# Fi vs. Fe



## CupcakesRDaBestBruv (Aug 6, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Here's a question. How does such a characterization reconcile with the real world? I mean, how does an Fi dom like Audrey Hepburn come from this way of thinking? Or how do ISFPs somehow get called the "kindest" type? Something just doesn't jive here...
> 
> Fi types can be and are very attuned to feelings. Period. The difference is what triggers them, and how they are processed. Like @_Octavian_ said above, the difference is the why.
> 
> One point that seems to get overlooked in these conversations is that Fi tends to be the function that stands up for the little guy--the abused kids and animals, the ignored and overlooked and helpless, especially in a group setting where kids (or adults) gang up on another kid they don't like. Fi easily relates to such people and such settings. It champions the underdog, the outsider. Why this is, I could probably go on at length about, and bore everybody with personal perspective and history--but I won't do that. But Fi is not narcissistic while Fe is altruistic. It is not self-centered, while Fe is other-centered. If anything, one could argue that Fi is more altruistic than Fe, because Fe desires recognition for its accomplishments, while Fi-doms tend to shy from the limelight (watch the video on Youtube where Bob Dylan and Tom Petty sing "Knocking on Heaven's Door" and watch what Bob does at the end of the song, or watch how Michael Jackson reacted to applause--or any IXFP performer, for that matter). We'd rather let our actions speak for themselves. I know IXFPs aren't the only ones, but this is a more accurate representation than what I've been reading in this thread...


ISFPs the kindest type? 
check out em INTJs 
Anyways... it was a bit general lol.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> It's simple, the focus on "teamwork" and being a "team player" (what's the movie about Al Capone? The Untouchables? Where the guy gets the baseball bat to the head?) is an entirely Fe thing. That's the Abilene paradox. Focusing too much on the process and not enough on the goal. But then again, SJs are all about the process, the way I read it (in Socionics especially, I believe) I don't see a need to try to read more into this or take more out of it.


 If I've ever been to Abilene, I must've learned my lesson. I don't relate to that paradox, and I don't find Fe corresponds heavily. Fe is like ol' faithful when used right. It's like seducing people. Only prob I recollect runnin' into is getting the urge to involve people in stuff when it's not necessary (but i usually have ulterior motives for it they don't know about).



> I wrote long paragraphs trying to explain grammar, definitions of the terms, and I realized it was just too much. If you don't get what I said the first time around, I really can't explain it without doing a review course on high school grammar... It's in the grammar... transitive verbs vs. intransitive verbs. Feelings are typically expressed with transitive verbs and emotions typically with intransitive verbs. And you got the words emotion and feeling reversed. I don't want to go and try to explain myself, or come across like I'm correcting other people. You have to work things out your own way with your own words. It is obvious to me that my method isn't working...


You're referring to the quotations of common vernacular I gave? Oh. Well, that's fine. American dialects deserve a beating sometimes.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

*dies*


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> You're referring to the quotations of common vernacular I gave? Oh. Well, that's fine. American dialects deserve a beating sometimes.


The two examples you gave were two ways to express the same emotion, but they didn't reflect what I was saying. I suppose I'll try again. "I am sad." There is no object to that sentence. "I feel sad" says the same thing--no object. The subject I feels... how do I feel--sad. End of line. This is an emotion. Sadness comes and goes, and doesn't attach itself to anything besides I. You can add "I feel sad for you", but still, if you notice "for you" is a prepositional phrase. It is not the object of the subject (I)'s emotion. I still am. 

Let's look at a feeling, something that does attach itself to the object. "I envy you." Now I have an object I'm focusing on--you. And my feeling is one of envy. This particular envy is attached to you, either for something you were able to do, or something you have, or something connected to you. I have, in fact, made a choice. I could decide I no longer envy you, and then the problem would go away. Envy is a deep feeling, and it's deep because it does attach itself to something or someone. This is the point I'm trying to make. Emotions are transient, and not connected to judging. Feelings, on the other hand, are not transient. They have an object, and they are connected to decisions or judgments. We make a value judgment, and we act upon it. I've run a lot of feelings and emotions through my mind, and so far, all the transient emotions are also intransitive verbs or predicate adjectives (like sad). One doesn't sad, but one can be saddened--which is reflexive back on the subject again. But transitive verbs--verbs that have objects (like I envy you) seem to be linked to deeper sentiments that show judgment. I've tried to explain it a few times here, but it seems either I'm bad at explaining myself, or I'm completely wrong, and nobody wants to tell me. ;-) 

But this is my last post on this topic for sure.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> But this is my last post on this topic for sure.


 I think I understand, but, again, Feeling is becoming all kinds of complicated compared to Thinking. Is grammar to provide the evidence that Feeling uses feelings because feelings are connected to judgment grammatically?

Compare Ni to Ne, Si to Se and Ti to Te - get something much less elusive. Now Fi to Fe is something that is just so...._special _with these circumstances that all of a sudden give the Introverted Feeler this ability to look within itself like _no other_ Introvert has been able to. It's awfully convenient that it's so different. Fi-doms are so individual that it turns Introversion into something else entirely, compared to the rest.

All Ti does is apply discretion to the way functional things work. Logic. But Fi is special. It doesn't _simply _apply discretion to the way _people _work. It seeks _harmony _from _deep _within itself, and rejects _conformation_, and is _sensitive_, and its values are intimate with _deep feelings_, and it wants to understand its emotions, too, but in a different way than it uses feelings, and its _creative _with how to _express _its feelings, and it's so disconnected from _anything _external and....it goes on, and on and on...

Why can't Fi be just another function? I swear the others are so simple to pin a meaning to, but Fi has these circumstances that make it enigmatic...


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Why can't Fi be just another function? I swear the others are so simple to pin a meaning to, but Fi has these circumstances that make it enigmatic...


Special snowflake syndrome. Frequent in dom / aux Fi.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I prefer to describe it all this way. Fi feels guilty when compromising self for the sake of the whole, while Fe feels guilty sacrificing the whole for the sake of self. They may both compromise, but difference lies in what makes them feel guilty in the compromise.


I have a fear of selling out, if that helps your case at all. Not that I think it's likely I would ever do it inadvertently, but that one day I won't have a choice and will be forced to conform somehow. If I'm stressed out I sometimes will start wondering if I'd done it inadvertently in the past without realizing. 

What I look for with outward harmony is like-minded people. It's more something I expect to just fall into place (through existence or probability laws or whatever.) Having to actually take action to attain this makes it seem superficial/unnatural. 

Extraverted Feeling (Fe)

VS

Introverted Feeling - (Fe) <-- appears to be a typo 

What I am getting from this is that Fi is more concerned with "values" as such, whereas Fe is concerned with values as they are espoused by others/via social connections


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> I think I understand, but, again, Feeling is becoming all kinds of complicated compared to Thinking. Is grammar to provide the evidence that Feeling uses feelings because feelings are connected to judgment grammatically?
> 
> Compare Ni to Ne, Si to Se and Ti to Te - get something much less elusive. Now Fi to Fe is something that is just so...._special _with these circumstances that all of a sudden give the Introverted Feeler this ability to look within itself like _no other_ Introvert has been able to. It's awfully convenient that it's so different. Fi-doms are so individual that it turns Introversion into something else entirely, compared to the rest.
> 
> ...


I don't see it as being all that special. Look at the confusion over Si or Ni. I saw Si described in a thread recently as something more along the line of little more than something like muscle memory. And I'm like wha? Doesn't sound right to me... Si is totally foreign to me. And I understand how Ni is confusing and foreign to other people. IMO, what I described for Fi is rather simple. I think that maybe the "confusion" comes down to conflicting sense of values. That makes it seem confusing to you, or maybe... maybe... it's because Fi is independent of your Fe attempts to massage or mold it to your will. I have two NFJ daughters, and I know that they both try to get into my mind, but it only happens because I'm an overindulgent dad. If I don't want, they don't and that frustrates them. ;-) 

Here's a question. As an INFJ, I presume that you perform social experiments on people. ISFPs do this too, but the difference is that we do it just to know. Once we're done, that's it. NFJs seem to do the experiments so they can accomplish some task. They use their results to fulfill some plan, to get things done, but for me, it's just to know. Once I know, I have all I wanted. I think that's a simple illustration between Fi and Fe, and this parallels the differences between Ti and Te. Ti wishes to know, but Te needs to know so it can act. Actually, as I think about it, I see a lot of parallels between Fi-Fe and Ti-Te. The introverted judging functions are about knowing--cataloging, categorizing, building a database of knowledge, but the extroverted functions are about executing, consolidating, organizing and people and things to accomplish goals. Again, I just don't see the complication.


----------



## Mimic octopus (May 3, 2014)

The idea that introverted feeling is basically selfish really needs to die.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Patrick_1 said:


> The idea that introverted feeling is basically selfish really needs to die.


We will kill it with fire. But I agree. It is hurting my deep feelings therefor it shall die.

I know how Fi works, but have trouble understanding Fe even though from people's descriptions I sometimes keep thinking that I am a Fe user instead, because the manifestation of both function can be the exact same, they are just coming from different places and it is hard to see the road of it. 

I can give an example of something that happened yesterday and that will crash the myth of Fi not doing anything for other people:

I was at the hospital because I had been feeling extreme pain in my kidney and bladder area after having been feeling it for 3 weeks AND after starting supposedly the right antibiotics treatment. I was waiting in the line to see the emergency doctor, was next to go, couldn't wait for it as I was just fed up with the pain to no end. 
A woman walks in and gets in the line 2 positions after me. She is in an apparent extreme pain, walking around, grasping, holding her stomach. I felt extremely bad for her, as her pain seemed worse than mine. Went to the administration and said that she should go in before me. Now, that decision came from an empathetic place, which is usually linked to Fe. However, I went there because I felt her pain within me and it disrupted the harmony inside me. My own harmony was being interrupted by the pain that she brought in the room and that I could feel. So in that sense it is somewhat self involved as I probably wouldn't have given her my place if it didn't touch something within me. I wouldn't care if it's the ''right'' thing. But the manifestation of this self involvement isn't selfish.
Another detail to the story is that I didn't even ask the person who was in line between me and the hurting lady if he agrees with that. Only afterwards I asked him - oh sorry, are you ok with this?
_So I would draw it like this (correct me fellow Fi's if you disagree): _

*An external situation -> taking it in. Stimulation for action comes from within (internal harmony, personal values). Decision is made within -> Manifests externally*

I really don't know what the cognitive work and manifestation in this situation would be for a Fe user.


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

SplitTheAtom said:


> _So I would draw it like this (correct me fellow Fi's if you disagree): _
> 
> *An external situation -> taking it in. Stimulation for action comes from within (internal harmony, personal values). Decision is made within -> Manifests externally*


I think I can agree with this. I can do things for myself, or I can do things for other people, but whatever it is, the impetus comes from within. I do things because I feel it's the right thing to do, or because I want to. I'm all for harmony and having a good feeling in a group, but if they decide to put peas up their nose and I feel that putting peas up noses is wrong, I'm not going to be a part of it. If they want to be terrible people they can do it without me.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I don't see it as being all that special. Look at the confusion over Si or Ni. I saw Si described in a thread recently as something more along the line of little more than something like muscle memory. And I'm like wha? Doesn't sound right to me... Si is totally foreign to me. And I understand how Ni is confusing and foreign to other people.


 I'd made that comparison once, myself. Sensors are attentive to pleasure. It must remember what feels good and what doesn't. A pleasurable memory comes back to them just as a routine movement comes back to one's muscles. It's a vivid sense of second nature realigning and feeling accurate. I'd say it's like this for Sensation generally.



> IMO, what I described for Fi is rather simple. I think that maybe the "confusion" comes down to conflicting sense of values. That makes it seem confusing to you, or maybe... maybe... it's because Fi is independent of your Fe attempts to massage or mold it to your will. I have two NFJ daughters, and I know that they both try to get into my mind, but it only happens because I'm an overindulgent dad. If I don't want, they don't and that frustrates them. ;-)


Fe uses effective, immediate means (charm and warmth) to coordinate people. My successfully coordinating you wouldn't involve changing your opinion on Fe.

One's will plays no integral role in prompting cognitive functions to act; the functions can be used to believe anything regardless of type. I only just so happen to see Feeling differently than you and most here.

I argue with my ENFJ mom all the time. Our Fes don't think alike.

Both Fi and Fe have a sense of arranging people. The values Fi-doms have and speak of are an improvised set of standards that people around them either will or will not live up to. When people don't and defy their values, they get offended just like Fe-doms do. Fis have expectations that they entitle themselves to fulfilling.

Fi is hands off Fe; it improvises Fe's strategies just like Ti improvises Te's strategies. By this thread it sounds like Fi-doms get caught in a cycle of excusing others' behaviors and being in denial about the effect it has on them, all to refocus their energy onto themselves for compensation, consequently rebuking convention like the plague. INFPs I know often get upset when their views on behavior are challenged, so they definitely care about what people think and do. Like Fe-doms.



> Here's a question. As an INFJ, I presume that you perform social experiments on people. ISFPs do this too, but the difference is that we do it just to know. Once we're done, that's it. NFJs seem to do the experiments so they can accomplish some task. They use their results to fulfill some plan, to get things done, but for me, it's just to know. Once I know, I have all I wanted. I think that's a simple illustration between Fi and Fe, and this parallels the differences between Ti and Te. Ti wishes to know, but Te needs to know so it can act. Actually, as I think about it, I see a lot of parallels between Fi-Fe and Ti-Te. The introverted judging functions are about knowing--cataloging, categorizing, building a database of knowledge, but the extroverted functions are about executing, consolidating, organizing and people and things to accomplish goals. Again, I just don't see the complication.


Yes, they have an ingrained sense of order just like their Extraverted counterparts. Thus Ji types judge in the midst of desiring to know. Their judgments, however, have to come from things around them to be able to judge. The explanations of Fi I get from most people here is that it's separate from people, that it isn't about people or groups, which is considered an Fe thing, that it cares more about itself than others... There is no cognitive function that judges _itself _primarily. It responds primarily to the feedback from its environment.

That's why everyone's talks of Fe being outside and focused on people while Fi isn't in the least sounds screwy. Fi-doms are obligated to view the world around them like every other function. The values they comprehend are based on the world, yet Fi-doms mainly seem to focus on themselves online because descriptions tell them they don't care to work with people as much as Fe. "Fe means group and Fi means self." It's just...egotistical, really.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

My internal world is the only I know of entirely, the only I will never get lost in, the only I can rely on. Yes, might be egotistical.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

My question would be, could Fi doms be completly oblivious about themselves, about how they act or how they feel?
It's the typical question in questionaries: how would you feel if...? Well i don't have a fking clue. Most of time.
Well:






According to this video i could be a Fe user, i definitely identify with what he says about Fe. Specially for picking up other's gestures, emotional atmospheres, etc.
Even when he talks about manipulating, i find myself to be manipulative, but it's really rare to see me doing this. I become manipulative emotionally just when i'm under pressure. Does this means it could Fe inferior or terceary?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

^ I think any time someone tries to describe Fi/Fe by talking about _perceptions_, it gets very confusing. 


I think this is because Fi/Fe are judging functions, not perceiving functions.

When that guy says, "Fe users are aware of body language and emphasis people place on words" I think he is in the wrong. Every human who has a pair of functional ears and eyes picks up on body language and emphasis. (I guess unless they have Asperger's)

Fe is not a perceiving function -- it's a judging function. Which is why his statement is so confusing to Fi users -- because we also pick up on emphasis and body language. Because we have functional ears and eyes (uh, duh).

Fe will place more importance in others' feelings (ex. society at large) in making value judgments, whereas Fi will place more importance on their own personal values.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

@DonutsGalacticos What's your dominant perceiving function?

Weirdly, I also have a hard time answering such question, though Ne allows me to easily imagine situations and so. I am very attuned to my inner world and aware of it but I usually have a hard time describing it. There's order within me but that order has little reference to the world outside.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ElliCat said:


> I think I can agree with this. I can do things for myself, or I can do things for other people, but whatever it is, the impetus comes from within. I do things because I feel it's the right thing to do, or because I want to. I'm all for harmony and having a good feeling in a group, but if they decide to put peas up their nose and I feel that putting peas up noses is wrong, I'm not going to be a part of it. If they want to be terrible people they can do it without me.


 Well said. My Fe feels the same about people acting trivially just to do it. If the act is useful in accomplishing something Fes care about (Fe desires accomplishing things thru people), Fes become tolerant, but this is what makes each Fe-person unique.

Some Fes find that doing something trivial is useful to accomplish making people they don't like feel bad. Some Fis in groups also do it, but their attacks are more diffuse and personal. As with all types, stuff like that depends on what the person deems worthy of doing.

The diff between Fi and Fe preferrers may be this: Fis' acts towards others is a personal contribution meant primarily to satisfy the value, whereas Fes' acts towards others is a communal contribution lending itself to a _cause_. So...

Fi: I'm compelled to satisfy values that feel right to me_ independent_ of a coordinated movement.
Fe: I'm compelled to satisfy values that feel right to me _lending to_a coordinated movement.

I think Feeling is commonly about what behaviors (or thoughts of behaviors) resonate positively within the person.



SplitTheAtom said:


> My internal world is the only I know of entirely, the only I will never get lost in, the only I can rely on. Yes, might be egotistical.


 Your example earlier is a good one, and useful to me.

I think I see why Fi tends to sound so independent. I don't think it's because they truly are _not _dependent on people. I believe people are an invaluable part of their standards (or else how people behave around them wouldn't concern them as deeply. if so, they'd come off as Thinking).

I think some phenomenon is occurring between Feeling and Introversion that similarly occurs between Intuition and Introversion. Ni and Fi seem embedded into the psyche differently than Si and Ti. Si and Ti, while as improvised as Ni and Fi, remain more observant of stimuli as they present themselves. N and F are fundamentally improvised in of themselves, seeming _slightly _negligent of face value (S's pleasure and T's function) in favor of relativity (N's probability and F's "harmony"). Since all Introverts take the thought of what they experience and revise it, Introversion makes N and F even _more_...improvised. Make sense?

It's like...

Si: improved pleasure
Ti: improved functionality

Ni: improved improvisation of correlates/features/elements
Fi: improved improvisation of relation/balance/representation

And Se, Te (unimprovised pleasure and functionality) compared to Ne and Fe (unimprovised improvisation) works in a similarly.

While Thinking logically observes the functions of things, I think Feeling logically observes the functions of people, harmony (internal or external) being an implicit factor of that. Fi values, which are still based on fixed F standards of "harmony," are used to the Fi dom's discretion.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Le9acyMuse said:


> I think I see why Fi tends to sound so independent. I don't think it's because they truly are _not _dependent on people. I believe people are an invaluable part of their standards (or else how people behave around them wouldn't concern them as deeply. if so, they'd come off as Thinking).


Complete independence of other people sounds a little sociopathic. Saying that Fi's are not at all influenced by other's is like saying that Intuitives senses don't work. So yes. Me agrees with you there.



> While Thinking logically observes the functions of things, I think Feeling logically observes the functions of people, harmony (internal or external) being an implicit factor of that. Fi values, which are still based on fixed F standards of "harmony," are used to the Fi dom's discretion.


Agree with this as well, though ''observes'' might throw some people off as it can be more applied to perceiving functions.
I feel a bit bad cuz I really have a terrible grasp on Fe cognitive process, but I can talk about Fi.
I have said before that to me Fi works like a system. Similarly as Ti - internal logical system. Logic builds itself based on the cause and the effect of aspects, things, whatever... doesn't it? At least that's how I understand logic. There is logic within systems because within different systems lie different rules. There are universal ''rules'' as well, of course, but then again, what is a universe if not a gathering of systems. So if Ti builds systems of more objective and ''factual'' things, my Fi builds a system of emotional, moral causes and effects. So yes. It is logical in that sense, most definitely. And it expands itself with new experiences, new, realizations... it's ever growing. Not changing, but growing. So Fi is taking in information and putting it in an individually built system. 
I believe Fe also works with an emotion, morality system probably. The difference is what information holds value in the system.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> The diff between Fi and Fe preferrers may be this: Fis' acts towards others is a personal contribution meant primarily to satisfy the value, whereas Fes' acts towards others is a communal contribution lending itself to a _cause_. So...


When I help someone, I do it because they need help. I want to help them. I see the need and I fill it. There is no "value" being fulfilled other than helping that particular person. And there's no thought for a community or satisfying some need of my own to be needed, or whatever. In fact, I dislike being thanked afterwards. The other person is the value. I think this is something that is seldom said. Fi is an individualized function. We tend to focus, not merely on self, but on the individual, especially individual in contrast to the group. But this is probably an Fi-Se thing, because Fi-Ne types seem to be more "fix the whole shebang" whereas ISFPs tend to focus on individuals. There is no value or cause, just people.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

SplitTheAtom said:


> Complete independence of other people sounds a little sociopathic. Saying that Fi's are not at all influenced by other's is like saying that Intuitives senses don't work. So yes. Me agrees with you there.


I think the problem may be how we talk about others vs how Fe does. My perspective is that I would not feel comfortable asking another person to tell me about himself, and certainly wouldn't feel comfortable asking for specific and particular details. It feels intrusive. I don't really like being asked these sorts of questions, so I don't ask them. Instead, I share a little about myself, which I intend to make them feel free to share something about themselves. I share, you share, we all share. No need for nebby nosey questions. I open up to encourage you to open up. And then I get called self-centered. But really, I am trying to be considerate by not bugging you with questions....


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I think the problem may be how we talk about others vs how Fe does. My perspective is that I would not feel comfortable asking another person to tell me about himself, and certainly wouldn't feel comfortable asking for specific and particular details. It feels intrusive. I don't really like being asked these sorts of questions, so I don't ask them. Instead, I share a little about myself, which I intend to make them feel free to share something about themselves. I share, you share, we all share. No need for nebby nosey questions. I open up to encourage you to open up. And then I get called self-centered. But really, I am trying to be considerate by not bugging you with questions....


Can totally agree, but do you think Fe works the other way - by asking?



ferroequinologist said:


> When I help someone, I do it because they need help. I want to help them. I see the need and I fill it. There is no "value" being fulfilled other than helping that particular person. And there's no thought for a community or satisfying some need of my own to be needed, or whatever. In fact, I dislike being thanked afterwards. The other person is the value. I think this is something that is seldom said. Fi is an individualized function. We tend to focus, not merely on self, but on the individual, especially individual in contrast to the group. But this is probably an Fi-Se thing, because Fi-Ne types seem to be more "fix the whole shebang" whereas ISFPs tend to focus on individuals. There is no value or cause, just people.


Not sure if it's Fi+Se, but could be, however I am also very much interested in individuals and not the group. I feel like individuals can give me a deeper understanding and deeper information. And I also hate being thanked  don't know why though. But I do help people sometimes because - why the hell not, it's not a burden or anything. And sometimes because it makes me feel good. Funny, cuz it is a bit selfish... the intention maybe, but the outcome isn't.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

SplitTheAtom said:


> @_DonutsGalacticos_ What's your dominant perceiving function?
> 
> Weirdly, I also have a hard time answering such question, though Ne allows me to easily imagine situations and so. I am very attuned to my inner world and aware of it but I usually have a hard time describing it. There's order within me but that order has little reference to the world outside.


I'm not sure, people have told me that i could be a dom Fi, ISFP and INFP, that means Se or Ne as aux. The problem is that i'm totally sure that i do use Ti and most likely Se tho i'm not quite sure about the later.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

SplitTheAtom said:


> Can totally agree, but do you think Fe works the other way - by asking?


Well, if I judge by how Fe types I know behave, I'd say yes.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> Fi is an individualized function. We tend to focus, not merely on self, but on the individual, especially individual in contrast to the group.


 By "focus on self" do you mean on your personal thoughts, the perceived sanctity of them, and the wariness of infringement on that sanctity? I don't see a function making one focus on one's actual self. The self would, at best, be an extension of one's thoughts while one's focus would be the goal of the functions. Fi-doms may identify strongly with their values, which they'd see as the self.

Also, though Fi dislikes the idea of being confined by group-oriented behaviors, it's important to note that Fe isn't representative of that. Fe makes use of groups to an end. It doesn't seek to sacrifice self for the sake of a group, or encourage others to do so. There's no sacrifice in coordinating strengths, and it's not done because we sympathize with groups more than individuals. We do it for the benefit of results via people.



> When I help someone, I do it because they need help. I want to help them. I see the need and I fill it. There is no "value" being fulfilled other than helping that particular person. And there's no thought for a community or satisfying some need of my own to be needed, or whatever. In fact, I dislike being thanked afterwards. The other person is the value. I think this is something that is seldom said. Fi is an individualized function. We tend to focus, not merely on self, but on the individual, especially individual in contrast to the group. But this is probably an Fi-Se thing, because Fi-Ne types seem to be more "fix the whole shebang" whereas ISFPs tend to focus on individuals. There is no value or cause, just people.


 I don't see much difference between one person and a group of people between the Fs. The people you choose to affect will be the ones you care to affect. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's more. I try being consistent with people regardless of their relation to me. The "treat others how I'd like to be treated" maxim applies. I use devices to let the person know I'm engaging them, and make them feel included with me. I think both Fs do that.


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

Le9acyMuse said:


> I don't see a function making one focus on one's actual self. The self would, at best, be an extension of one's thoughts while one's focus would be the goal of the functions.


I wonder if that would be more of an instinctual variant thing? As Sp/sx I take care of myself first, then when I'm comfortable I merge with certain other individuals, and the whole group thing just doesn't really happen for me. (And now we're back to sounding selfish. I don't know how to fix the wording though.) I can imagine that So-first would tell a different story even if they're Fi-dom. 



> Fi-doms may identify strongly with their values, which they'd see as the self.


I've seen some say that. I don't believe my values ARE me but they come from me and I hold myself to that standard.



> Also, though Fi dislikes the idea of being confined by group-oriented behaviors, it's important to note that Fe isn't representative of that. Fe makes use of groups to an end. It doesn't seek to sacrifice self for the sake of a group, or encourage others to do so. There's no sacrifice in coordinating strengths, and it's not done because we sympathize with groups more than individuals. We do it for the benefit of results via people.


That would make sense to me. 



> The "treat others how I'd like to be treated" maxim applies. I use devices to let the person know I'm engaging them, and make them feel included with me. I think both Fs do that.


I do that too. Yay, something in common!



Le9acyMuse said:


> Some Fes find that doing something trivial is useful to accomplish making people they don't like feel bad. Some Fis in groups also do it, but their attacks are more diffuse and personal. As with all types, stuff like that depends on what the person deems worthy of doing.


I can probably agree with that. My experiences with bullying in school seemed Fe-heavy. It was always the group vs me, and people who privately might not have had a problem with me seemed to go along so as to not disrupt the group harmony. Immature Fe, maybe? Whereas if I had a problem with someone it was with the individual. I wouldn't mobilise the whole group against them in order to prove that they weren't acting appropriately. Or is that getting a bit off track again?




> I think I see why Fi tends to sound so independent. I don't think it's because they truly are _not _dependent on people. I believe people are an invaluable part of their standards (or else how people behave around them wouldn't concern them as deeply. if so, they'd come off as Thinking).


Yeah wow I don't really know where the idea that we don't need other people comes from. Like you said, we're Feelers, not Thinkers. Not that Thinkers don't need people either, but the whole point of being Feeling is that you ARE concerned with values and relationships between people rather than concepts... isn't it?



ferroequinologist said:


> I think the problem may be how we talk about others vs how Fe does. My perspective is that I would not feel comfortable asking another person to tell me about himself, and certainly wouldn't feel comfortable asking for specific and particular details. It feels intrusive. I don't really like being asked these sorts of questions, so I don't ask them. Instead, I share a little about myself, which I intend to make them feel free to share something about themselves. I share, you share, we all share. No need for nebby nosey questions. I open up to encourage you to open up. And then I get called self-centered. But really, I am trying to be considerate by not bugging you with questions....


Ooooh yeah. I've learned to ask a few tentative questions to try to set the tone a bit better. But I do the same thing, mostly - here look I'm sharing these silly things with you to help you feel comfortable enough to do the same. And then walk away feeling like they must think I'm the most self-centred creature on the planet...

And the thanking thing.... well I don't mind being thanked. I just don't like it when they start showering praise on me like I did something amazingly selfless. Just a simple thank you and then SHOW me you appreciate it, if it's THAT big a deal to you. But I wouldn't've done it if I didn't want to, so what's the big deal?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> By "focus on self" do you mean on your personal thoughts, the perceived sanctity of them, and the wariness of infringement on that sanctity? I don't see a function making one focus on one's actual self. The self would, at best, be an extension of one's thoughts while one's focus would be the goal of the functions. Fi-doms may identify strongly with their values, which they'd see as the self.


I'm just responding to all these descriptions that describe Fi as self-centered, egotistical, self-conscious, etc... Fi is subjective, meaning it focuses on the subject, not the object. If I'm thinking about myself, I'm thinking about myself as the subject. Surely you think about yourself, how you feel about things, what your preferences are, how others make you feel, etc? But the point I was trying to make was that when we look at social situations, our attention is not drawn to the group, but to the individuals _in_ the group, and their individual needs. We don't look at groups as collective wholes, but as groups of individuals, each with individual needs, desires, etc. And we will contrast that against the wishes of the collective. This is a practical outlook or perspective, and nothing theoretical about it...




> Also, though Fi dislikes the idea of being confined by group-oriented behaviors, it's important to note that Fe isn't representative of that. *Fe makes use of groups to an end*. It doesn't seek to sacrifice self for the sake of a group, or encourage others to do so. There's no sacrifice in coordinating strengths, and it's not done because we sympathize with groups more than individuals. We do it for the benefit of results via people.


Fe may not seek to sacrifice "self" for the sake of the group... but what I bolded seems to suggest that you sacrifice group for the sake of the goal. "Forward he cried from the rear, and the front ranks die-ie-ied." That sounds like a winning plan. ;-) Sorry, but what you are saying sure sounds like this. We have goals, and we'll accomplish them. "Of course, you can opt out, but then we'll make you feel like dirt for not cooperating." Isn't that how it so often happens? Actually, with INFJs, it seems more that you have your own private goals for others, and work things out so people do your bidding without necessarily realizing it... But here's the thing. Who gets to decide what the goals are? Who gets to decide who does what and why? I know you surely have some more noble goal in mind, and a more congenial atmosphere, and I am certainly not opposed to working together to get things done, but here's the thing. I will always be finely tuned to the individuals in the group, and their individual needs, and be wary of any attempt to subsume that for the sake of the whole. That is my first priority, I suppose you could say. 





> I don't see much difference between one person and a group of people between the Fs. The people you choose to affect will be the ones you care to affect. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's more. I try being consistent with people regardless of their relation to me. The "treat others how I'd like to be treated" maxim applies. I use devices to let the person know I'm engaging them, and make them feel included with me. I think both Fs do that.


Yes, true. But the difference will be in "how I like to be treated"... there can be wide variations between individuals, and between Fi and Fe types. I have definitely seen this, and the few Fi types I've known--we've been drawn to each other in larger group settings. Oddly enough, another type that I have been drawn to is Ti-doms. There is an affinity between Fi and Ti doms in these sorts of situations, I suspect, or at least that has been my experience, so you get ISFP, ISTP, INFP and INTP with a certain affinity against dominant Te and Fe values. The problem is, then, that the Ne-aux types tend to not like the Se-aux solutions to these problems. ;-)

BTW, I suppose it's worth saying explicitly, since people seem to think that I think this is the norm, but conflict situations are not the norm in Fe-Fi circumstances, nor in any normal relationships or cooperative efforts. The problem is that when conflict does come, it tends to come in these areas. In my writings on this thread, I've focused only on the differences in conflict. This does not mean that I think that all interactions are doomed. Quite the contrary. For instance, I have two NFJ daughters, and we are best buds. ;-) Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration to call them--as my younger would say, BFFs--but we get along great, and my close partner and coworker for 15 years was a male ISFJ. One of my most favorite friendships ever was with an elderly lady who was a strong ENTJ. But when conflict arises, it tends to arise over these conflicting values between Fi and Fe, and less often Fi and Te.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ElliCat said:


> And the thanking thing.... well I don't mind being thanked. I just don't like it when they start showering praise on me *like I did something amazingly selfless*. Just a simple thank you and then SHOW me you appreciate it, if it's THAT big a deal to you. But I wouldn't've done it if I didn't want to, so what's the big deal?


That bolded part reminds me of a situation several years ago. We lived in a block of flats, and something broke in our stair tower that made life for everybody difficult--except a couple people on the lower floors who never had company and never went out much. The problem was that the cost was high enough that the coop (think condos) couldn't fix it without the agreement of everybody. These couple of people were preventing the repairs because, according to them, it wasn't necessary, but the truth was, the one lady was just vindictive and hated most people in the building. There was a passive-aggressive battle among the residents for a couple weeks, which sometimes broke out in outright arguments. I finally got tired of it, especially because, somehow, my family ended up suffering the most from it, so I went to the administration, and told them I'd pay for the repairs. We worked out an agreement that I'd pay enough so that the rest of the repairs would fall within budget, I gave them the money, and told them that I didn't want them telling _anyone_ who had did it, that it had to remain anonymous. Well, later that week, the repairmen showed up, and started working. Our one neighbor went out and tried to stop them! He was told to bug off, and they had the work done the next day. Apparently, these neighbors had enough clout that they got a coop meeting called, and in the meeting, they essentially forced the admin to explain what had happened. They also forced the admin to tell who gave the money. Well, when that came out, the revolt was such that two families ended up moving out in shame, and the coop became a much happier and healthy place to live. And here's where the bolded text above comes into play. People kept coming up to me and thanking me, but honestly, I did it for selfish reasons. ;-) But like you said, I did it because I wanted to. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have... so the thanks all felt empty to me. But honestly, it was painful to watch a whole bunch of people suffer because of a couple of ugly people. (one of them used to shoot pigeons with a sling shot...horrible man, and how he treated children--almost as bad. I had multiple altercations with him, and he was the first to move out after the fallout from the "big one") I hate to see people suffer, and suffering needlessly for something so stupid just gets my goat... So maybe my motives weren't all selfish, but they felt that way to me.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I just want to point out something that I've been trying to articulate, that I just read in an article. He says it better than I do. ;-)



> Because ISFPs live a life so in touch with their inner values, this also means that they tend to have a profound respect for the values of others. Consequently, this respect and deference is a two-way street for them: They do not wish to impose themselves upon the world, or to place demands on others, but nor do they wish that others should impose themselves upon the inner values and personal world of the ISFP.



link: ISFP Description - CelebrityTypes.com


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

*o.o Fi:* how I feel about my relationship with the object. What is important for me? If I were the object what would I be feeling?
*o.o Fe:* how the object feels about our relationship. What is important for the object? How can I influence the object?

o.o since all feelers have strong Fe & Fi I'd say its down to preference aka what guides the person more and what is more negligible, but both will be happening.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> *o.o Fi:* how I feel about my relationship with the object. What is important for me? If I were the object what would I be feeling?
> *o.o Fe:* how the object feels about our relationship. What is important for the object? How can I influence the object?
> 
> o.o *since all feelers have strong Fe & Fi* I'd say its down to preference aka what guides the person more and what is more negligible, but both will be happening.


They may have both, but mostly in the sense that one is firmly aware of both, but the one will work to repress the other, as one will be the alpha male. ;-)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I just rediscovered a very good article by van der Hoop, who worked with Jung, and who, apparently, had a huge influence on Briggs as she was working up her system. This article discusses thinking vs. feeling, and then describes the four various types (extroverted thinker, introverted feeler, extroverted feeler and introverted thinker). I can't speak for the other three types, but this description of the introverted feeler describes me as well as any other description I've ever read. It's good, and may even be comprehensible by non-Fi types. ;-)

Socionics - the16types.info - MBTI: Functional Descriptions by J. H. van der Hoop
(yes, it's on a Socionics site, but this is MBTI and Jung information)


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I just rediscovered a very good article by van der Hoop, who worked with Jung, and who, apparently, had a huge influence on Briggs as she was working up her system. This article discusses thinking vs. feeling, and then describes the four various types (extroverted thinker, introverted feeler, extroverted feeler and introverted thinker). I can't speak for the other three types, but this description of the introverted feeler describes me as well as any other description I've ever read. It's good, and may even be comprehensible by non-Fi types. ;-)
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - MBTI: Functional Descriptions by J. H. van der Hoop
> (yes, it's on a Socionics site, but this is MBTI and Jung information)


I haven't seen this before, thanks for sharing.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> They may have both, but mostly in the sense that one is firmly aware of both, but the one will work to repress the other, as one will be the alpha male. ;-)


*_* yeah....my Fe is my Fi's bitch...(uh..that sounds kinda bad..)


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

I find that this is the hardest distinction for me to make, but in my understanding of the divide and where I fall in it. I mean it seems to me that it is only when feeling is either dominant or inferior that the difference becomes evident.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Made a lot more sense to me when I started comparing them like Fe/Te and Fi/Ti, instead of trying to contrast Fe/Fi and so on. I think Fi and Fe are actually distinctly different processes - not just in how they're oriented, but in what they actually do. 

I like to think of Fe as more of a data analysis process and Fi as more of a consistency/error-checking process (the similarity being that both tend to orient toward the interpersonal, which could mean anything from interactions to ethics to morals, etc.). 

It is nearly impossible to give examples of what I mean without going into "exceptions to the rule" territory, but I will try anyway: 

Fe (manager) - I need to make sure these people work together because that is when they produce the best results.

Fi (manager) - I need to make sure these people understand who to listen to, so that there is a consistent sense of direction and focus.

(Of course, both could do both of these things - the examples are to illustrate tendencies, or "preferences," i.e. what the person will tend to think of first.)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

TruthDismantled said:


> I find that this is the hardest distinction for me to make, but in my understanding of the divide and where I fall in it. I mean it seems to me that it is only when feeling is either dominant or inferior that the difference becomes evident.


I have to say that when my wife is under great stress, her Fe sounds very Fi to me. ;-)

That is the "beauty" of your inferior function. It kind of is your self-defense function, which seems very Fi-ish when you express yourself. And that can be very confusing, because it's Fe language being used to express Fi feelings, at least that's how it feels to me.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I'm just responding to all these descriptions that describe Fi as self-centered, egotistical, self-conscious, etc... Fi is subjective, meaning it focuses on the subject, not the object. If I'm thinking about myself, I'm thinking about myself as the subject. Surely you think about yourself, how you feel about things, what your preferences are, how others make you feel, etc?


 I get you. Long as we're speaking in the context of every function in regard to the world around us. It's the thought of the object, or as you said, the subject, that the Introvert focuses on, and Extraverts focus on the objects. Agreed, same goes for self in that regard.



> But the point I was trying to make was that when we look at social situations, our attention is not drawn to the group, but to the individuals _in_ the group, and their individual needs. We don't look at groups as collective wholes, but as groups of individuals, each with individual needs, desires, etc.


 Group vs. Individual _seems_ Fe vs. Fi, but Fes go thru the group specifically to help them see to the individual(s) they care for. I'd sooner say the basis of Fe vs. Fi is differing ways of dealing with individuals. Fes talk to, and must know individuals. If they don't, coordinating strengths toward a cause will go epically unwell.

Coordinating people is a focus on individuals. Fes coordinate towards an end they see beneficial to each individual. Fis have a detached coordination style that serves to benefit individuals at their discretion (according to what appears most beneficial at the time). Neither are always right, but both are effective.



> ...And we will contrast that against the wishes of the collective. This is a practical outlook or perspective, and nothing theoretical about it...


On the Fe-collective bias: A "group" isn't required. Fes are more like Fis than that. If we have only a single person we desire to benefit, we include the individual with ourselves in order to accomplish something together. It's not about sacrifice in favor of a collective. Just benefit. It can seem like a sacrifice if we're fought, but, again, Fis should relate to that.

Just like in the above case benefiting everyone doesn't hurt the wishes of the individual. I don't see the desire to contrast it. If the wishes of the collective aren't beneficial to who they care for, Fes won't go for it.



> Fe may not seek to sacrifice "self" for the sake of the group... but what I bolded seems to suggest that you sacrifice group for the sake of the goal. "Forward he cried from the rear, and the front ranks die-ie-ied." That sounds like a winning plan. ;-) Sorry, but what you are saying sure sounds like this.


We'd sacrifice the group for the end if the group _isn't_ what we'd desire to benefit. In that situation our desire would be to destroy the group for the benefit of what we really care about. If the group is what we're seeking to benefit, we're typically at the forefront calling the shots, or directly supporting the ones we trust to lead others to accomplishment.

If we're talking about destructive sacrifices here, Fis sacrifice externally productive ways of effecting and affecting others' behaviors in favor of their personal renderings that may not work as well depending on the situation.

People may appreciate the method of being connected to apart from a unanimous benefit (which would come with recognizing how the abilities of individuals could together effectively accomplish a goal) but they may find you too short-term to lead them, or think you're too uncomfortable with fostering several humans' abilities at once. Without a strong core connections fall apart.



> We have goals, and we'll accomplish them. "Of course, you can opt out, but then we'll make you feel like dirt for not cooperating." Isn't that how it so often happens?


If someone opts out, they haven't been provided with the right incentive to motivate them. Theoretically it's possible to negotiate, but people are irrational; they [all] won't be satisfied.

I _could _fault others for withholding cooperation, but if they have an authentic reason, it's whatever. I'm as human as any objector, thus I can understand reasons for reservations as long as they're given. Communication is a must for me in these circumstances, which is why I found the Abilene thing foreign.



> Actually, with INFJs, it seems more that you have your own private goals for others, and work things out so people do your bidding without necessarily realizing it...


If you're saying that we foresee what we'd like to happen and enlist the resources we have available, then you'd be correct. The goal is only private to those who we feel wouldn't need to know anyway.

They either wouldn't care or it's that stuff that everyday people do regardless of other people's opinions, like claiming to be different (which I know something about since I'm an Enneatype 4), and using others as a gauge for seeing themselves that way.



> ...But here's the thing. Who gets to decide what the goals are? Who gets to decide who does what and why?...I know you surely have some more noble goal in mind, and a more congenial atmosphere, and I am certainly not opposed to working together to get things done...


Not _exactly_ noble and congenial (I'm a nihilist and anti-humanist). As for decisions, no-one is entitled to being considered like that. E.G., the people you'd accuse of being difficult don't have a choice in the matter of how they're seen: for instance, when conflicts speak louder than words.

Cognitive functions didn't emerge to make people civil. They probably emerged to help people survive.

F: people survive when they synchronize.
T: people survive when they capitalize on the capabilities of objects.
S: people survive when they compile rewarding stimulations.
N: people survive when they use references to predict useful phenomena.



> ...But here's the thing. Who gets to decide what the goals are? Who gets to decide who does what and why?


Delegating who decides or does what and why is done on a scale of what would most benefit that person's sense of security and pleasure. Not who is plainly best for what job. Everyone is selfish that way.



> ...but here's the thing. I will always be finely tuned to the individuals in the group, and their individual needs, and be wary of any attempt to subsume that for the sake of the whole. That is my first priority, I suppose you could say.


The sake of the whole is the benefit of the individuals based on how I experience them individually. The individual is not taken for granted thru Fe any more or any less than thru Fi. The wariness isn't necessary unless you feel it's not good to sum up individuals' attributes and determine how they may most effectively be used in an external context. Due to that Fe and Fi do better working together than not. People usually just can't figure out how.



> Yes, true. But the difference will be in "how I like to be treated"... there can be wide variations between individuals, and between Fi and Fe types. I have definitely seen this, and the few Fi types I've known--we've been drawn to each other in larger group settings. Oddly enough, another type that I have been drawn to is Ti-doms. There is an affinity between Fi and Ti doms in these sorts of situations, I suspect, or at least that has been my experience, so you get ISFP, ISTP, INFP and INTP with a certain affinity against dominant Te and Fe values. The problem is, then, that the Ne-aux types tend to not like the Se-aux solutions to these problems. ;-)


You're saying some types won't treat certain other types quite how they like to be treated, and it can lead to a trending frequency of certain types that enjoy, or do not enjoy, mixing? And you're saying this to mark a stylistic difference in how Fis and Fes may treat others as individuals?

If Fe and Te dominants are infrequent in these particular groups, the values of those Fes and Tes they'd met didn't fit with their own values. Human egos generally don't deal calmly with conflicts and diversity. I'm sure if an Fe or Te dom came with values that _did _fit, then the Te and Fe desire to use Ti and Fi resources to create a system that everyone felt they could benefit from would coalesce well with the Ti and Fi desire to take care of blind spots that would disadvantage the intentions of the Te and Fe. Theoretically.

I'd hope, though, that when Tis and Fis may come together like that that they're not associating Fe and Te dominance with conformity or convention. Fe and Te aren't bent on crusading to conform people, but they will organize resources for results. 



> BTW, I suppose it's worth saying explicitly, since people seem to think that I think this is the norm, but conflict situations are not the norm in Fe-Fi circumstances, nor in any normal relationships or cooperative efforts. The problem is that when conflict does come, it tends to come in these areas. In my writings on this thread, I've focused only on the differences in conflict. This does not mean that I think that all interactions are doomed. Quite the contrary. For instance, I have two NFJ daughters, and we are best buds. ;-) Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration to call them--as my younger would say, BFFs--but we get along great, and my close partner and coworker for 15 years was a male ISFJ. One of my most favorite friendships ever was with an elderly lady who was a strong ENTJ. But when conflict arises, it tends to arise over these conflicting values between Fi and Fe, and less often Fi and Te.


I only have my own experience to contribute, but I'm inclined to say you may be right. When shit hits the fan I don't usually play too well with INFPs...or Fe-doms...or Enneatype 2s of most, if not all, MBTI types... However, exceptions include those who's personalities attract me so much that every challenge is strangely endearing, no matter the type.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Le9acyMuse said:


> *If someone opts out, they haven't been provided with the right incentive to motivate them*. Theoretically it's possible to negotiate, but people are irrational; they [all] won't be satisfied.
> 
> I _could _fault others for withholding cooperation, but if they have an authentic reason, it's whatever. I'm as human as any objector, thus I can understand reasons for reservations as long as they're given. Communication is a must for me in these circumstances, which is why I found the Abilene thing foreign.


I have to confess, this last post of yours I found most absolutely exhausting to read--not because of how you said things or even what you said--but what you described--such a way of thinking and acting--and I quoted something above that just gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking about. What is it about what I bolded? It's the conviction that if you used just the right words or right incentives you could talk me into cooperating on something, not realizing that it may be the many words, coercions, etc. that have already turned me off, and that the more you try to convince me to do something (help, cooperate, etc.) the harder you are making it for me! I can't imagine a life where one devotes so much effort in such things. I tell my NFJ daughters this frequently. I can't imagine all that effort to do what they do. It does something to me, just thinking about it--I can't really put it into words--but it is literally draining/exhausting/deflating to me just to ponder. (like literally taking a balloon and actively sucking the air out of it, not merely deflating it, but sucking out the air. All you said in your post just overwhelmed me in a way that even now, having tried to read it several times, I can't work my way through it in one sitting. And screaming in my head the entire time I'm reading it is "Why?! Why?! Why?!" 

And I'm not at all inexperienced in working with people, nor with being "over" a group of people. I've been a boss. I'm a leader now. But what you describe would just send people running from me if I attempted it. I can't describe how I do things, but I do know it works for me. Everybody in our group feels like a vital part, and does what he or she wants and feels comfortable doing, and we have a wonderful "organic" way of doing things. I really can't describe it differently. I only know that what you described just sucks the life out of me in a way I can't really describe with words. I could never operate in that manner... (and it's not just you. Like I said, my own NFJ daughters exhaust me sometimes with how they think and do things...) I'm afraid that in this, we may just have to recognize that there are some things that just will never reconcile, either in action nor in our heads... ;-)


----------



## Eggsies (Feb 5, 2013)

F is moreso your value systems, and how certain things make you feel when weighed against your values. It's less about emotions themselves. Everybody is capable of emotion, but the application of said emotion is what is important.

We all use Fi and Fe to some degree, we all have a sense of moral direction in a group as an extremely social species, and it's hard to avoid it. What determines if you are one or the other is your focus on your own values and emotional fulfilment, or the collective values and emotional temperature of the group, whichever your default state is.

As an important note, as an Fe Dom, I seek to allow everybody to feel comfortable in their own bubble, in their own identities, rather than attempt to manipulate them into some perceived social utopia. I get that that's where it can go, unhealthy or not, but I do NOT believe that that is Fe's prerogative. It takes forever to find a good friend as I refuse to change people to suit my own needs, if I befriend someone who innately satisfies what I think is a good person, all the work is done for me. I understand that certain people simply will not click and I let them be.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I have to confess, this last post of yours I found most absolutely exhausting to read--not because of how you said things or even what you said--but what you described--such a way of thinking and acting--and I quoted something above that just gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking about. What is it about what I bolded? It's the conviction that if you used just the right words or right incentives you could talk me into cooperating on something, not realizing that it may be the many words, coercions, etc. that have already turned me off, and that the more you try to convince me to do something (help, cooperate, etc.) the harder you are making it for me! I can't imagine a life where one devotes so much effort in such things. I tell my NFJ daughters this frequently. I can't imagine all that effort to do what they do. It does something to me, just thinking about it--I can't really put it into words--but it is literally draining/exhausting/deflating to me just to ponder. (like literally taking a balloon and actively sucking the air out of it, not merely deflating it, but sucking out the air. All you said in your post just overwhelmed me in a way that even now, having tried to read it several times, I can't work my way through it in one sitting. And screaming in my head the entire time I'm reading it is "Why?! Why?! Why?!"
> 
> And I'm not at all inexperienced in working with people, nor with being "over" a group of people. I've been a boss. I'm a leader now. But what you describe would just send people running from me if I attempted it. I can't describe how I do things, but I do know it works for me. Everybody in our group feels like a vital part, and does what he or she wants and feels comfortable doing, and we have a wonderful "organic" way of doing things. I really can't describe it differently. I only know that what you described just sucks the life out of me in a way I can't really describe with words. I could never operate in that manner... (and it's not just you. Like I said, my own NFJ daughters exhaust me sometimes with how they think and do things...) I'm afraid that in this, we may just have to recognize that there are some things that just will never reconcile, either in action nor in our heads... ;-)


ROFL I understand.

I take advantage of the INFJ's strong points (pinpointed experimentation, test trials) to contemplate manipulating people. I take it a step further than more idealistic INFJs who like to "make a difference." I just want to get what I want.

However, you're right about the impression of XNFJs. Influence is how Introverted Perceiving and Extraverted Judging types survive. I couldn't imagine being the others, a Pe or Ji type. I don't want to act on things as I see them coming. I need the formula that will mechanize benefit for me.

I don't doubt anyone's ability to lead others. Everyone can't lead everyone, though. From experience I'm best fit to lead people that are captivated by me, which is only so useful. That's one reason why I've taken interest in manipulative formulas - with the right one anyone could conquer the world.


----------

