# Fe trying to understand Fi



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> l'd agree with @_niffer_ that in a balanced person, they can come out looking very similar.
> 
> Maybe an Fe user begins to take stock of situations that went wrong or starts to analyze others more deeply for various reasons, it starts to look like what Fi is known to do.
> 
> ...


I feel like I'm not being understood at the level I'm trying to address. I'm not talking necessarily at a one-on-one, interpersonal level, or individual level. I'm thinking more broadly. When Fe is allowed to hold sway, it seems to lead down blind alleys of poor judgment. Look at the Abilene Paradox for an example. Everybody in the group went along with a poor plan, not because they wanted to, but because they, each and every one of them, felt that everybody else wanted to, so they allowed their Fe to guide them in not rocking the apple cart, not speaking up, and saying they didn't want to, so everybody took that long, sweaty drive over 50 miles to Abilene for a dinner nobody wanted and enjoyed, and drove that long, hot road back home, only then to discover that nobody wanted to go at all... 

This is the sort of thing where my Fi just sits in amazement that people allow themselves to be ruled by others' thinking or feelings... Yes, on a personal basis, the two polar opposite value systems can reach comparable conclusions on things--I see it all the time with my INTP wife, but on the other hand, when expanded into social situations, it is Fe that is prone, for instance, to being manipulated by peer pressure, or to be brow-beaten into buying things that one doesn't need, and so many other things I see and that make me scratch my head in wonder. _That's_ the sort of thing that gets me. And again, the only reason I am speaking up here is to maybe help those Fe-types understand Fi reasoning.  (that is the title of this thread, after all...)


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

I would say I am probably an INFJ but I do always score as INTJ. 

From what I've noticed, yes, Fe very much takes others into consideration first. It is more accomodating and peace-seeking.

Fi certainly makes it's own rules. It is not concerned so much with what others think. 

What I am going to say applies more to Fi and Fe doms. Some may find it offensive, my apologies. 

I have gotten in fights with FPs because they think I care too much about the group, what is appropriate. They will claim that I or other Fe doms are "not their own people" because we are concerned with the group. What they do not understand is that often times what is appropriate is more logical and better for everyone except in more extreme cases. I've noticed that Fi can be very self-serving if it is dominant. In my opinion Fe is less selfish but not as individualistic.

I do not think that it is true that dominant Fi holds fast to ideals. I think those ideals will change quite easily to suit individual circumstances, whereas Fe makes more sacrafices and seems less true to itself, it tends to hold fast to it's convictions in general. Dominant Fi may not budge on an ideal until another ideal comes alongs that is convienient for it. Dominant Fe will constantly make accomadations but tends to call BS on people more often. That is what I've noticed.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I feel like I'm not being understood at the level I'm trying to address. I'm not talking necessarily at a one-on-one, interpersonal level, or individual level. I'm thinking more broadly. When Fe is allowed to hold sway, it seems to lead down blind alleys of poor judgment. Look at the Abilene Paradox for an example. Everybody in the group went along with a poor plan, not because they wanted to, but because they, each and every one of them, felt that everybody else wanted to, so they allowed their Fe to guide them in not rocking the apple cart, not speaking up, and saying they didn't want to, so everybody took that long, sweaty drive over 50 miles to Abilene for a dinner nobody wanted and enjoyed, and drove that long, hot road back home, only then to discover that nobody wanted to go at all...
> 
> This is the sort of thing where my Fi just sits in amazement that people allow themselves to be ruled by others' thinking or feelings... Yes, on a personal basis, the two polar opposite value systems can reach comparable conclusions on things--I see it all the time with my INTP wife, but on the other hand, when expanded into social situations, it is Fe that is prone, for instance, to being manipulated by peer pressure, or to be brow-beaten into buying things that one doesn't need, and so many other things I see and that make me scratch my head in wonder. _That's_ the sort of thing that gets me. And again, the only reason I am speaking up here is to maybe help those Fe-types understand Fi reasoning.  (that is the title of this thread, after all...)


Heh, l wasn't meaning to make you feel like you'd said something awful or anything like that. l feel odd sometimes responding as a mod, because it might sound like l'm reprimanding a casual post or something >_>

l guess l view Fe more like a social skill and l don't mean to cheapen it by calling it that, Fi being more like an individual evaluation tool, for others and for the self.

So, the comparison almost isn't possible because they serve such different (although sometimes similar) purposes, is all l meant xD


----------



## Invidia (Feb 26, 2011)

I think how I could best describe Fi in my own experience is just that... my own experiences and how I feel about them. I can empathize with people and "share values" on some level if I have experienced something similar and in that way I can understand how the other person may feel or be feeling. I need that point of reference to share the feeling connection and project it outside myself. It is not natural for me to organically experience other's emotions in the way a Fe user might. 

My mother has got to be Fe-dom, and she is the perfect foil to my Fi-dom tendencies. She is giving and caring and wants to do good, but in some ways that overwhelming outward push of her values is less in tune with people than my own. Because she is less attuned to the individual, she often has a blanket approach to her expressions towards those she loves. She has called me selfish on numerous occasions, and it used to offend me, but it doesn't bother me as much anymore. I am not as attuned to others needs as she is, but I feel I can take a more individual approach when it is called for. It is a struggle for me though, especially when my own emotional needs conflict with the needs or desires of the other person, to continue putting the other person first. My mom puts everyone before herself, it is exhausting for me to see her behave that way.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

rosegeranium said:


> I would say I am probably an INFJ but I do always score as INTJ.
> 
> From what I've noticed, yes, Fe very much takes others into consideration first. It is more accomodating and peace-seeking.
> 
> ...


Not offensive at all. Somewhat amusing in that your portrayal of Fi is so off the mark, but described from an Fe perspective. ;-)



> I have gotten in fights with FPs because they think I care too much about the group, what is appropriate. They will claim that I or other Fe doms are "not their own people" because we are concerned with the group. What they do not understand is that often times what is appropriate is more logical and better for everyone except in more extreme cases. I've noticed that Fi can be very self-serving if it is dominant. In my opinion Fe is less selfish but not as individualistic.


Let me ask you about your perspective of the Abilene Paradox. In your mind, would it be better for everybody to go along and take that unwanted trip to Abilene? Or would it have been better if one person had spoken up, and said "no"? Would it have been wrong to have been self-serving in this instance? (more on that "self-serving" business in a moment) 

I realize that not everybody knows about the Abilene Paradox, and many will also not be willing to look it up, so here it is from the Wikipedia:




> On a hot afternoon visiting in





> Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."The drive _is_ hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.
> One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.
> The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon. (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox)





> I do not think that it is true that dominant Fi holds fast to ideals. I think those ideals will change quite easily to suit individual circumstances, whereas Fe makes more sacrafices and seems less true to itself, it tends to hold fast to it's convictions in general. Dominant Fi may not budge on an ideal until another ideal comes alongs that is convienient for it. Dominant Fe will constantly make accomadations but tends to call BS on people more often. That is what I've noticed.


You tend to view Fi values as fickle and changing, and also self-serving, but what you may not be aware of is that Fi-doms are very much in favor of harmony, and hate conflict. This means that we will all-too-frequently sacrifice our inner values for the sake of the whole, and go along with things. It will also make us seem changeable on the outside. The problem is that while we are being all gooey on the outside, our insides are getting more and more brittle, until we crack, and then you see the real inside. Usually it's not pretty. This all happens because we live in an Fe-leaning society. Fe may think it's been all noble, "sacrificing" for the sake of the whole, but it is far more comfortable with that than Fi is, and so, in the end, the greater sacrifice is on the part of the Fi-dom. But that can typically last only so long before they can't take any more. 

BTW, as to Fi being self-serving and Fe not, ask any one who has an XSFJ mother, how true that is. ;-) Keeping in mind that the functions describe not content but processing, either one can be selfish and manipulative, etc. But Fe, being extroverted, can be much more expressive and effective at manipulation, and getting its way. Fi, on the other hand, struggles with communication, and frequently ends up expressing itself through temper tantrums, or manipulative behavior, rather than with manipulative words. I'm speaking, of course, of ISFPs. I think that INFPs are more verbal, so it's possible that they may be more verbally manipulative. Also, being more verbal, I suppose it's also possible that it may be less obvious that they are Fi than ISFPs will be. I don't think I know any INFPs in real life, so I can't speak from personal experience. I only know myself and a couple other ISFPs who have exhibited similar behavior to mine--going along with the Fe world until they can't take it any more. 

So, I find it rather amusing your take on things, because while it may describe _your_ perspective, it most certainly is not an accurate portrayal of what is actually happening.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I think that a lot of the short terms we use to differentiate Fe and Fi can be misinterpreted and are overly simplified.

Like--"Fe is more concerned with what others think" and "Fe is more empathetic" (and some have tried to assign sympathy and empathy to either Fe or Fi).

No. They are just functions--and similar behaviors or beliefs can be exhibited by both Fe and Fi users. 

I've had a hard time understanding Fe. I look at little examples of casual behavior though (some of the examples I gave in my other post, about my ex criticizing me, were not good examples because that was more purposeful behavior rather than examples of a function.)

Fi users can be accommodating and empathetic. Fe users can have strong values and ethical systems. 

I don't think that, as rosegeranium said, Fi tends to change values when better ones come along. Fi probably does tend to examine values and fit them together, so as to appear to "change values"--but personally, I think of it more as "discovering values." I am trying to figure out what my true values are--they don't change, but they can be revealed in a deeper way.

As a child I was one of the kids who picked up bugs off of the sidewalk because I didn't want to hurt them--because I empathetically (or sympathetically) assumed that if I were a bug and I had a similar ability to perceive the situation, I would like an intelligent being to do the same for me (as bugs seem to have a similar drive for survival and avoiding physical suffering as humans). I don't think this is typically Fe--but I do see it as a type of empathy or a desire for harmony.

Anyway--we shouldn't have a pissing contest about which is better or worse. I find it's best to examine Fe from the more emotionally "neutral" indications (like how someone decorates their house). Or to just keep an open mind--like my ESFJ friend doesn't "care about what others think" more than I do (I practically have a complex)--but she just is that way, it's natural to her to be like that. It's what she is most comfortable with (being pleasant, having a pleasant house to invite people to, wearing pleasing clothing and looking pleasing in general). It's natural to her, like breathing.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

senlar said:


> Hello.
> 
> I am an INTP. My type has Fe. The values that Fe are basically some attention (like a few minutes a day really), feeling like a valued member of whatever, validation of at least some of my thoughts and opinions (if you disagree with me 90%, I would still appreciate the courtesy if someone agreed on at least some points just to be sociable if they expect to be around me in the future).
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to be "that guy," but I want to illustrate a point:



> I am an INTP. My type has Fe.


 By very nature of Fi being a personal judgement function, you basically show use of it here--via accepting that your type is such and that this function means such and such things to me on an emotional level.

We all use all functions, even if you are an INTP. It's just not as apparent nor a particular weakness (Fe) for you.


----------



## Quork (Aug 17, 2012)

My close friends are an ENFJ, an INFJ, two ISFJs, and an ENTJ so Fe-Ni-Se-Ti, Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, 2 Si-Fe-Ti-Ne, and Te-Ni-Se-Fi. One clash I've found with all my friends is they think I'm too critical especially one of my ISFJ friends. I say something and they think it's kind of mean, but I usually say it because I want to be honest with them. While my ENTJ friend thinks I'm strangely awesome, I think she's also one of my friends who is the least effected by my criticism.

Basically to me, Fe is feeling for others while Fi is looking to one's self for feeling. What does society want vs. what do I want? That might make Fi sound selfish, but as some others said, a Fi-user could value being kind to others and thus exhibit some of that Fe harmony.

As a Fi-user, I have to say some of that Fe annoys me as my ENFJ best friend I feel compromises her values just to be kind to someone else and I want to be authentic and be honest with others so my kindness gets lost in the process, but I end up feeling I like my honesty over being overtly kind to someone and basically dishonest. Many times I stop my friend and ask "do you really want to do this?" When she says "no", I tell her she should do what she really wants. Of course, that's just some bad experience. I gotta go, but maybe I'll post more later.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

@_TrippedOnReality_

I too will feign interest; or give a topic a second chance under the condition the person isn't dreadfully annoying. There exists a possibility that I might find the topic interesting when it's presented within a refreshing context. I talk a lot; but I'm also curious to what other people have to say under the condition they have something substantial to say. I understand exactly what you're saying about rejection of their passion is a rejection of the person. This is exactly how my friend interprets it. There was a time she had this nutty idea that I would reject her friendship because she had no interest in something whereas I did; she's been living with the thought for about two years before she mentioned it and that possibility didn't even cross my mind.

I don't think I have my passions figured out. People might argue that I have no particular identity of my own; that I'm jumping from thing to thing and this used to concern me until I realized that being interested in new things does not restrict you from enjoying the things you did in the past. The thought of having a constant identity is suffocating; perhaps it's my rejection of Si. Speaking of weird Ne/Fe moments; I can sense an introvert's energy levels fluctuating. Strangers I'm not particular about; but with friends, students and co-workers I can usually tell. The difference is subtle but it's certainly real. Back to the feeling functions, and someone might find me horrible person for I might write ...

I don't do certain things because they are harmful to people. And, if I like somebody I would not want to cause them harm. If I don't know somebody there's always the possibility of them being okay. I never thought myself as having a moral code. Even as a child I never thought in terms of right and wrong. I never felt comfortable with moral judgements; being sent to a Catholic school made things even more awkward. What infuriates me is when other people take advantage of people I care about, or myself. I completely lost it when a friend of mine was redefining their relationships for their personal gain and being an all around douche.

Yes, I was quick to pick up on mannerisms, behaviour and have the ability to blend into a certain group. I never said I had good judgement. That came later. I just started off with experiment. I learned a lot by making mistake and my taking time to myself just to think things through. My social blending is often artificial; I always consider myself an individual who is playing the game of appearances. Picking up on formal etiquette is different; I'm left handed and could never do the cutlery thing, and, I just can't be bothered to value prestige. My family moved around a lot, Poland, France, Canada and I've lived everywhere from Lodz under martial law, to an Algerian ghetto in France. Both parents had their opinion; mom would be exceptionally outspoken and violent in her's. I would be spoon fed a Canadian flavour of political correctness and Orwellian self censorship and there was what I saw. Let's just say there was a lot of observation, a lot of confusion and experimentation.

I do hate the people pleasing part of Fe; sometimes when I'm not confident about something I turn into ... yeah, let's not go there. I do agree with the manipulative and smothering part; as I can to both. I don't feel particularly comfortable with being a sleaze or a kiss up, so, I try not to do it. But I have used everything from language to gestures to fashion get myself off the hook for many things. The smothering part; been there, done that.

With regards to the Abilene paradox I might say something like: We could go, but, are you sure you want to spend two hours in the car in the blistering heat? There's also an Fe argument for staying as the family is enjoying their game of dominoes and spending time in the cottage. And, given that Fe is balanced with Ti, someone just wasn't doing their thinking.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

Do you guys think that in general Fe works to fit in and assimilate, while Fi intrinsically has its own values (and thus a large portion of "society's values" are made up of the combined personal sentiments of Fi users who are not working to assimilate one way or another)? This is something I've always been unclear on.


----------



## Quork (Aug 17, 2012)

niffer said:


> Do you guys think that in general Fe works to fit in and assimilate, while Fi intrinsically has its own values (and thus a large portion of "society's values" are made up of the combined personal sentiments of Fi users who are not working to assimilate one way or another)? This is something I've always been unclear on.


The majority of Fi values influence Fe values? Never looked at it that way, but it makes sense.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Extroverted feelers are more likely to express their emotions when they're communicating, they can usually 'sense' the atmosphere in a room and have a feel for the emotions of the group. When in love they're likely to show public affection, give hugs, kisses - need reassurance that the other party feels the same through words. 

Extroverted feelers like group harmony so they're more likely to notice the quiet dude in the group not talking that much and try to involve them. Dominant Fe users are likely to be quite empathetic and try and meet the needs of others before themselves. This can sometimes make them appear fake by trying to conform to society's values and standards though they're just being themselves. Less likely to take themselves seriously also.

Introverted feelers adhere to their own personal morals and values. Though this can be difficult to differentiate from Fe because it may so happen that their personal views coincide with societies. They're more likely to stick up for what they believe in and have their friend's backs because they feel so strongly about causes at times. Fi users, when trying to help another person, are likely to think of their own experiences to relate to and support the person. Fe users are more likely to put themselves in the person's shoes instead and help them that way. Fi users generally sway towards noticing the needs of themselves before the group's and they're likely to take themselves quite seriously. They can sometimes appear cold because they're less aware of how their words come across that Fe users, who extrovert their feeling. In picture Fi users will have more controlled expressions than Fe users - who may sport a weird/goofy smile. Being an individual and remaining true to themselves and their believes in common amongst strong Fi users too.

Hope I helped!


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

UndercoverInstigator said:


> Introverted feelers adhere to their own personal morals and values. Though this can be difficult to differentiate from Fe because it may so happen that their personal views coincide with societies. They're more likely to stick up for what they believe in and have their friend's backs because they feel so strongly about causes at times.


Another aspect that is often overlooked about Fi is that it tends to stick up for the oppressed, overlooked and persecuted--the little guy--the underdog--against a majority view. It's not just for self against others, but it identifies itself with the underdog against the majority. I think this is one reason that ISFPs, for instance, tend to gravitate to children and animals.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Ah right, I wasn't aware of that. I imagine that introverted feelers are also very particular about things they like and don't like and feel strongly about things as it's quite a deep, subjective function. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Aenye (Jul 13, 2013)

I have my own value system and I do not conform to 'common values' just because they are common. I can only agree if they are justified. 

I like to be in touch with myself, my inner world and values.

I rarely express emotions and when I do it's nothing grandiose, but it's genuine. Also, it's more often deeds than words. 

Superficial socializing that seems to stimulate Fe tires me.

Emotional needs and values: freedom, individuality, rationality, imagination, honesty, gentleness, balance, passion, constancy, consistency, personal space (solitude)


----------



## TrippedOnReality (Jul 4, 2012)

The Experiment said:


> I don't think I have my passions figured out. People might argue that I have no particular identity of my own; that I'm jumping from thing to thing and this used to concern me until I realized that being interested in new things does not restrict you from enjoying the things you did in the past. The thought of having a constant identity is suffocating;


I've heard this from other ENTPs, though the way he put it was he didn't feel free to be completely himself around certain people after some time, because they expected him to act a certain way. So he says he tends to seek out new people constantly so he doesn't feel boxed in by the obligation to act a certain way, to be a certain person. Is this sort of what you're saying? I could see this stemming from Ne and Fe having conflicting interests. Ne wants to explore new things, new possibilities, and Fe says, that will upset group harmony. It almost sounds like Fe hamstrings Ne in that sense.

Ni and Fi do sort of the same thing for me at times. Ni will have a great idea, Te will want to help Ni implement the idea in the most efficient manner, and then Fi comes along and says, no, no, no, you can't do that, I'll never let you forgive yourself if you do. Ni and Te are like, but, but, but....fine *grumble grumble*.



The Experiment said:


> Even as a child I never thought in terms of right and wrong. I never felt comfortable with moral judgements; being sent to a Catholic school made things even more awkward.


Hmmm, that's interesting. I'm not sure I thought so much in terms of right and wrong either, not until I got older. But I was very concerned about fairness. So to hear from parents saying "you have to be fair, and treat people with fairness" only to have them throw it back in your face when you say something isn't fair when they tell you "life isn't fair" was pretty confusing.

I bet Catholic school made things hard if you didn't feel comfortable with moral judgment, seems like that is one of the backbones of Catholicism, distinguishing "right" from "wrong" (at least that's how it appears here). 



The Experiment said:


> Yes, I was quick to pick up on mannerisms, behaviour and have the ability to blend into a certain group. I never said I had good judgement. That came later. I just started off with experiment. I learned a lot by making mistake and my taking time to myself just to think things through. My social blending is often artificial; I always consider myself an individual who is playing the game of appearances. Picking up on formal etiquette is different; I'm left handed and could never do the cutlery thing, and, I just can't be bothered to value prestige. My family moved around a lot, Poland, France, Canada and I've lived everywhere from Lodz under martial law, to an Algerian ghetto in France. Both parents had their opinion; mom would be exceptionally outspoken and violent in her's. I would be spoon fed a Canadian flavour of political correctness and Orwellian self censorship and there was what I saw. Let's just say there was a lot of observation, a lot of confusion and experimentation.


That sounds confusing and exhausting. I was pretty clueless about most social nuances unless specifically trained to respond in a certain way. My mom had both my sister and me trained to say please, thank you, or you're welcome whenever she cleared her throat. Sometimes I had no idea which I was to say, so I would just say them in order until I said the right one. The other funny part was we'd still say please, thank you, or you're welcome whenever she legitimately cleared her throat because something was stuck there. I think part of that was having to say the words "thank you" when I wasn't really thankful. Sort of like saying you're sorry when you aren't. So yeah, growing up, terrible at social cues unless specifically trained in that specific situation. As I got older, I resisted more out of thinking that social rituals were stupid. I complained a lot about "why do I have to say or do thing X just to grease a social interaction with a person that I don't want to interact with in the first place?" So I was kind of a jerk for a while because I figured out that being a jerk got me what I wanted: to be left alone. Needless to say, eventually I outgrew that phase because I realized I was playing the social interaction short game by being a jerk, and I needed to be playing the social interaction long game if I wanted to have quality interaction with people, rather than just be annoyed all the time. 




The Experiment said:


> With regards to the Abilene paradox I might say something like: We could go, but, are you sure you want to spend two hours in the car in the blistering heat? There's also an Fe argument for staying as the family is enjoying their game of dominoes and spending time in the cottage. And, given that Fe is balanced with Ti, someone just wasn't doing their thinking.


Yeah, I get that. My thought process would be similar, though I would say something like "If you want to go, you can, but I'm not going to go and here is why: I don't want to sit in the hot car for 2 hours; I'm content doing what I'm doing." The language is very "me" focused, where the language you used was very "others" focused. I think having the two judging functions in the middle of the functional stack versus at the top and the bottom of the stack results in more of that T vs F kind of conflict that tends to result in a more blended response, rather than "Yes, let's go" or a "No, I don't want to". Yeah, I might come off like a selfish jerk for not wanting to go along with the rest of the group, but I also give others in the group the opportunity to speak up if they don't really want to go either, but were afraid to upset the group. With me dividing the group, they don't have to worry about that as much. Thanks for the response! It was really interesting.

What about some of the other folks who have been responding: where you good at figuring out social cues growing up, if so, how did they impact you? I'm curious to see if this is a T-F thing or an Fe/Fi thing. I think it could be either.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> Another aspect that is often overlooked about Fi is that it tends to stick up for the oppressed, overlooked and persecuted--the little guy--the underdog--against a majority view. It's not just for self against others, but it identifies itself with the underdog against the majority. I think this is one reason that ISFPs, for instance, tend to gravitate to children and animals.


It's not overlooked at all. It's one of the most common knowledge characteristics of Fi. If you haven't noticed, this entire thread has been an Fi circlejerk for the most part.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

MoodyMoonGoon said:


> The majority of Fi values influence Fe values? Never looked at it that way, but it makes sense.


Indeed. It's likely that about half of all people are Fi users--a significant portion of society. Fi dom/aux people may feel more like speshul underdogs than the average person out there, but Fi is just about as common as Fe.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

niffer said:


> Do you guys think that in general Fe works to fit in and assimilate, while Fi intrinsically has its own values (and thus a large portion of "society's values" are made up of the combined personal sentiments of Fi users who are not working to assimilate one way or another)? This is something I've always been unclear on.


IDK.

I think that if Fi and Fe are seen as this kind of dichotomy then both Fe and Fi must feed off of each other. Like--if you look at art, it's obvious that art that is produced for the purpose of being decorative and creating a pleasing ambiance for everyone (this is supposed to symbolize Fe) is modeled after previous works of art that were originally socially unacceptable or even distasteful (symbolizing Fi). 

But at the same time, anyone who seeks to create a wholly original piece of art has been socialized by larger conformist/homogenous society. I don't think that values of any type are created in a vacuum no matter how much we want to claim them as our own. Maybe Fe focuses on assimilating values and keeping and promoting values that work (on a larger scale) and Fi focuses more on finding inconsistencies between group morals and individual values (or maybe inconsistencies between application and definition).

This might be kind of like Te and Ti--Te making things workable and producible (maybe even mass-producible), and Ti focusing on flaws/inconsistencies within a system or perfecting a system. IDK. Good question.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... I would like to propose an idea: Rational Values as Appropriated by Ti.

The value of human life is questionable; as I can think of many instances where ending a life is more desirable and ethical then its preservation. However, I do find its destruction appalling and therefore reject institutions which contribute to this demise and refuse to participate and endorse their existence. Killing deprives a potentially good person of life; furthermore, killing will trigger a series of unpleasant emotions including anger, sorrow, guilt and self loathing. Therefore I will not murder a civilian and refuse to be part of an organization like the military which has the capacity to take life.

Given the advancements of medicine; are humans prolonging life or the process of dying. Is unplugging a respirator killing or allowing nature to take its course? Fe is an expression of the greater good. It becomes a function of conformity when the person fails to understand what the greater good is. Use some Ti to figure that out. This results in a relative morality as the greater good is subject to change; it's important to know that the greater good is not a rule of the majority. Gandhi is believed to be an Fe user, he did not succumb to violence.

--

_I've heard this from other ENTPs, though the way he put it was he didn't feel free to be completely himself around certain people after some time, because they expected him to act a certain way. So he says he tends to seek out new people constantly so he doesn't feel boxed in by the obligation to act a certain way, to be a certain person. Is this sort of what you're saying? I could see this stemming from Ne and Fe having conflicting interests. Ne wants to explore new things, new possibilities, and Fe says, that will upset group harmony. It almost sounds like Fe hamstrings Ne in that sense.
_
... Yes, I have experienced this as a specific manifestation of that idea. I often struggle to balance the interpersonal dynamics between work, family, friends and my personal needs which include wanting to travel, quitting my job in favor of finding something more satisfying, meeting people, dating. There's another side to this argument which is driven by Ne; because I'm interested in so many things I don't have that singular passion which defines my identity. Given that people define themselves by their values, interests and occupation, and I'm in a constant state of flux, is it possible that I might have no real identity?

My social awkwardness stemmed from an abundance of information, some conflicting, some irevellent, and not always knowing what goes where. Even as an extrovert I promise you that I don't particularly enjoy speaking with certain types. Adjectival types, that is: windbags, bigots, misers or crybabies. It is always those people who always make it a habit to monopolize your time and drive your patience. Sometimes its necessary to be blunt.


----------

