[geekofalltrades]

Now here's an interesting question/bit of food-for-thought/personal hypothesis for the PerC community. (In advance: this is not a "help me decipher my type" post. I am very confident in my INFJ-ness.) I'm an INFJ who has always felt much more identity with Fi than with my supposedly-secondary Fe. In cognitive functions tests, Fi frequently outranks my supposedly dominant Ni. I definitely have the strictly (and rabidly) held personal values characteristic of strong Fi, and I make moral decisions with a combination of Fi-ish gut reaction and Ti-logic (more in keeping with my own tertiary Ti).

Here's the thing about all those strictly held Fi-ish opinions, though: they're all egalitarian. Every last one. For those who don't know the definition of the word, egalitarianism is the belief that everybody is entitled to equal opportunities, and the belief that each person is worth exactly the same as each and every other person. The fact that I adhere so strongly to ideals that emphasize equal opportunity seems a bit sneaky-Fe.

That's my hypothesis, then: my extreme social introversion and general unwillingness to interact with other people appears to cognitive-functions tests as low social empathy, which fools them into ranking my Fe as underdeveloped, while my rigidly held opinions and values seem to the tests like high Fi, when actually, my most rabidly held opinions all pertain to the ways in which people ought to treat each other... meaning that the Fi the test sees is actually Fe in an exceedingly clever disguise.



Thoughts?

[snowbell]

This is a really excellent description and it describes things so well. Thanks for the post

[idntknw]

"Instinctual feelings are subordinated to the ideal. At the same time, there may be a too forcible suppression of the instinctual life, in which case it will lead not so much to a split in the emotional life as to a certain joylessness, and to the feeling that life is passing without bringing any true fulfilment. There is too often a need to associate all pleasures and joys with some moral value, and to condemn them if this higher satisfaction is not obviously found in them. "

For some reason this rang a bell with me.

[Dreamer777]

Now here's an interesting question/bit of food-for-thought/personal hypothesis for the PerC community. (In advance: this is not a "help me decipher my type" post. I am very confident in my INFJ-ness.) I'm an INFJ who has always felt much more identity with Fi than with my supposedly-secondary Fe. In cognitive functions tests, Fi frequently outranks my supposedly dominant Ni. I definitely have the strictly (and rabidly) held personal values characteristic of strong Fi, and I make moral decisions with a combination of Fi-ish gut reaction and Ti-logic (more in keeping with my own tertiary Ti).

Here's the thing about all those strictly held Fi-ish opinions, though: they're all egalitarian. Every last one. For those who don't know the definition of the word, egalitarianism is the belief that everybody is entitled to equal opportunities, and the belief that each person is worth exactly the same as each and every other person. The fact that I adhere so strongly to ideals that emphasize equal opportunity seems a bit sneaky-Fe.

That's my hypothesis, then: my extreme social introversion and general unwillingness to interact with other people appears to cognitive-functions tests as low social empathy, which fools them into ranking my Fe as underdeveloped, while my rigidly held opinions and values seem to the tests like high Fi, when actually, my most rabidly held opinions all pertain to the ways in which people ought to treat each other... meaning that the Fi the test sees is actually Fe in an exceedingly clever disguise.

Thoughts?

For those who don't know the definition of the word, egalitarianism is the belief that everybody is entitled to equal opportunities, and the belief that each person is worth exactly the same as each and every other person. The fact that I adhere so strongly to ideals that emphasize equal opportunity seems a bit sneaky-Fe.

Well, i think both INFJ's and INFP's feel the same way, so in the sense of NF's, probably ENFJ's and ENFP's also, all the 4 idealists types, this explanation of feeling comes out the same in both the Fi's and the Fe's. So if like you are questioning if like per say are you an INTJ rather than an INFJ? then probably yes you sound more of the idealist branch of the NF's. Is that what you're questioning? And if it is, then it would be good to hear what an INTJ says about your quote above?

[nakkinaama]

Hey are ISFJs Fi users?

[Jharaiz]

Gawsh i loved this.
What i also loved was how everyone was elaborating so frequently in the comments as well. Thanks a ton to everyone for clearing it up!

[Vanishing Point]

This is the best description of Fi that I've read. I could relate to everything.

I agree. But for me this is the best description of Fi that I've ever read because I can't really relate to it. I thought for a while that I was an INFP because I could relate to many of the profiles online and even the function descriptions, but reading this feels like I've taken a peek into a foreign universe. A beautiful universe, but not a familiar one.

That's my hypothesis, then: my extreme social introversion and general unwillingness to interact with other people appears to cognitive-functions tests as low social empathy, which fools them into ranking my Fe as underdeveloped, while my rigidly held opinions and values seem to the tests like high Fi, when actually, my most rabidly held opinions all pertain to the ways in which people ought to treat each other... meaning that the Fi the test sees is actually Fe in an exceedingly clever disguise.

Thoughts?

I appear quite extroverted but I still score higher on Fi. I personally think it's because of questions that ask "Do you think it's important to be true to your ideals? ...which are meant to measure Fi, but unless you know it's supposed to do that I think any NF would answer "yes". :)

[stoicBrit]

I Now know that I am Fi dominant so thanks for posting this article.

[Lune]

In ordinary life their mask conceals what they really are. But there is, nevertheless, something very individual about them, sometimes remarkably so, which will come to expression particularly in certain moments, in relation to certain people. This happens more especially in two situations: when they achieve real contact with another person; and when, in a state of high emotional excitement, they stand up for a threatened ideal.

In the first case, a very profound relationship of mutual understanding may suddenly come into being, all the wealth of their minds being unlocked to the confidant; sometimes this contact will later be broken off just as suddenly and unexpectedly, in defence of their own vulnerability. And where his feelings are aroused, the person who appeared to be so impersonal, remote and somewhat insignificant may suddenly burst out with a personal point of view, expressed with such conviction and such force of feeling that it compels respect.

This passage is creepily accurate. I started relatively regularly chatting online with this guy in my class about 2 years ago. He was/is rather alienated from the world (INTJ, if it matters at all), and somehow we connected. He drew me out of myself, and something about him made me tell him things I hold all too close- that I had promised myself I would never tell anyone because it was too private, and however insignificant each little bit of information he drew out of me was, it was the principle that he was opening me against my will and "good" judgement that I was afraid of and could not stand.

So I went into this backlash reaction for a while. Ignoring him when he chatted me, pretending I never noticed him because I was busy or went offline right then by unlucky coincidence. If I did gather the courage and guilt to respond to him, everything was as dry as I could make it, careful to answer his implorances of divulgance with curt, logical, succinct answers, careful and fearful to keep all the Fi far from him as I could possibly keep it.

Gradually, I came back to him. I had freaked out and told him I couldn't handle telling him about me, but I agreed, because I still found him interesting, that we would keep sharing "ideas," and ideas only. He was hurt and disappointed, but he gave me my space and respect and distance and agreed that just idea-sharing was better than nothing at all, and slowly, slowly, as he does to me (I still can't fathom how or why - maybe because he is so true and direct and alienated as I am), I gave him more and more of me.

A few days ago, I opened that last barrier. The barrier between the hard, cynical Ti which I have constructed and overdeveloped to show the world, and the Fi which hides so deep inside. One side effect of that is that my heart has finally started to accept him, too. I just hope I'll have the strength not to backlash again this time. He's the first and only one who's ever come this close to knowing me.



I always find it so fascinating when these broad, general type descriptions perfectly define some exact situation/scenario in my life. This is why I love PC and personality typing in general. :) Thanks for your post, Psilo!

[xEmilyx]

so my mom would say that I wasn't a particularly cuddly as a child. I wouldn't let her do my hair, I would go out an play in the trees and other various things of that nature. I didn't care at ALL what other people wanted and I did what I wanted.
I was not rude though, I did not think of that as very kind or very thoughtful of others feelings.

I remember my mom telling me that I would fight other children for toys if they took them from me and I didn't care if they would cry, I would fight so I could get my stolen toy back.
I was a terror to the preschool and I made many lady's taking care of me cry because of how destructive I was and because I wouldn't listen to them. lol

What functions do you think entails this?