my request for empirical evidence, asserting that i "just don't get it," i "lack the necessary insight," and that your unsubstantiated theory "isn't in [my] field of natural understanding." Those aren't refutable propositions, just ad hominem arguments from authority. Discussions about objective scientific truth involve refutable propositions. Plainly CFs are your religion, not science. I hold religious beliefs on other topics, so i'm certainly not putting you down for holding yours.

I have nothing more to express on the topic. Best wishes.
 
R
#42 ·
CynicallyNaive said:
Yes, we're at an impasse. You reject my request for empirical evidence, asserting that i "just don't get it," i "lack the necessary insight," and that your unsubstantiated theory "isn't in [my] field of natural understanding." Those aren't refutable propositions, just ad hominem arguments from authority. Discussions about objective scientific truth involve refutable propositions. Plainly CFs are your religion, not science. I hold religious beliefs on other topics, so i'm certainly not putting you down for holding yours.

I have nothing more to express on the topic. Best wishes.
Click to expand...
of course theres not going to be imperical data!!!
Its about feelings!

quote:
Carl Gustav Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and founder of the school of analytical psychology. He proposed and developed the concepts of the extroverted and introverted personality, archetypes, and the collective unconscious. The issues that he dealt with arose from his personal experiences. For many years Jung felt as if he had two separate personalities. One introverted and other extroverted. This interplay resulted in his study of integration and wholeness. His work has been influential not only in psychology, but in religion and literature as well.

Plus i dont know why this is entering the topic of religion but psychology is all based on behavior and mental processes. right?
soooooo the evidence is only gonna be more humans movin around and doin and thinkin and shit.
religion has the same kind of ummmmmm "trust" aspect (i dont want to go as far as saying "faith")
your most likely gonna see what you want/get
UNTILL you read as much as you can to understand this whole personality system.
and what you use from it can then be used to benefit you
i would say the same way religion can benefit those who follow it.
But i hope we all understand the difference between religion and psychology
(religion is based the idea of past events or deities that should be inherited as they are.
psychology is more like a bunch of badasses that tried there best to make a system to help better explain the world around us.)
(and im pretty sure they did it most because they were like "damn theres alot of crazy bitches")
Anyways the only thing thats demanded to be inherited is that the system makes sense within itself.
THis is were we should ask our questions toward.
the fact that people rejected personality types at a whole is justified and i should want them treated with equal respect.

so Best wishes.
But i hope you get as much as i did out of the experience
 
H
#54 ·
Because their orientations are in two different directions and therefore they cancel each other out. According to Jung your top 4 cognitive functions need to balance each other out in order to allow for healthy mental development. Fe and Fi cannot both be in your top 4 functions because Fe's objective value judgments, based on external consensus clashes with Fi's subjective value judgments based on internal harmony. They utilize different processes, in different orientations, and through different mediums (the group vs. the self) to achieve an ethical perspective. Now in John Beebe/Linda Beren's shadow theory you could have either Fe or Fi in your top four cognitive function then have the opposing function as your shadow function (the remaining four functions), but it will not manifest the same way it does in someone who has that opposing function in their top four functions.
 
H
#64 ·
@HarpFluffy The thing with about JCF is that they are thought processes ways of perceiving and judging the world not actions or behaviours. Just because you can fit into a group and develop your own personal convictions does not mean you have both Fe and Fi. Likewise every time you create a graph or a chart does not mean you use Te, or that when you are playing sports you are using Se, or whenever you are remembering things you are using Si. All of these actions can be manifestations of different cognitive functions they are not the domain of only one or a handful of them. Fe can be used to both create group harmony and personal ethical convictions, likewise with Fi. But how they process information is different because of their different orientations. An Fi user can be just as capable to finding ways to harmonize group as an Fe user, they are just going to do so internally via their own subjective basis of value judgments. Likewise and Fe user is just as capable of creating their own personal convictions and their own moral codes but instead of looking inwards, they are going to rely on an external bodie(s) of ethics to help them.

And also I should clarify what I meant by Fe and Fi cancelling each other out in an individual. When I wrote that I didn't mean that Fe and Fi would balance each other out in a yin-yang sort of thing but rather, the Fe's external focus would negate Fi's internal focus so that the user would have neither. You know like, 1 + (-1) = 0 sort of thing, not 1 + 1 =2. Clash would have been a more appropriate word. They just don't mesh. In JCF you must have either have introverted or extroverted feeling/thinking/intuition/sensing in your top four, or else your mental processes would be all messed up.
 
F
#65 ·
Here's how I generally have defined Fi versus Fe: In my opinion, Fi is a values judgement that works similar to how Ti does in that it's goal is to determine truth versus non-truth, but includes the "human" aspect in that it looks at Right and Wrong as determined by the individual only. The most common way to "see" it at work is as it determines whether the incoming data is something which has an association with already established values and if it does whether that gives it high or low priority as far as deciding whether it will be accepted as true or not true or right or wrong.

Fe is similar in that it is a judgement of values and based on the "human" aspect, but it looks outward first and foremost to determine whether there is an external consensus on the truth/non-truth or right/wrong of something. Is there already an established set of guidelines and mores? In that sense, you can see Fe at work as it determines whether the incoming data is something which has an external association and established values and mores and those already established values and mores are already organized in a hierarchy of importance and so that is used to judge whether the incoming data is going to be accepted as true or not true or right or wrong.

I'm a dominant Fi user, always have been, always will be. However, to outsiders or casual acquaintances, they could perceive me as an Fe user because avoiding conflict is something which has a very high value for me. Therefore, I will often utilize the scale and established hierarchy of societal values and mores to determine whether I am going to verbalize or act on a given internal value or decision, but it will not play a part in what I actually believe or my thoughts about a particular event or discussion. There's a very distinct difference between being aware of societal norms and values and what not and actually using them to base how you process information.

It's really nice when my values and mores and beliefs match those of my society through some means so that I get the best of both worlds - I'm not being "stubborn" or "difficult" AND I'm not having to find some way to make my opinions and values fit into a box just for the sake of appearances.
 
Personality Cafe
posts
11M
members
172K
Since
2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
INFP Forum - The Idealists INFJ Forum - The Protectors INTP Forum - The Thinkers INTJ Forum - The Scientists Myers Briggs Forum