# Why Fe and Fi hate each other.



## FearAndTrembling

I have witnessed it so many times. Fe pushes Fi, and Fi gets angry. That is the total process. The anger of fi, is then channeled back to Fe, and it increases the force pushing on Fi. It's like a particle accelerator, it just gets faster and stronger. It obviously has to end at some point, but here is the key: Fe can walk away with less of the baggage, less dust that is made in that debate. Because they were just a conductor, and will cool down. They detach, and walk away. It is still a tornado in Fi, it is hotter. And Fe is always coming back and stirring it. Doesn't even know it. Because they don't feel it. I don't. I get angry to normal in a second. I go with the situation. I cool down. So I am sometimes entering a tornado, and thinking it is just normal weather. 

Nobody understands anybody. Because Fi is a person's experience. I don't know that. But I treat them like a cookie cutter, a mean. To strangers anyway. People I know, I get to know better and make more personal profiles. But I basically have a cookie cutter, and apply it to most dough. No dough perfectly fits it. And Fi does somehow have to compromise, and fit in, in some way with the standard. But not with one across the board. It is such delicate thing. It is surgical. Nobody even knows it. The stitches are big and ugly, and everywhere.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

yup, you summed up pretty well why I want to murder most of the FJs I know :laughing:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yup, you summed up pretty well why I want to murder most of the FJs I know :laughing:


I never realized how hard it is to communicate with people. I thought I was good at it. It is a brick wall. Eventually you run into something. It is so much work. I think people don't want to put in the work, and just half ass it. I do too. It is way too much work. You would probably win a Nobel if you could make a universal translator for humans of the same language even. 

Words don't mean anything. It is the underlying narrative. Words aren't clear. They are colored with our own experiences in life, and we attach narratives to them. Words are numbers, we agree on those numbers. But we all use different equations. And tell everyone else, their math is wrong. It is the longest division problem in the world to communicate, and people don't use many decimals. It is Pi. It is. Goes on forever. It's depressing to think about it that way.


----------



## Oprah

idk this would be why TP's can make me feel like garbage sometimes?
I feel like they don't even know they're doing it, but what I perceive is so transparent... and yea the tornado is a great way to put it into words <3 



dunno if that makes sense.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Oprah said:


> idk this would be why TP's can make me feel like garbage sometimes?
> They'll have "underdeveloped" Fe and therefore not realize what they're doing and unintentionally cause me to go crazy? >.<
> 
> 
> 
> dunno if that makes sense.


I don't use Fe like most people, but can see how Fi rubs Fe the wrong way. This how I view things:

Say I am a store, bunch of lines, people shopping, checking out, etc. In every situation I am in, I immediately see what is wrong with it, and how it could be done better. In all things. In all ways. I do everything fast. I am always in a hurry. Most of the world is fluff to me, it is air. I want to get rid of the air. So I stomp down on the environment as hard possible. I crunch it. Like a box or package, that is mostly air. I flatten it. Take out all the air, and zone in on the most important connections. I rip into my head violently. 

Then, with Fe, I am like Cyclops basically. It comes out hard, and nothing stops it. It is firehose with the highest pressure. It is a flamethrower. And it kills everything that isn't supposed to be there. Destroys it. Supposedly. So after all the smoke has cleared, and I think nothing will be standing, there is Fi. All that is left is Fi. It's like my fire just traced around it. It drew a map. Because I shoot off like a slingshot, and anything that stop it is Fi. So have pinpointed this. Only thing I can't get through. I leave people alone, and am distant. But I can see why other people who use Fe, can have such a big problem with Fi.


----------



## 11thNight

In my personal experience with Fi this is what can go wrong:
-Fe appears people-pleasing, inauthentic, and chameleon-like (Fe changes to suit who individual is interacting with) to Fi
-Fe affection can be misinterpreted as deeper and more personal than it is by Fi
-Fe's concern for/interest in others can make Fe look like a hussy to Fi and make Fi jealous or angry

-Fi can appear selfish to Fe
-Fi can appear unconcerned for others to Fe
-Fi sentiments can seem confusing/don't make sense to Fe
-Fi can seem possessive to Fe


----------



## FearAndTrembling

11thNight said:


> In my personal experience with Fi this is what can go wrong:
> -Fe appears people-pleasing, inauthentic, and chameleon-like (Fe changes to suit who individual is interacting with) to Fi
> -Fe affection can be misinterpreted as deeper and more personal than it is by Fi
> -Fe's concern for/interest in others can make Fe look like a hussy to Fi and make Fi jealous or angry
> 
> -Fi can appear selfish to Fe
> -Fi can appear unconcerned for others to Fe
> -Fi sentiments can seem confusing/don't make sense to Fe
> -Fi can seem possessive to Fe


Yeah, and water changes to fit each bottle or shape. There nothing wrong with changing shape, unless others are all the same shape. People need other people's help. That is just a fact of life. Other people helped me a lot. Taught me a lot. The world IS inauthentic. People are different. You have to deal with them. Wade through them to survive. 

It's not even against Fi, it just doesn't work as a social strategy. I said that Fe is like water, it flows through everything, and comes out crystal clear , without a scratch. It isn't damaged. Fi is frozen, and does not flow. It is hardness basically. Rigidness. 

*When a man is just born, he is weak and flexible. When he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing, it's tender and pliant. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of the freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win.

*There's an old saying that a tree tends to fall where it leans. I don't lean anywhere. I go with where it takes me. Less stress.


----------



## Octavian

I personally find Fe to be invasive, and from what I gather, many other Fi users do as well. Being coerced or pressured into abiding by something as stringent as "collective ethics" is just extraordinarily suffocating. When Fi is in the dom/aux position their reaction can be really over the top, but I've yet to see an Fi user do this without being pushed on by Fe first. 

Fe seems to most frequently view Fi in a negative light due to it abstaining from whatever "laws" are governing the collective, and it just gets worse because Fe begins pushing, and instead of abstaining, Fi now actively rebels. I dated an INFJ and this was the most difficult thing for us. I did not want to be a part of her collective, and she took that very personally. 

Anytime Fe is projected onto me though, it creates a very bad feeling. It literally disturbs me to my core.


----------



## dulcinea

I think that most of the time, when Fi and Fe types clash, a lot, it might be because they lack understanding of the other. And when I say "understanding" I don't mean, researching that function, and getting a lot of head knowledge, but acknowledging, this is how this person is hardwired, and it's different from how mine is hardwired, and how they think and go about things is okay.

I used to see some FP's as being, at times, preoccupied with their feelings to the point of being rude to others, but the more I got to know Fi types, the more I grew to really like them, and the more I learned about Fi, the more I learned to like it. Not that I would wanna be an introverted feeler, myself, but I'm more fascinated by the "other" than I am irritated by it. 

I find, lately, I mostly am attracted to SFP types. Sometimes there are snags, and misunderstandings in these kinds of pairings, but, in the end, a ton of caring and forgiveness, as well. When it comes to friendship, one of my closest friends is INFP. I think INFPs are awesome, because in my experience, they're loyal friends, who will wanna do something with you every now and then, but also give you a ton of space. My only issues with Fi types, is, often, they won't tell me if they have an issue, until they can't take it anymore. I can understand why, but at the same time, I wanna know if I'm doing something that irritates someone, or bothers them a lot. But, I think Fe's are more inclined to be upfront about things that bug them, whereas Fi's...idk if I'm right but, I can sense them thinking something like "who am I to impose upon this person?"

In the end, I've learned that one is not more important than the other. I like hearing from an Fi perspective, because they'll view things in a way that I might not, and vice versa.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Octavian said:


> I personally find Fe to be invasive, and from what I gather, many other Fi users do as well. Being coerced or pressured into abiding by something as stringent as "collective ethics" is just extraordinarily suffocating. When Fi is in the dom/aux position their reaction can be really over the top, but I've yet to see an Fi user do this without being pushed on by Fe first.
> 
> Fe seems to most frequently view Fi in a negative light due to it abstaining from whatever "laws" are governing the collective, and it just gets worse because Fe begins pushing, and instead of abstaining, Fi now actively rebels. I dated an INFJ and this was the most difficult thing for us. I did not want to be a part of her collective, and she took that very personally.
> 
> Anytime Fe is projected onto me though, it creates a very bad feeling. It literally disturbs me to my core.


That is what Fe is, thwarting the will of others. Disarming it. So yeah, it comes on to you, and controls your will. But I use it to get people's will off of me. It isn't offensive. But many people use it as such. I am a defensive boxer who is sticking and moving. Slapping the environment away. It makes sense. Like many extremists. Bin Laden. He could be seen to be removing the will of others, or removing the will of others on him. Fe basically wants to clear out the environment. Control it. I just want it clear. I want space. Others want to gain territory. I just want to retain my borders. I can deal with Fe. It ain't pushing me back. I know its game.


----------



## Draki

Octavian said:


> I personally find Fe to be invasive, and from what I gather, many other Fi users do as well. Being coerced or pressured into abiding by something as stringent as "collective ethics" is just extraordinarily suffocating. When Fi is in the dom/aux position their reaction can be really over the top, but I've yet to see an Fi user do this without being pushed on by Fe first.
> 
> Fe seems to most frequently view Fi in a negative light due to it abstaining from whatever "laws" are governing the collective, and it just gets worse because Fe begins pushing, and instead of abstaining, Fi now actively rebels. I dated an INFJ and this was the most difficult thing for us. I did not want to be a part of her collective, and she took that very personally.
> 
> Anytime Fe is projected onto me though, it creates a very bad feeling. It literally disturbs me to my core.


I know this feeling of Fi and what you described but in my case it's Ti versus Te ^^


----------



## Kynx

dulcinea said:


> I think that most of the time, when Fi and Fe types clash, a lot, it might be because they lack understanding of the other. And when I say "understanding" I don't mean, researching that function, and getting a lot of head knowledge, but acknowledging, this is how this person is hardwired, and it's different from how mine is hardwired, and how they think and go about things is okay.
> 
> I used to see some FP's as being, at times, preoccupied with their feelings to the point of being rude to others, but the more I got to know Fi types, the more I grew to really like them, and the more I learned about Fi, the more I learned to like it. Not that I would wanna be an introverted feeler, myself, but I'm more fascinated by the "other" than I am irritated by it.
> 
> I find, lately, I mostly am attracted to SFP types. Sometimes there are snags, and misunderstandings in these kinds of pairings, but, in the end, a ton of caring and forgiveness, as well. When it comes to friendship, one of my closest friends is INFP. I think INFPs are awesome, because in my experience, they're loyal friends, who will wanna do something with you every now and then, but also give you a ton of space. My only issues with Fi types, is, often, they won't tell me if they have an issue, until they can't take it anymore. I can understand why, but at the same time, I wanna know if I'm doing something that irritates someone, or bothers them a lot. But, I think Fe's are more inclined to be upfront about things that bug them, whereas Fi's...idk if I'm right but, I can sense them thinking something like "who am I to impose upon this person?"
> 
> In the end, I've learned that one is not more important than the other. I like hearing from an Fi perspective, because they'll view things in a way that I might not, and vice versa.


I completely agree with this. Each has their own standard and criteria to judge situations and they often don't realise that the other sides standard and criteria aren't the same. Fe will show it cares by doing x and Fi will show it cares by doing y. Even when I'm aware of the potential conflict and the reasons for it, it's so difficult to constantly bear in mind. It's extremely frustrating. 
I am upfront when something bothers me, it's just that I negotiate it within myself first. I don't want to impose my own views on others because I don't believe I have any right to ask someone else to change to suit me, unless I believe it's of utmost importance and I absolutely can't tolerate the current situation. If something bothers me, I question my 
own expectations first. How important is it really? Can I tolerate it, adapt or adjust? I weigh the negative against the positive and decide if my issue still carries more weight. Mostly, I find a way to get around the issue and therefore feel no need to communicate it. I've sorted it in my own mind, it's dealt with. Very occasionally I can't deal with it myself, I need to ask the other person to adjust to suit me. That's when I communicate, when I've exhausted all potential solutions that I can apply myself. I see why this appears so selfish to another perspective because I've already assessed my ability to adapt and improvise on the issue and concluded that I can't adjust or adjust any more. So an Fe person doesn't see me compromising because I do all that within myself. They just the 'my way or no way' attitude on any issue I actually raise.

On the other hand, when Fe mentions issues to me, I try to adjust because for them to mention it, it must be a really big deal, right? But soon I'm feeling completely unaccepted by them because they are asking me to adjust so much. I'm hurt because I've accepted them as they are in so many areas, because I care about them and they aren't accepting of me in the same way. I've noticed this sacrifice vs acceptance difference going on, a lot. 

Lol, It's true that so much hard work


----------



## SweetPickles

I've witnessed very kind and gracious Fe and some ultra fake and shallow Fe...the latter makes me cringe. I guess shallow Fi would do the same, but I don't think you could ever call Fi fake.


----------



## mushr00m

MelanieM said:


> I've witnessed very kind and gracious Fe and some ultra fake and shallow Fe...the latter makes me cringe. I guess shallow Fi would do the same, but I don't think you could ever call Fi fake.


i dunno, i've not been always completely authentic myself at times in my life as someone preferring fi, hence that though, i definitely feel the cognitive dissonance strongly.


----------



## aendern

MelanieM said:


> I've witnessed very kind and gracious Fe and some ultra fake and shallow Fe...the latter makes me cringe. I guess shallow Fi would do the same, but I don't think you could ever call Fi fake.


I can be very inauthentic when I see personal gain in it.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> That is what Fe is, thwarting the will of others. Disarming it. So yeah, it comes on to you, and controls your will. But I use it to get people's will off of me. It isn't offensive. But many people use it as such. I am a defensive boxer who is sticking and moving. Slapping the environment away. It makes sense. Like many extremists. Bin Laden. He could be seen to be removing the will of others, or removing the will of others on him. Fe basically wants to clear out the environment. Control it. I just want it clear. I want space. Others want to gain territory. I just want to retain my borders. I can deal with Fe. It ain't pushing me back. I know its game.


So doesnt Fi really have any defense against Fe? It almost seems feeling is about manipulation here. Fi manipulate self, Fe manipulate environment (other people).


----------



## SweetPickles

emberfly said:


> I can be very inauthentic when I see personal gain in it.


Well Fi isn't your primary, so it's probably much easier. When I pretend to be someone I'm not or express an emotion I'm not really feeling, it's pretty obvious, especially to those who know me. It also feels gross and can be exhausting. So you are basically stating that both Fe and Fi can be insincere. But is it Fi you are using there? You still feel the same although not as strongly as you want your goal. Since I'm Fi-Dom, it would be much more difficult but not at all impossible to do the same thing. You are Ni-Te-Fi therefore Te > Fi. I think your Fi would work a bit differently than mine and have much less power over you. 

@mushr00m I understand , especially with the cognitive dissonance part, but unfortunately, sometimes it's necessary.

I still think Fi is generally more authentic and is finely attuned with our own harmony and authenticity, it's more intangible than Fe. Since we are forming judgments on things that are not concrete it can be frustrating to others and misunderstood. While Fe is not hard to understand at all and can be misjudged as fake or shallow, Fi can be misjudged as self-absorbed or illogical. 

Fe users do you see yourselves as fake and shallow? I'm 100% you do not identify with those traits.
Fi users do you see yourself as self-absorbed and illogical? " "

Both are useful, but misunderstood Fe is highly celebrated in this world, but I do think Fi is just as important. I think Fi brings about introspection as well as the interest in studying how others tick/work/feel. 

I also think Fi-Doms experience feelings (Good and bad) much more intensely than others. That's a controversial statement and simply can't be measured thus proven, but after observing people for almost 35 years, I stand by my statement. I think we are the most sensitive, whether you consider that good or bad is your own business.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

MelanieM said:


> I've witnessed very kind and gracious Fe and some ultra fake and shallow Fe...the latter makes me cringe. I guess shallow Fi would do the same, but I don't think you could ever call Fi fake.


Nobody can tell the difference, that is the problem. So much bullshit Fe out there. 

Here is what happens: I have had bad anxiety issues in the past. Over nothing. Hypochondria I created in my head. I called the ambulance to my house many times, went to the ER. INFJ is one of the most private types. An ambulance roaring into my driveway, sometimes with huge firetrucks, is the greatest embarrassment. All that attention, and resources, for me. The whole neighborhood hears it of course. Huge scene. And they realize I am an idiot, and leave. Nothing is wrong. So people in the neighborhood think I am having a heart attack, dying or something. Nope. Nothing. See you EMTs later. Thanks for showing up.

I know an INTJ with anxiety. Bad anxiety. It is triggered by specific things, obvious things. That people should know. So people put her in that position, and basically hurt her. Over and over. So she tells me about it one day, and I say, "You blast these motherfuckers." I am getting riled up. Because I know that feeling of fear and helplessness. So I am basically barking at her. But not at her, at people who are mistreating her. But it makes it worse on her, and I just get more angry. The main problem is, other people don't know what they are doing to her. So she has to tell them. Strongly. The fact that they are ignorant, is irrelevant. Give them knowledge. Ignorance is not an excuse. 

My best friend is an INTP. We can't show affection to each other. He can't show emotion. Doesn't understand anxiety. One day we are driving home from the city, I get a bad panic attack. He is driving. My body is going numb. For no reason. Nobody knows this, but me. I tell him to pull over, I need to get some air. I am nervous. He does it immediately. Why? Because I have properly expressed to him, my anxiety is real. Even though he has no reference, he knows it. So if a normal person says to pull over, he would complain or think it is ridiculous. I don't make shit like that up. Basically what I did, was show weakness in front of him. I showed him how bad it was for me. I control the environment, when I am in fear. Because I need the environment for help. And if you aren't with me out there, you are against me. I don't care about intentions. I care about results.

And nobody even cares. Like those ambulance people. I was such a fool. They were cool. That stuff happens. See you next time. They tried to calm me down. They have their own lives, own problems. I am a grain of sand.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Neverontime said:


> I completely agree with this. Each has their own standard and criteria to judge situations and they often don't realise that the other sides standard and criteria aren't the same. Fe will show it cares by doing x and Fi will show it cares by doing y. Even when I'm aware of the potential conflict and the reasons for it, it's so difficult to constantly bear in mind. It's extremely frustrating.
> I am upfront when something bothers me, it's just that I negotiate it within myself first. I don't want to impose my own views on others because I don't believe I have any right to ask someone else to change to suit me, unless I believe it's of utmost importance and I absolutely can't tolerate the current situation. If something bothers me, I question my
> own expectations first. How important is it really? Can I tolerate it, adapt or adjust? I weigh the negative against the positive and decide if my issue still carries more weight. Mostly, I find a way to get around the issue and therefore feel no need to communicate it. I've sorted it in my own mind, it's dealt with. Very occasionally I can't deal with it myself, I need to ask the other person to adjust to suit me. That's when I communicate, when I've exhausted all potential solutions that I can apply myself. I see why this appears so selfish to another perspective because I've already assessed my ability to adapt and improvise on the issue and concluded that I can't adjust or adjust any more. So an Fe person doesn't see me compromising because I do all that within myself. They just the 'my way or no way' attitude on any issue I actually raise.
> 
> On the other hand, when Fe mentions issues to me, I try to adjust because for them to mention it, it must be a really big deal, right? But soon I'm feeling completely unaccepted by them because they are asking me to adjust so much. I'm hurt because I've accepted them as they are in so many areas, because I care about them and they aren't accepting of me in the same way. I've noticed this sacrifice vs acceptance difference going on, a lot.
> 
> Lol, It's true that so much hard work


Exactly. We actually communicate well. Because we were based on conflict. So that was expected from the start. I expect it. 

But it is like the water thing. Water pours into every shape, but comes out the other side, in its own form, clear and unhurt. There is a way. But Fi doesn't want to hear it. You say you adjust first. Water does not adjust first, when entering a bottle. You are basically ice. You harden. But you need to flow. You are trying to to fit your own shape, into another shape. That is why Fi breaks. 

“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. "
-Bruce Lee

That is a counselor right there. Jung's method too. So I try this with Fi. But never gets through the cracks. Ever. And I know there are cracks there, they are in everything.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Captain Mclain said:


> So doesnt Fi really have any defense against Fe? It almost seems feeling is about manipulation here. Fi manipulate self, Fe manipulate environment (other people).


No, Fi really has no defense. Because Fe is "objective values". That is the secret of Fe, nobody knows what it is, but it controls everything. Everybody is supposed to abide by it. A girl acts like a "guy". That is wrong. Why? Fe. Any issue. Christians are better than Jews. Why? Fe. It's anything. It is the greatest cover in the world. It is every tradition, belief, law, philosophy, religion, etc. You can't beat it. It's water. Every time you hit it, it turns into something else. It just moves through it. Fe unites people against others. Which can be good, and bad.


----------



## Psychopomp

FearAndTrembling said:


> But one needs wrath, and hate. One has to know their hate. Star Wars is all about going through your hate. Obi Wan the whole time was building up Luke's hate, to the brim. To test him. It is the only way. Because a true Jedi goes through his own hate. You have to hate, to learn to love and understand. It was Jung's entire message. Know your hate. Know your shadow. Fight it, and see who wins. I know it is a draw.


Sounds like an Fe sentiment to me. Needing an object or a counter-balance to know yourself. I am that way in the sense that I use objects around me to triangulate my own ethical position. In my case, specifically Fi people. My wife, my daughter, my friend. If they are cool with me... if they stick around, if they nod their approval of me, then I am a good man. How else could I know? They are canaries, and if they cannot live in my presence, then it is me who is toxic, though so many would turn on them and call them 'too sensitive'. 

I disagree entirely this principle of duality... one needs A to have Z or whatever.... I mean in a pure philosophical structure, sure. Lots of religions hinge on that very idea. But, just as many would disagree... and you'd find my voice among them. I think that such duality is ultimately a lesser path.

EDIT: How do you know you are talking to an Intuitive? Things get ridiculously meta ridiculously fast and neither of you even notice. Good times.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

arkigos said:


> Sounds like an Fe sentiment to me. Needing an object or a counter-balance to know yourself. I am that way in the sense that I use objects around me to triangulate my own ethical position. In my case, specifically Fi people. My wife, my daughter, my friend. If they are cool with me... if they stick around, if they nod their approval of me, then I am a good man. How else could I know? They are canaries, and if they cannot live in my presence, then it is me who is toxic, though so many would turn on them and call them 'too sensitive'.
> 
> I disagree entirely this principle of duality... one needs A to have Z or whatever.... I mean in a pure philosophical structure, sure. Lots of religions hinge on that very idea. But, just as many would disagree... and you'd find my voice among them. I think that such duality is ultimately a lesser path.
> 
> EDIT: How do you know you are talking to an Intuitive? Things get ridiculously meta ridiculously fast and neither of you even notice. Good times.


Exactly. How does a moral agent even exist alone? This is my problem with Fi. I can look at the environment to center my feelings. I see a situation. It's like a fact, created new each time. I take a snapshot. Like a science experiment. I run it through the computer of the universe, it does its own equations, and balances it. It gives me the report, and I carry it out. I said Fe is like Lady Justice. We weigh things blindly. Like an alien would view human affairs or something. 

Duality is the only way you find the middle. That is why it is necessary. Because one side is trying to trick you, so bad. Both are. Everything merges into one, and a river runs through it. I said life is like running through a gauntlet of slave masters. Of people insisting there are dichotomies, and differences. Empty your mind, be true and clear to any form like water. Never get trapped in a bottle, but be true to them all. That is how you don't get trapped. I said life is a scavenger hunt through bottles, that you only win by staying true. It doesn't make sense along the way, it shouldn't. Lee said the same thing. He put it together for me. That is why I think these quadras are true. He is a lot like me. I get him. Martial arts fans don't. Bruce Lee fan's don't. Lee helped expand me.


----------



## Psychopomp

FearAndTrembling said:


> Exactly. How does a moral agent even exist alone? This is my problem with Fi. I can look at the environment to center my feelings. I see a situation. It's like a fact, created new each time. I take a snapshot. Like a science experiment. I run it through the computer of the universe, it does its own equations, and balances it. It gives me the report, and I carry it out. I said Fe is like Lady Justice. We weigh things blindly. Like an alien would view human affairs or something.
> 
> Duality is the only way you find the middle. That is why it is necessary. Because one side is trying to trick you, so bad. Both are. Everything merges into one, and a river runs through it. I said life is like running through a gauntlet of slave masters. Of people insisting there are dichotomies, and differences. Empty your mind, be true and clear to any form like water. Never get trapped in a bottle, but be true to them all. That is how you don't get trapped. I said life is a scavenger hunt through bottles, that you only win by staying true. It doesn't make sense along the way, it shouldn't. Lee said the same thing. He put it together for me. That is why I think these quadras are true. He is a lot like me. I get him. Martial arts fans don't. Bruce Lee fan's don't. Lee helped expand me.


...and yet it is the Fi that are truly just, in their subjective rut. I can't trace it, and they are so contrarian to morality - but, still, I would never triangulate myself off of an Fe person. They are not to be relied upon. I am not to be relied upon. Their judgments can turn on a dime... suddenly thundering, suddenly cold. As frustrating and elusive as Fi is I cannot deny that it has proven unquestionably True from beginning to end. 

...and I attribute this, btw, just as much to Te as to Fi. Te cannot think other than Objectively. For Fi people, that means hitting their head against a brick wall for years on end and being terrifically stubborn about it all the while. This objectivity is the sounding board their internalized ethics requires. It gives it its own sort of objectivity... it allows it to assess situationally without diluting the purity of their ethical stance. It makes them stupid as hell sometimes, but never once anything but moral. I don't apply this to Te/Fi types, who I feel can become grossly immoral in certain situations... but to Fi/Te types specifically. They are so fabulously moral - with incredibly few exceptions in my experience. I cannot say the same of Fe types, who paradoxically account for orders of magnitude more tangibly beneficent acts. 

Someone crusading for good is not moral? Someone doing nothing at all, selfishly, is moral? I am compelled to say, "yes", absolutely. If you are judging morality by output, then Fe would win... but that is not how I judge it.... because it is corruptible and changeable... and Fi is not. If I were in trouble, in real need, I would opt to be surrounded by Fi types over Fe types without hesitation. Fe would be all crusading and bravado, but no matter what Fi would do what was right.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

arkigos said:


> ...and yet it is the Fi that are truly just, in their subjective rut. I can't trace it, and they are so contrarian to morality - but, still, I would never triangulate myself off of an Fe person. They are not to be relied upon. I am not to be relied upon. Their judgments can turn on a dime... suddenly thundering, suddenly cold. As frustrating and elusive as Fi is I cannot deny that it has proven unquestionably True from beginning to end.
> 
> ...and I attribute this, btw, just as much to Te as to Fi. Te cannot think other than Objectively. For Fi people, that means hitting their head against a brick wall for years on end and being terrifically stubborn about it all the while. This objectivity is the sounding board their internalized ethics requires. It gives it its own sort of objectivity... it allows it to assess situationally without diluting the purity of their ethical stance. It makes them stupid as hell sometimes, but never once anything but moral. I don't apply this to Te/Fi types, who I feel can become grossly immoral in certain situations... but to Fi/Te types specifically. They are so fabulously moral - with incredibly few exceptions in my experience. I cannot say the same of Fe types, who paradoxically account for orders of magnitude more tangibly beneficent acts.
> 
> Someone crusading for good is not moral? Someone doing nothing at all, selfishly, is moral? I am compelled to say, "yes", absolutely. If you are judging morality by output, then Fe would win... but that is not how I judge it.... because it is corruptible and changeable... and Fi is not. If I were in trouble, in real need, I would opt to be surrounded by Fi types over Fe types without hesitation. Fe would be all crusading and bravado, but no matter what Fi would do what was right.


It is because it is their own path. Like Tolstoy IS peace. How do you make him war? He is the idea himself. Like Kant. He ain't moving. It's like trying to change a bear into a cat. It's a bear. That is its nature. You tell him to kill one old man, or all his children will be killed. He will let all his children die. He will never be the mechanism of another. Of progress. Of machinery of the world. Fe is the machinery, maybe. Cuz when you tell Tolstoy to kill a guy, Tolstoy is now a puppet. How can you make him kill? By guilt or shame, invisible force. Action at a distance. So to make Tolstoy actually kill, you have to physically put his finger on the trigger. And then it exposes it is not his will, but others. It exposes the strings of the puppeteers. 

*“Error is the force that welds men together; truth is communicated to men only by deeds of truth.”*

I said that Fe is environment control. That is why Lee rejected guilt and shame. Because they tried to shame him on the inside. He said, you can't control me there. Fight me on the outside. You don't control me on the inside. He exposed the strings too. 



All I know is the path is open, not what it should be. And I destroy everything in that gap. Like Lee. Jesus said all paths go through him. Which is freedom. He knew the way, and wanted to keep it open. Others distorted it. 

Tolstoy is the guy I compare others with. Kant too. And Skinner. Exactly. That is how you learn. From others. They each have a little truth in their bottle, but don't swallow it all.


----------



## Angina Jolie

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because I know that being challenged is the only way any knowledge grows. It is applied to nearly every other field as truth. I don't do it just for the sake of it. I am not a crusader. I am a counselor. I just want to open people up, tell them who they are, and let them decide what do with it.
> 
> My own counselor dropped the hammer on me. With Fe, or Te. I don't even know, but it was strong. I was in there because, I had no purpose. She tried to show me alternative views, which I always rejected. So, she told me to leave. Since my mind was made up. It angered me, because she was trying to control how I think basically. I was gonna let her have it. lol. But then I realized I needed her, and swallowed my pride. And she didn't want to control me, she wanted to wipe my mind, which she did.
> 
> I said I had no hobbies. She said, "Get some". I ask what she does, what people do. Cuz the world is boring to me. She says, "Doesn't matter what my hobbies are. I am not offering you suggestions. Then they would be my ideas, and not yours." She always opened a path, and then put a hurdle there. I expected her to bail me out, but she didn't. She did actually. I walked in there thinking I was so much smarter than psychological than her. The world is wrong, not me. Which it is. But I can accept that now, to a larger degree.
> 
> Like Jung said, until you make your unconscious conflict, conscious. It will control your life, and you will call it fate. But it is a false one. There is a real one, only the individual knows. Know yourself. All that. You need others to know yourself. Because they are a comparison.


You sound like someone I know SO much. His exact words are - ''I want to open people's eyes, show them they are slaves so they can finally break free, let go of the game''. But it barely ever works, because:
-He doesn't take in consideration the different natures of different people therefor different reactions to certain approaches. His way of coming onto people as if - you need me - feels aggressive and people rebel keeping a negative feeling towards him, as if he was attacking them. And the rebellion will only continue with someone they have a negative feeling towards.
-He frees them, helps them to let go, but that is where their ground falls. And if he doesn't provide another ground that they can step on - they will get lost and either will go mad in a way that is not good for them, or they will jump back again, where it was safe. 

I actually get what you are talking about.... but maybe then comes the place where I don't get it anymore, or it just seems like you are being a bit unrealistic about everything yourself.


----------



## uncertain

Kyusaku said:


> Thanks for sharing your thoughts ! We both are Fi dominants but you being Se you are much more grounded than I am in reality. I see the world as a patchwork of concepts more than a physical truth. I'm sorry if that is a bit limiting, I have a hard time understanding how Sensing functions really work. Ne is both a gift and a curse I guess, as I see countless possibilities and I prefer pondering about them than get on a more linear and consistent track.
> 
> Abstract things are more concrete to me than concrete things if that makes any sense ! I will have a much easier time to strike people down with ideas than with a sword. It's that Ne/Se difference again !
> 
> My values are integrity and individuality, but beneath that, my core feels pretty void. I am a type 4, I feel like an air balloon floating, caught in the winds and forced to go in whatever direction they push me to. I have a visceral need to identify myself to values, or I'll feel featureless. That is in part why I don't care being trampled over, as people only trample over an empty shell. My identity is organic, it is like a moving, shape shifting energy. I can't catch it, nor is anybody else able to. My goal is to reflect faithfully that energy. Reality has no place in my inner realm, as it is governed by a different set of laws.


roud:

I am actually not sure if I am an ISFP  I just switched to unknown personality. I am pondering between ISFP and INFJ. What I said in the last post was my attitude toward reality, but I am actually not very grounded. I live in my head a lot, too, so I can't really imagine how anyone can be more ungrounded/unrealistic than me. Maybe the truth is that I don't want to face or think about the real world so I go off into my mind. :S That's sad, and bad. Everyday there's someone inside me makes me look at the real world, so I go back and forth. I am not trying to complain or anything, but just telling how I feel right now.

That (2nd paragraph) doesn't make sense, sorry, or I don't really understand, because abstract and concrete are opposite to each other. It can feel real, but certainly not more than the concrete world. It's a fact rather than feeling to me. Sometimes I have to remind myself of this fact, too. I need to be alert about not letting intuition crosses the line too much, (_thinking what I am imagining as the reality_) which happens. That seems unhealthy, and I need to stop doing that. I like to read stuff like theory philosophy and I can be very into it but that's just an activity...I don't know. I don't know how I feel about it in relation to reality.

I think Ne becomes a curse when it allows you to live in your mind and you no longer need to live in the world because the endless possibilities it gives you sustains a life in the abstract mind. But it's a gift if you utilize it in real life and on real problems, real things. Sometimes I wish I have Ne so that I can come up with possibilities and not stuck at one place. Just trolling...

Se doesn't really work like anything. It just _is. _It tells you that, too. It's probably the least novel and fancy function of the eight. The world exists as a fact. It's an objective existence, whether you like it or not.

I am not sure if I understand your last paragraph but seems like a good look into an INFPs' world. I am taking it quite literally, but I am guessing you are not being very literal. Yeah, "featureless," that's a good word. I feel a core of values inside me, and that's the thing I want to live by, and defend if I can. It's not like a rock, but it's something. For me freedom is a big one. I value integrity and individuality, too. What I do with my value is, say, "I strive to be a good person," so I act as a good person in life. Not that I am necessarily doing anything, but I am not being a bad person or violating my values. It's important for me to be able to abide to my value in action, at least not violating it, so I am not just saying words or lying to myself.

I don't think people trample over an empty shell only. They trample over whatever they want. I feel it if I am aware of their action because when you say "trample" it feels like they are physically stepping over my body. I mean it's a feelable attack. Not always able to stand up for myself, though. :/


----------



## Kyusaku

uncertain said:


> roud:
> 
> I am actually not sure if I am an ISFP  I just switched to unknown personality. I am pondering between ISFP and INFJ. What I said in the last post was my attitude toward reality, but I am actually not very grounded. I live in my head a lot, too, so I can't really imagine how anyone can be more ungrounded/unrealistic than me. Maybe the truth is that I don't want to face or think about the real world so I go off into my mind. :S That's sad, and bad. Everyday there's someone inside me makes me look at the real world, so I go back and forth. I am not trying to complain or anything, but just telling how I feel right now.
> 
> That (2nd paragraph) doesn't make sense, sorry, or I don't really understand, because abstract and concrete are opposite to each other. It can feel real, but certainly not more than the concrete world. It's a fact rather than feeling to me. Sometimes I have to remind myself of this fact, too. I need to be alert about not letting intuition crosses the line too much, (_thinking what I am imagining as the reality_) which happens. That seems unhealthy, and I need to stop doing that. I like to read stuff like theory philosophy and I can be very into it but that's just an activity...I don't know. I don't know how I feel about it in relation to reality.
> 
> I think Ne becomes a curse when it allows you to live in your mind and you no longer need to live in the world because the endless possibilities it gives you sustains a life in the abstract mind. But it's a gift if you utilize it in real life and on real problems, real things.
> 
> Se doesn't really work like anything. It just _is. _It's probably the least novel function of the eight. The world exist as a fact, it's an objective existence, whether you like it or not.
> 
> I am not sure if I understand your last paragraph but seems like a good look into an INFPs' world. I am taking it quite literally, but I am guessing you are not being very literal. Yeah, "featureless," that's a good word. I feel a core of values inside me, and that's the thing I want to live by, and defend if I can. It's not like a rock, but it's something. For me freedom is a big one. I value integrity and individuality, too. What I do with my value is, say, "I strive to be a good person," so I act as a good person in life. Not that I am necessarily doing anything, but I am not being a bad person or violating my values. It's important for me to be able to abide to my value in action, at least not violating it, so I am not just saying words or lying to myself.
> 
> I don't think people trample over an empty shell only. They trample over whatever they want. I feel it if I am aware of their action because when you say "trample" it feels like they are physically stepping over my body. I mean it's a feelable attack. Not always able to stand up for myself, though. :/


Yeah, I was a bit extreme in my description, sorry about that ! I guess all introverted people live with various degrees in their own bubble. I get what you mean, the world is like cornering me inside my own mind, because reality is often harsh and unfair, as childish as it is, I want to have as little part in it as I am able to. It is bothersome if anything, not because you need efforts to accomplish something, but because the rewards often feel empty.

Nah, don't worry ! The abstract rings more true and important to me than something concrete. If there is a house in front of my eyes, I won't see it's features for what they are, shapes and colors, but with whatever my mind associate it with. It's hard to explain, it gets wild, because a lot of things pass through my mind, maybe the value of the property depending on the neighborhood, or that the front of the house is the same as in the film I watched and how that ties to this culture, which ties in turn to something else. I'm sorry if this is confusing, it is like picking up a word, taking the last letter of the word and finding a new word that begins with that letter, and repeating that process over and over again. It can potentially never stop. Is that helpful ? :tongue:

And that's the curse of Ne ! Tell me about a banana and I'll think about the Rise of the Merovingian or whatever seemingly random stuff pops into my head ! It makes sense to me, and I can probably trace you how I got there, if you got two hours to spare that is !

That makes a pretty big divide between Se and Ne users sadly ! I have a ISFP friend with whom we sometimes just don't get each other at all, and it's so frustrating because I can feel we come from the same place.

I'm tired, I'm sorry if my reply is a bit limited ! My brain is like fried bacon.  I'll reread your message tomorrow and add/correct stuff to my own !


----------



## FearAndTrembling

arkigos said:


> Sounds like an Fe sentiment to me. Needing an object or a counter-balance to know yourself. I am that way in the sense that I use objects around me to triangulate my own ethical position. In my case, specifically Fi people. My wife, my daughter, my friend. If they are cool with me... if they stick around, if they nod their approval of me, then I am a good man. How else could I know? They are canaries, and if they cannot live in my presence, then it is me who is toxic, though so many would turn on them and call them 'too sensitive'.
> 
> I disagree entirely this principle of duality... one needs A to have Z or whatever.... I mean in a pure philosophical structure, sure. Lots of religions hinge on that very idea. But, just as many would disagree... and you'd find my voice among them. I think that such duality is ultimately a lesser path.
> 
> EDIT: How do you know you are talking to an Intuitive? Things get ridiculously meta ridiculously fast and neither of you even notice. Good times.


Now I am trying to put this together. Is Luke Fi? Cuz I think Obi and Yoda are using Fe. That may be the only time in history that Fe and Fi were able to communicate, and solve things. That is why it was such a saga. 

Luke was conceived by hate. Or his father was hateful, and he refused to believe he came from him, and wanted to destroy evil. But evil is in him too, so when you destroy it, make sure it is not yours first. He thought they were different. They ended up not being so, and united in the end. Through understanding. The emperor was throwing smoke , to hide that. He was error that divides people. Trust in the father. Jung is everywhere in these stories.


----------



## Kyusaku

FearAndTrembling said:


> Now I am trying to put this together. Is Luke Fi? Cuz I think Obi and Yoda are using Fe. That may be the only time in history that Fe and Fi were able to communicate, and solve things. That is why it was such a saga.
> 
> Luke was conceived by hate. Or his father was hateful, and he refused to believe he came from him, and wanted to destroy evil. But evil is in him too, so when you destroy it, make sure it is not yours first. He thought they were different. They ended up not being so, and united in the end. Through understanding. The emperor was throwing smoke , to hide that. He was error that divides people. Trust in the father. Jung is everywhere in these stories.


These characters and that universe were created by a Fi dom though ! George Lucas is typed ISFP. :tongue: The most well known fictions are written by Fi users, whereas Fe users are more well known for their social commentary. Fi synthesize reality into something familiar yet exotic, while Fe faithfully model the known world as it is.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kyusaku said:


> These characters and that universe were created by a Fi dom though ! George Lucas is typed ISFP. :tongue: The most well known fictions are written by Fi users, whereas Fe users are more well known for their social commentary. Fi synthesize reality into something familiar yet exotic, while Fe faithfully model the known world as it is.


Lucas is a puppet of guys like Jung. That's the trick. Jung is pulling all their strings.

"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean."

*“God takes away the minds of poets, and uses them as his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in order that we who hear them may know them to be speaking not of themselves who utter these priceless words in a state of unconsciousness, but that God himself is the speaker, and that through them he is conversing with us. ”*


-Socrates

*“Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purpose through him. As a human being he may have moods and a will and personal aims, but as an artist he is "man" in a higher sense— he is "collective man"— one who carries and shapes the unconscious, psychic forms of mankind.”*


Or water, basically. What Jung is saying about an artist, could be said about a good counselor. Or God. Which Jung and Lee were. They molded people, without leaving anything in them of their own.


----------



## originalsin

Interestingly, my INFP girlfriend and ISFJ mother get along perfectly. My mom's Fe seems to bother her a lot less than it does me.


----------



## BroNerd

I generally get along with Fi users but what bothers me is that Fi users (talking about those with weak Te) often seem very short-term when it comes to their emotions, acting upon the feelings of the moment. To outsiders, the behavior often seems inconsistent and it makes it difficult to really determine how to stay on that person's good side. One minute, one could "love me" and the next minute that same person can "hate me" without me doing anything different.


----------



## Kynx

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know that. But when I thought I was going to die, all that world fell apart. I realize I need other people. It is a truth to me. That is what Jesus did. He died because nobody would save him. Even Jesus needs other people. He needs understanding. They mocked him about his power. "Where is it now? You are a fraud." He did not want to be rescued by power. He refused to be. He only appealed to understanding. He knows what works too. Like Jung, Spinoza, Lee and others. Ethics are written into the universe. Jesus's power was understanding, people think it is physical, seen power. Jesus said he will bring a sword eventually, that destroys all others. That sword is understanding. When understanding rules, Jesus will reign, and there will never be another problem ever again. Jesus proves there is will to power, and not will to love.
> 
> “Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.”
> -Jung. Jesus died because love does not rule. That is everything is messed up. People wanted his power, not his love.


The ego desires power. Control, greed, envy, hate, fear, pride, etc. all exist with the ego. Jesus proved that love exists above & beyond power, because without the ego, all those illusions disappear and then there's only love. When he was stripped of his power and all the other ego wants and desires, his ego suffered and died. The illusion was shattered and then he was able to be reborn. The people couldn't save him. Through dying, he was already being saved.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Neverontime said:


> The ego desires power. Control, greed, envy, hate, fear, pride, etc. all exist with the ego. Jesus proved that love exists above & beyond power, because without the ego, all those illusions disappear and then there's only love. When he was stripped of his power and all the other ego wants and desires, his ego suffered and died. The illusion was shattered and then he was able to be reborn. The people couldn't save him. Through dying, he was already being saved.


I honestly think that just happened to me. Recently. You knew what you were talking about. You beat me.


----------



## yet another intj

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have witnessed it so many times. Fe pushes Fi, and Fi gets angry. That is the total process. The anger of fi, is then channeled back to Fe, and it increases the force pushing on Fi. It's like a particle accelerator, it just gets faster and stronger. It obviously has to end at some point, but here is the key: Fe can walk away with less of the baggage, less dust that is made in that debate. Because they were just a conductor, and will cool down.


I think Fi works like a black hole. It's ridiculously calm and rigid as what it is while also consuming anything and everything that caught by it's gravity. Unfortunately, Fi users always need that swirling soup and it's chaotic intensity around them to feel safe and functional. Something divine and selfish beyond an interactive purpose.



FearAndTrembling said:


> They detach, and walk away. It is still a tornado in Fi, it is hotter. And Fe is always coming back and stirring it. Doesn't even know it. Because they don't feel it. I don't. I get angry to normal in a second. I go with the situation. I cool down. So I am sometimes entering a tornado, and thinking it is just normal weather.


Indeed... I need you to remember what you did to me last year and I can wait for a decade to hear a sincere apology. Just like I will feel guilty for what I did to you last year and I have to work on my apology for a decade. Nothing will be warmed up or cooled down till it's resolved: Fi users awkward sense of chronological devotion. Which is also making us extremely faithful and honest yet I'm not sure if that's a reasonable excuse for sure.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Nobody understands anybody. Because Fi is a person's experience. I don't know that. But I treat them like a cookie cutter, a mean. To strangers anyway. People I know, I get to know better and make more personal profiles. But I basically have a cookie cutter, and apply it to most dough. No dough perfectly fits it. And Fi does somehow have to compromise, and fit in, in some way with the standard.


That's not going to happen... You can't simply agree unless you personally convinced about whatever selfless argument as a Ti user. It's the intellectual version of the very same shortcoming, our own "impossible" expectation from you.



FearAndTrembling said:


> But not with one across the board. It is such delicate thing. It is surgical. Nobody even knows it. The stitches are big and ugly, and everywhere.


A bleeding heart... A metaphor that can't be truly understood by INFJs... Ironically, while they are already capable of curing it faster and better than any other type.

"_Hearts are already busy pumping blood, they can't bleed... Right? That doesn't make sense!_"

Maybe INFJs have bleeding hearts from birth and they don't know the difference between pumping blood and bleeding... Who knows?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

yet another intj said:


> I think Fi works like a black hole. It's ridiculously calm and rigid as what it is while also consuming anything and everything that caught by it's gravity. Unfortunately, Fi users always need that swirling soup and it's chaotic intensity around them to feel safe and functional. Something divine and selfish beyond an interactive purpose.
> 
> 
> Indeed... I need you to remember what you did to me last year and I can wait for a decade to hear a sincere apology. Just like I will feel guilty for what I did to you last year and I have to work on my apology for a decade. Nothing will be warmed up or cooled down till it's resolved: Fi users awkward sense of chronological devotion. Which is also making us extremely faithful and honest yet I'm not sure if that's a reasonable excuse for sure.
> 
> 
> That's not going to happen... You can't simply agree unless you personally convinced about whatever selfless argument as a Ti user. It's the intellectual version of the very same shortcoming, our own "impossible" expectation from you.
> 
> 
> A bleeding heart... A metaphor that can't be truly understood by INFJs... Ironically, while they are already capable of curing it faster and better than any other type.
> 
> "_Hearts are already busy pumping blood, they can't bleed... Right? That doesn't make sense!_"
> 
> Maybe INFJs have bleeding hearts from birth and they don't know the difference between pumping blood and bleeding... Who knows?


Fi is a black hole, in that it doesn't understand itself, or realize it is being controlled by a much more powerful force. Exactly. That is what I am trying to say. Thank you. A blackhole does not exist, it is just gravity running shop to the highest degree. That is what my astronomy professor used to say. Gravity always wins. Why will the Sun go out? Because gravity will win.


----------



## yet another intj

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fi is a black hole, in that it doesn't understand itself, or realize it is being controlled by a much more powerful force. Exactly. That is what I am trying to say. Thank you.


Well... It's not controlled by a much more powerful force. Actually, it's what happens when the force focused on itself. A neverending implosion.



FearAndTrembling said:


> That is what I am trying to say. Thank you. A blackhole does not exist, it is just gravity running shop to the highest degree.


A blackhole "does" exist... Even as our own construct to define an anomaly. By the way, it's beyond the highest degree. Which means it's nothing we can truly understand on a practical level with newtonian physics. You can't start thinking about it's possible content without accepting "quantum nonsense" as the norm.



FearAndTrembling said:


> That is what my astronomy professor used to say. Gravity always wins. Why will the Sun go out? Because gravity will win.


Meh... Not always... I think he's just trying to teach you the basics but anomalies are always made of exceptions.

General Astronomy/Black Holes/Hawking Radiation - Wikibooks, open books for an open world


----------



## FearAndTrembling

yet another intj said:


> Well... It's not controlled by a much more powerful force. Actually, it's the force itself. A neverending implotion.
> 
> 
> A blackhole "does" exist... Even as our own construct to define an anomaly. By the way, it's beyond the highest degree. Which means it's nothing we can truly understand on a practical level with newtonian physics. You can't start thinking about it's possible content without accepting "quantum nonsense" as the norm.
> 
> 
> Meh... Not always... He's just trying to teach you the basics and anomalies are always made of exceptions.
> 
> General Astronomy/Black Holes/Hawking Radiation - Wikibooks, open books for an open world


I don't need to look at any links. Do you think spacetime exists too? Spacetime is gravity too. It is the gravitational field. Everything is in it. That is what Einstein proved. Hawking radiation has never been proven, but even if it was, all it shows is that Fi can escape maximum gravitational control, to lesser gravitational control. Gravity is always there, no matter where it goes. It is spacetime. If you are in spacetime, you are in gravity. It never ends. Which is why one wants to be as far away from a blackhole as possible. lol

I actually said that Fi is action at a distance. Which was Newton, and wrong. Einstein proved it was gravity. Everything is connected.


----------



## yet another intj

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't need to look at any links.


Have a nice day.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't need to look at any links. Do you think spacetime exists too? Spacetime is gravity too. It is the gravitational field. Everything is in it. That is what Einstein proved. Hawking radiation has never been proven, but even if it was, all it shows is that Fi can escape maximum gravitational control, to lesser gravitational control. Gravity is always there, no matter where it goes. It is spacetime. If you are in spacetime, you are in gravity. It never ends. Which is why one wants to be as far away from a blackhole as possible. lol
> 
> I actually said that Fi is action at a distance. Which was Newton, and wrong. Einstein proved it was gravity.* Everything is connected.*


Thats my catchphrase!


----------



## ferroequinologist

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fe tries to create a healthy and functioning ecosystem. Which is the only way life survives.


Correctly speaking, Fe only cares about exerting its will or influence--this can be either a good, healthy environment or something entirely toxic. Fe is _not_ about the "happy" or "togetherness"--one big happy family, per se. It's only about exerting itself outwardly.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

scratch it. redundant post.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fi does not care about the emotional state of others. Exactly. That is not far removed from not caring about others at all.
> 
> Fe tries to create a healthy and functioning ecosystem. Which is the only way life survives.
> 
> Fi, and everything else, does modify the emotional state of others. Whether they think they do or not. There is a causality to all things. Nothing is disconnected, that this causality does not touch. If you don't think you can influence others in this world, I really don't know what you are living for.
> 
> "This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
> 
> -Chief Seattle
> 
> "Workers of all lands, unite. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
> 
> -Karl Marx


This one point struck me in your post. 
"If you don't think you can influence others in this world, I really don't know what you are living for."
*That's Fe*!!! Now what happens if the person/people you aim to influence to manifest/fulfill your *self*-identity does not want to be influenced? or let alone influenced! does not wish to be affected at all?? what then??

at what point does Fe realize that influencing others is its own measurement of self-worth? What happens when it does make that realization?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ferroequinologist said:


> Correctly speaking, Fe only cares about exerting its will or influence--this can be either a good, healthy environment or something entirely toxic. Fe is _not_ about the "happy" or "togetherness"--one big happy family, per se. It's only about exerting itself outwardly.


There are different kinds of Fe. The environment is often toxic, and should be exposed as such. Speaking from an NFJ perspective. We expose the environment for what it is. Then we try to rally people to destroy it. I was thinking of Chuck D. He is using Fe. lol. He is similar to Gandhi. And Marx. I saw Marx listed as an INTJ. Marx is not an INTJ. So, Chuck D documents the environment as he sees it, and makes a call to arms. He connects with others, and tries to drive them somewhere. In one of his most famous songs, he said that "Don't worry, be happy." was a hit for a black guy in the 80s. Chuck D says you can slap him right now if he ever says "don't worry, be happy." It is already a slap in the face to him. And all his people. He fights for them all. 

It might feel good
It might sound a lil' somethin'
But damn the game
If it don't mean nuttin'
What is game who got game
Where's the game
In life
Behind the game
Behind the game
I got game
She got game
We got game
They got game
He got game
It might feel good
It might sound a lil' somethin
But the fuck the game if it ain't saying nothin'

​Fuck the game, let's start a new one. It is not speaking to anybody. 
​


----------



## ferroequinologist

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fi, and everything else, does modify the emotional state of others. Whether they think they do or not. There is a causality to all things.


Correct, and this is why the tension between Fe and Fi. That's a fact of life. But honestly, you would be much happier if you could just learn to let others have their own emotional state, and take care of your own. 




> Nothing is disconnected, that this causality does not touch. If you don't think you can influence others in this world, I really don't know what you are living for.


I find such a sentiment to be nearly reprehensible. You say "influence" I hear "manipulate." It's not a matter of feeling like I can't. If I wanted to, I could--and have--but I find such behavior to be unconscionable under normal, healthy circumstances. Think con men, or someone like a Hitler abusing an entire nation for his own purposes. Sorry, but you act like it is a good thing, but I find it inexcusable to think like that...

On the other hand, I do find myself quite frustrated when I attempt to rationally explain myself, and find people so bound by their emotions that they cannot accept a simple, logical solution, or feel even more frustrated when I find myself incapable of explaining myself rationally, when I know I should be able to--but I cannot bring myself to resort to emotionally manipulating people, even when I know I could--but to do so rationally, and with reason--that is where I find myself weak and incompetent.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ferroequinologist said:


> Correct, and this is why the tension between Fe and Fi. That's a fact of life. But honestly, you would be much happier if you could just learn to let others have their own emotional state, and take care of your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find such a sentiment to be nearly reprehensible. *You say "influence" I hear "manipulate."* It's not a matter of feeling like I can't. If I wanted to, I could--and have--but I find such behavior to be unconscionable under normal, healthy circumstances. Think con men, or someone like a Hitler abusing an entire nation for his own purposes. Sorry, but you act like it is a good thing, but I find it inexcusable to think like that...
> 
> On the other hand,* I do find myself quite frustrated when I attempt to rationally explain myself, and find people so bound by their emotions that they cannot accept a simple, logical solution, or feel even more frustrated when I find myself incapable of explaining myself rationally, when I know I should be able to*--but I cannot bring myself to resort to emotionally manipulating people, even when I know I could--but to do so rationally, and with reason--that is where I find myself weak and incompetent.


are comedians influencers or manipulators? _making_ someone laugh for instance, is an act in which one party purposefully acts to affect another... where is the line?

yep, I hear you, having Te low in the stack is often frustrating.


----------



## ferroequinologist

FearAndTrembling said:


> There are different kinds of Fe. The environment is often toxic, and should be exposed as such. Speaking from an NFJ perspective. We expose the environment for what it is. Then we try to rally people to destroy it. I was thinking of Chuck D. He is using Fe. lol. He is similar to Gandhi. And Marx. I saw Marx listed as an INTJ. Marx is not an INTJ. So, Chuck D documents the environment as he sees it, and makes a call to arms. He connects with others, and tries to drive them somewhere. In one of his most famous songs, he said that "Don't worry, be happy." was a hit for a black guy in the 80s. Chuck D says you can slap him right now if he ever says "don't worry, be happy." It is already a slap in the face to him. And all his people. He fights for them all.


You have a very idealized view of Fe (and INFJs) that just doesn't meet with reality. I find it very difficult to carry on a rational conversation with you, because you insist in idolizing some functions, and seem blind to their dark side, and contrariwise, blind to the positive side of functions you don't find compatible with your idealized view...

I really don't know what to say any further... But I've seen INFJs, both in real life, and on this forum attempt to manipulate people in the most unhealthy way, and they are no better than other types when it comes to that. In fact, looking around the internet, one finds that some of the worst despots of all time were INFJs. You guys don't exactly have a wonderful track record. The only Fe types I find much less prone to this dark side are TPs, but that's probably because they are primarily Ji types, and only drop into Fe in self-defense. 

(If I had to be honest, all Je types are types I tend to struggle with. I sometimes get the impression that they are all far more eager to tell others how to live and what to do, while at the same time be totally ignorant of themselves or lacking in self-awareness... It's a weird paradox--tell others what to do, when they themselves don't understand what they are saying...but I do recognize that this is just me--but I still feel that there is far too much extroverted judging going on today, and it must be unhealthy for a society to be in such a situation).


----------



## ferroequinologist

Fluff'n'Fury said:


> are comedians influencers or manipulators? _making_ someone laugh for instance, is an act in which one party purposefully acts to affect another... where is the line?
> 
> yep, I hear you, having Te low in the stack is often frustrating.


Ironically, it seems that the best comedians are EXTP and EXFP types. Maybe it's a subtle form of passive-aggressiveness. IPs are quite capable of being passive-aggressive, but be totally unaware they are doing it. And in my case (and my wife's), if it's pointed out, we tend to stop.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ferroequinologist said:


> Correct, and this is why the tension between Fe and Fi. That's a fact of life. But honestly, you would be much happier if you could just learn to let others have their own emotional state, and take care of your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find such a sentiment to be nearly reprehensible. You say "influence" I hear "manipulate." It's not a matter of feeling like I can't. If I wanted to, I could--and have--but I find such behavior to be unconscionable under normal, healthy circumstances. Think con men, or someone like a Hitler abusing an entire nation for his own purposes. Sorry, but you act like it is a good thing, but I find it inexcusable to think like that...
> 
> On the other hand, I do find myself quite frustrated when I attempt to rationally explain myself, and find people so bound by their emotions that they cannot accept a simple, logical solution, or feel even more frustrated when I find myself incapable of explaining myself rationally, when I know I should be able to--but I cannot bring myself to resort to emotionally manipulating people, even when I know I could--but to do so rationally, and with reason--that is where I find myself weak and incompetent.


Hitler was not created out of thin air. He was carved out of the conditions of the environment. He had to exist. There is that causality again. Hitler is proof that evil exists. Like Tolstoy said, a King is history's slave. We blame Hitler, but we allow him. He is OUR mistake. 

*There are two sides to the life of every man, his individual life, which is the more free the more abstract its interests, and his elemental hive life in which he inevitably obeys laws laid down for him.*

*
Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action.*
*"The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord."*
*A king is history's slave.*
*History, that is, the unconscious, general, hive life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.*


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

ferroequinologist said:


> Ironically, it seems that the best comedians are EXTP and EXFP types. Maybe it's a subtle form of passive-aggressiveness. IPs are quite capable of being passive-aggressive, but be totally unaware they are doing it. And in my case (and my wife's), if it's pointed out, we tend to stop.


haha... but does it have a positive or a negative connotation? affecting people who don't mind being affected?


----------



## ferroequinologist

FearAndTrembling said:


> Hitler was not created out of thin air. He was carved out of the conditions of the environment. He had to exist. There is that causality again. Hitler is proof that evil exists. Like Tolstoy said, a King is history's slave. We blame Hitler, but we allow him. He is OUR mistake.


As I said, an idealized view....

But just think, if there were no Fe, there would have been no Hitler... now that's a comforting, idealized thought. :-D


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ferroequinologist said:


> As I said, an idealized view....
> 
> But just think, if there were no Fe, there would have been no Hitler... now that's a comforting, idealized thought. :-D


I have said that Fe reflects the emotions of those around them. Or reflects the environment. Hitler cannot arise without conditions that allow him to arise. Germany was bitter, and Hitler was an avatar of that.


----------



## ferroequinologist

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have said that Fe reflects the emotions of those around them. Or reflects the environment. Hitler cannot arise without conditions that allow him to arise. Germany was bitter, and Hitler was an avatar of that.


Well, I certainly think we've illustrated why Fe and Fi can't get along.


----------



## O_o

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fi does not care about the emotional state of others. Exactly. That is not far removed from not caring about others at all.


:dry: You really never fail to impress me with your conclusions sometimes, honestly, as much as I enjoy talking to you. Auto speaking of Fi is speaking and representing all.


----------



## Kebachi

CourtneyJD said:


> I'm going to act like the proper little Fi that I am and use my own personal experiences to color my perception of the world: Fi and Fe don't inherently hate each other, and moreso: Fi in a Fi-dom will be different than Fi in a Fi-aux, and the same is true for Fe. Simply stating they are at war is inaccurate. An ENFP's Fi is completely different from an INFP's Fi, and within those types Fi will pick up on different things to absorb into their personal values. Some people's Fe causes them to be pushy as has been stated, but some people's Fe makes them understand that pushiness can alienate people and disrupt the very social harmony they are trying to protect. Furthermore, I have found that in my own life, my friends are equally distributed between Fe and Fi. Even if all of my friends were all Fi users and I shunned all Fe users, that would not really indicate any inherent causality that Fi gets "overfed" by Fe and blows up.


If I could thank this post a thousand times I would.

This thread is yet another reminder that it's best to not take one's cues on MBTI from the interwebs. It's too perverted by so many individual's personal experiences and perspectives. All the facts are lost in bias.


----------



## ferroequinologist

O_o said:


> :dry: You really never fail to impress me with your conclusions sometimes, honestly, as much as I enjoy talking to you. Auto speaking of Fi is speaking and representing all.


Yeah. The irony is that I had just shown how this is not true, but he just ignores that. Not desiring to mold someone else's emotional state does not equate to not caring...


----------



## Du Toit

*Simply* stated, Fe tries to have the blanket shared evenly, while Fi tries to pull it towards it (Fi).

Does that mean Fi is not capable of sharing the blanket ? No. That means sharing the blanket is dependent on *how Fi feels about it*.

But *both need* *(and should have)* *the blanket*, so _it's never arguable at all._

Fi wants to be *treated as the unique entity that it is*, but *only Fi* knows Fi. That's why Fe will approach Fi from an *universally efficient* manner, because that *ensures a greater likability of pleasing Fi.* Fi gets upset that Fe couldn't figure things out; Fe gets upset that its attempts at doing good were met with negativity. Both rush back home, Fe trying to understand what it could've done better; while Fi is thinking about how Fe could've done better.

Fi and Fe are in a room. Both like to blast music really loud. Both are listening different songs at a time, so it would be impossible for either of them to enjoy the music. Fe consequently play music at low volume (expecting Fi to do the same), Fi doesn't care. For it, it's *all or nothing*. But given that both want to play their music, *compromising is the only way to make it possible.* Fe sees *compromising as the only way to -partially- satisfy both,* *Fi sees it as Fe trying to assert itself. Fi is likely to see Fe as controlling because of this.*

Fe gathers this all, trying to make sense out of things. But it can't. There's only so much Fe is able to know, or infer correctly. *Fe starts feeling inadequate* and *resort to being manipulative, pushy, etc - thinking that it will facilitate things*; but that only makes things worse.

On the long run, *Fe ends-up hating Fi because it's never good enough for it; Fi ends-up hating on Fe because it's never doing good enough.*

PS: - This is describing the functions independently of how they interact with the rest.
- I'm not saying that Fi (on its own) lacks the ability to see the other person needs, but how it goes about that depends on purely personal rules.
- How you exhibit either Fi or Fe traits depends on where it sits in your functions' stack, your environment, and your level of awareness.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

O_o said:


> :dry: You really never fail to impress me with your conclusions sometimes, honestly, as much as I enjoy talking to you. Auto speaking of Fi is speaking and representing all.


I know you care about people. Everybody is different. But when a person says they are not responsible for another person's emotional states, I don't know what else to make of it. People influence other people. Even in their absence. Like I said about the planets and Sun. They all exert force on each other. Gravity never ends. It is the weakest force, but it is what formed the universe. We win small battles against it everyday, but it will win in the long run. The planets are like that, because they have to be. It is the only way they can exist. That is why the heavens are such a great model for Earth. It is all there. I know it can work. 

You said Ne and Fi is all about possibilities. Somebody said all of history is one immortal man who continually learns. I am tending to that man. That man has to do something with his knowledge. Like Yoda and Obi Wan protecting the force. They protect the force. It must be pure. It is what passes on, not the individual. Luke resisted them, but they were right. Yoda and Obi are using Ti and Fe. They mold Luke into what a Jedi should be. There is only one way to become a Jedi. Obi kills himself in front of Luke, because that is what it takes. Luke needs hate. He has to go through darkness, to recognize light.


----------



## O_o

ferroequinologist said:


> Yeah. The irony is that I had just shown how this is not true, but he just ignores that. Not desiring to mold someone else's emotional state does not equate to not caring...


In general though;

This is the exact sort of stuff which leads others to confusion. Because other people are reading this. And other people are getting confused because they're buying into it. And the theme is always very similar ; Fi is self focused because it's values are crafted internally. SO then why on earth do these values have to be self-focused too? 

I think there is a misinterpretation about what it means to not want to mold someone else's emotional state. 

I wouldn't say it's so much their emotional state as it is other people's values. To be honest, I do have a strong desire to mold someone else's emotional state is they're depressed or feeling negatively! If you care about someone, why would you ever want them to stay in that state? I could think anyone, regardless of Fi or Fe, would intervene and try to comfort someone they care about in the best way they know how.


----------



## O_o

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know you care about people. Everybody is different. But when a person says they are not responsible for another person's emotional states, I don't know what else to make of it. People influence other people. Even in their absence. Like I said about the planets and Sun. They all exert force on each other. Gravity never ends. It is the weakest force, but it is what formed the universe. We win small battles against it everyday, but it will win in the long run. The planets are like that, because they have to be. It is the only way they can exist. That is why the heavens are such a great model for Earth. It is all there. I know it can work.
> 
> You said Ne and Fi is all about possibilities. Somebody said all of history is one immortal man who continually learns. I am tending to that man. That man has to do something with his knowledge. Like Yoda and Obi Wan protecting the force. They protect the force. It must be pure. It is what passes on, not the individual. Luke resisted them, but they were right. Yoda and Obi are using Ti and Fe. They mold Luke into what a Jedi should be. There is only one way to become a Jedi. Obi kills himself in front of Luke, because that is what it takes. Luke needs hate. He has to go through darkness, to recognize light.


Like I mentioned above ; I think the wording is wrong. I don't care to intervene with people's values because, just like they're personal for me, then let them be for others

Being responsible for someone's emotional state is something else. That's emotions not values. If someone is feelings like shit and someone cares about them, I would think it's irrelevant whether that person is using Fi or Fe. Wouldn't both like to intervene? I'm more than capable and willing to sacrificing my own happiness for the happiness of another and put time and effort into intervening if they need me.

One really can't speak for Fi on it's own because Fi doesn't exist on it's own. It exists in different forms and ways in everyone. So once it's kind of dissected like that and given a life on it's own, it becomes so easy to causes misunderstandings. People get confused. People start looking away from it because it's viewed as some "selfish/self focused" function; as if it's sole person is towards it's own happiness and peace, regardless of others.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Laf said:


> *Simply* stated, Fe tries to have the blanket shared evenly, while Fi tries to pull it towards it (Fi).
> 
> Does that mean Fi is not capable of sharing the blanket ? No. That means sharing the blanket is dependent on *how Fi feels about it*.
> 
> But *both need* *(and should have)* *the blanket*, so _it's never arguable at all._


_

_That is a highly subjective, i.e. one-sided analogy. How about a different analogy. Fi and Fe each have their own blanket, but then, your analogy would break down, because why share? And the answer would be correct. Why? There is no reason. 




> Fi wants to be *treated as the unique entity that it is*, but *only Fi* knows Fi. That's why Fe will approach Fi from an *universally efficient* manner, because that *ensures a greater likability of pleasing Fi.* Fi gets upset that Fe couldn't figure things out; Fe gets upset that its attempts at doing good were met with negativity. Both rush back home, Fe trying to understand what it could've done better; while Fi is thinking about how Fe could've done better.


Fi just wants to be left alone, but Fe can't stand the thought that Fi could have something that Fe wants, so Fe forces itself upon Fi... 




> Fi and Fe are in a room. Both like to blast music really loud. Both are listening different songs at a time, so it would be impossible for either of them to enjoy the music. Fe consequently play music at low volume (expecting Fi to do the same), Fi doesn't care. For it, it's *all or nothing*. But given that both want to play their music, *compromising is the only way to make it possible.* Fe sees *compromising as the only way to -partially- satisfy both,* *Fi sees it as Fe trying to assert itself. Fi is likely to see Fe as controlling because of this.*


Fi wants to listen with headphones, but Fe wants to listen too, but when Fi plays the music through the speakers, Fe is unhappy with Fi's choices, so it wants to change the music. But Fi says that Fe could listen to its own music, but Fe complains because it wants to "share" the experience, not really paying attention to the fact that Fi doesn't want to share Fe's music, and would just as soon listen on its own without Fe interfering, and then, Fe goes and sulks that Fi won't share.



> Fe gathers this all, trying to make sense out of things. But it can't. There's only so much Fe is able to know, or infer correctly. *Fe starts feeling inadequate* and *resort to being manipulative, pushy, etc - thinking that it will facilitate things*; but that only makes things worse.
> 
> On the long run, *Fe ends-up hating Fi because it's never good enough for it; Fi ends-up hating on Fe because it's never doing good enough.*


Fe can't understand why Fi just wants to be left alone. It wants to "share" how it's feeling, and wants to make sure everybody feels just like it. It doesn't understand why it doesn't feel good anymore, and insists that Fi fix things, when the real problem was Fe's fault in the first place, for not leaving Fi alone. There are other Fe-types around with which to "bond", but no, Fe insists that Fi join in on the "fun", and Fe keeps insisting, and pushing around Fi, berating it for not cooperating, or being "normal" or "behaving" like a good person, until finally, in desperation, Fi explodes or strikes back like a cornered wild animal, not because it wanted to, and even despite not wanting to, but because it has become confused and enraged by the noise, noise, noise noise, and the pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing. 

In the end, both sides are hurt--Fe because--I don't know why... Why is the person mad at the raccoon that bit him? It was the person's fault, not the raccoon's. And Fe is hurt because they did something they didn't want to, and they will walk away feeling guilty and blaming themselves for the whole thing, and hating on themselves (because that is almost always how it ends after the confrontation is over--not hating on the other, but on self for losing control and hurting someone else--but being incapable of doing anything about it--if Fi tries to apologize, they'll just open up the whole issue again, and it will end up right back where they were that caused the whole blow-up, so better to just remain silent.)

And _that_ is how it looks from Fi's perspective... So blame Fi if you want, or blame both sides if you want, but always, in the end, Fi will just blame itself, and there's nothing you can do about it...


----------



## kitsu

Assign people differences and you can be sure they'll find ways to beat each other up for them. Because of course, acceptance, patience and mutual understanding is just bullshit for hippies right?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

O_o said:


> Like I mentioned above ; I think the wording is wrong. I don't care to intervene with people's values because, just like they're personal for me, then let them be for others
> 
> Being responsible for someone's emotional state is something else. That's emotions not values. If someone is feelings like shit and someone cares about them, I would think it's irrelevant whether that person is using Fi or Fe. Wouldn't both like to intervene? I'm more than capable and willing to sacrificing my own happiness for the happiness of another and put time and effort into intervening if they need me.
> 
> One really can't speak for Fi on it's own because Fi doesn't exist on it's own. It exists in different forms and ways in everyone. So once it's kind of dissected like that and given a life on it's own, it becomes so easy to causes misunderstandings. People get confused. People start looking away from it because it's viewed as some "selfish/self focused" function; as if it's sole person is towards it's own happiness and peace, regardless of others.


I need to stop talking and thinking so much about this stuff. lol. One last point. A previous poster mentioned that Fi is never good enough for Fe. This can be seen in Jesus vs God. God wants results. God is the ultimate Fe. Jesus said give these people one more chance. More possibilities. Give them freedom. Jesus only got himself killed, and proved God right. 

I am not claiming anything I say is true. It is a poetic description of the world. Jung described God as "the highest value". It is what the world should be like. We put it in the sky, and it is eternal, while the world can do whatever. The highest value can never be touched. It is also eternity or the kingdom of God. Ni-Fe can want to merge heaven and earth. Time with eternity. Bring the kingdom of God. The story has a climax, and a happy ending. They want to construct it. Make it happen. Fe does construct, like you said. I think Jung said that about Te. It is constructive. It has an end. It applies to Fe as well.


----------



## ferroequinologist

O_o said:


> In general though;
> 
> This is the exact sort of stuff which leads others to confusion. Because other people are reading this. And other people are getting confused because they're buying into it. And the theme is always very similar ; Fi is self focused because it's values are crafted internally. SO then why on earth do these values have to be self-focused too?
> 
> I think there is a misinterpretation about what it means to not want to mold someone else's emotional state.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's so much their emotional state as it is other people's values. To be honest, I do have a strong desire to mold someone else's emotional state is they're depressed or feeling negatively! If you care about someone, why would you ever want them to stay in that state? I could think anyone, regardless of Fi or Fe, would intervene and try to comfort someone they care about in the best way they know how.


Good point there at the end. I prefer to say that I don't want to, or can't directly change someone's emotional state. It is indirectly that I try--not directly through words. Maybe Fi types with Ne have it easier, but I can't. I prefer through action--getting them a tea, or running to the store, or buying them lunch, or... Actually, one thing I love to do (and I probably shouldn't mention it) is if someone is begging, or asks me for some money for food--I take them to a restaurant or store, and buy them the best meal or two I can--making sure they get lots of protein/meat and good vegetables. I don't know when they'll get another good, round meal, so I make sure that what I give them will do them as well as it can. I'm not skimpy when helping people.

To go back to the "self-focused" part. One irony I see is that, if we are introverted judgers, that means we are extroverted perceivers. What this entails is that we judge inwardly, based on external data. In other words, our judgments are subjective judgments, based on objective perceptions. In other words, while our judgments themselves are very personalized, what we are judging upon is the objective world, as it comes in to us directly. 

Extroverted judgers, on the other hand, base their outwardly focused judgments, based on subjective, personalized projections of the objective world--their judgments are, in fact, more subjective than introverted judgments. The difference really only effects the object of the judging. They judge others based on subjective criteria, while introverted judgers, judge themselves based on objective criteria. Viewed in that light... if I had to choose, I'd choose the introverted judger over extroverted. I prefer my unadorned view of the world around me, vs. a more colored/distorted view. I know I can act very impulsively and rashly, but the tradeoff is that I can enjoy a sunset in its purest form, or the laughter of a child, or the joy of watching kids play in the playground, or the beauty of our natural world--all devoid of the prejudices and biases that others I know tend to apply to things. I know people who think that the best period of history was the Victorian era, and they compare everything to that--or the 50s in America, or the 60s... I can't do that. This is the world I live in, and I'll take that, and throttle it with both hands, thank you. 

And I'll use that to guide me in how I look at others--I can see what you are doing... I may not understand your motives, but I know when you are lying. I know when you are cheating. I know when you are truly joyful, etc. I can see it all. And if I know you, I probably know a lot more about you than even you know about yourself--just give me time. And then, I will, if necessary, base how I act around you, based on that--and those who are not nasty will get the best of me I can give them.


----------



## Du Toit

ferroequinologist said:


> [/I]That is a highly subjective, i.e. one-sided analogy. How about a different analogy. Fi and Fe each have their own blanket, but then, your analogy would break down, because why share? And the answer would be correct. Why? There is no reason.


What is being subjective ?
Also, the analogy is the suitable one because it illustrate how Fe and Fi would react when it comes to situations when they have to *share*. 



> Fi just wants to be left alone, but Fe can't stand the thought that Fi could have something that Fe wants, so Fe forces itself upon Fi...


Faulty perception, which I addressed below (*''Fi sees it as Fe trying to assert itself. Fi is likely to see Fe as controlling because of this.''*)
Fi and Fe have to *coexist*, but Fi is quiet and wants to be left alone while still getting cared about by Fe. Fe can't read Fi, because *only Fi knows Fi*, so Fe addresses Fi in universal terms (which are not Fe OR Fi btw) because that *ensures a greater probability of Fi being pleased.*






> Fi wants to listen with headphones, but Fe wants to listen too, but when Fi plays the music through the speakers, Fe is unhappy with Fi's choices, so it wants to change the music. But Fi says that Fe could listen to its own music, but Fe complains because it wants to "share" the experience, not really paying attention to the fact that Fi doesn't want to share Fe's music, and would just as soon listen on its own without Fe interfering, and then, Fe goes and sulks that Fi won't share.


You are not directly addressing my reply, but merely reframing it. There's a reason why I chose those examples. I'm trying to illustrate how Fi and Fe act in *specific* instances.





> Fe can't understand why Fi just wants to be left alone. It wants to "share" how it's feeling, and wants to make sure everybody feels just like it. It doesn't understand why it doesn't feel good anymore, and insists that Fi fix things, when the real problem was Fe's fault in the first place, for not leaving Fi alone. There are other Fe-types around with which to "bond", but no, Fe insists that Fi join in on the "fun", and Fe keeps insisting, and pushing around Fi, berating it for not cooperating, or being "normal" or "behaving" like a good person, until finally, in desperation, Fi explodes or strikes back like a cornered wild animal, not because it wanted to, and even despite not wanting to, but because it has become confused and enraged by the noise, noise, noise noise, and the pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing.


Again, you are completely reframing my reply.



> In the end, both sides are hurt--Fe because--I don't know why... Why is the person mad at the raccoon that bit him? It was the person's fault, not the raccoon's. And Fe is hurt because they did something they didn't want to, and they will walk away feeling guilty and blaming themselves for the whole thing, and hating on themselves (because that is almost always how it ends after the confrontation is over--not hating on the other, but on self for losing control and hurting someone else--but being incapable of doing anything about it--if Fi tries to apologize, they'll just open up the whole issue again, and it will end up right back where they were that caused the whole blow-up, so better to just remain silent.)


I don't even know where to start off with this...
You've changed the perspective of my post, so I'll address this part only when we've gotten back on track.


----------



## O_o

ferroequinologist said:


> Good point there at the end. I prefer to say that I don't want to, or can't directly change someone's emotional state. It is indirectly that I try--not directly through words. Maybe Fi types with Ne have it easier, but I can't. I prefer through action--getting them a tea, or running to the store, or buying them lunch, or... Actually, one thing I love to do (and I probably shouldn't mention it) is if someone is begging, or asks me for some money for food--I take them to a restaurant or store, and buy them the best meal or two I can--making sure they get lots of protein/meat and good vegetables. I don't know when they'll get another good, round meal, so I make sure that what I give them will do them as well as it can. I'm not skimpy when helping people.
> 
> To go back to the "self-focused" part. One irony I see is that, if we are introverted judgers, that means we are extroverted perceivers. What this entails is that we judge inwardly, based on external data. In other words, our judgments are subjective judgments, based on objective perceptions. In other words, while our judgments themselves are very personalized, what we are judging upon is the objective world, as it comes in to us directly.
> 
> Extroverted judgers, on the other hand, base their outwardly focused judgments, based on subjective, personalized projections of the objective world--their judgments are, in fact, more subjective than introverted judgments. The difference really only effects the object of the judging. They judge others based on subjective criteria, while introverted judgers, judge themselves based on objective criteria. Viewed in that light... if I had to choose, I'd choose the introverted judger over extroverted. I prefer my unadorned view of the world around me, vs. a more colored/distorted view. I know I can act very impulsively and rashly, but the tradeoff is that I can enjoy a sunset in its purest form, or the laughter of a child, or the joy of watching kids play in the playground, or the beauty of our natural world--all devoid of the prejudices and biases that others I know tend to apply to things. I know people who think that the best period of history was the Victorian era, and they compare everything to that--or the 50s in America, or the 60s... I can't do that. This is the world I live in, and I'll take that, and throttle it with both hands, thank you.
> 
> And I'll use that to guide me in how I look at others--I can see what you are doing... I may not understand your motives, but I know when you are lying. I know when you are cheating. I know when you are truly joyful, etc. I can see it all. And if I know you, I probably know a lot more about you than even you know about yourself--just give me time. And then, I will, if necessary, base how I act around you, based on that--and those who are not nasty will get the best of me I can give them.


Yet still, that is still a method of effort, whether it is verbal or through action (I approach through speech) but efforts are focused towards the other individual; you see they aren't feeling well and you hope to influence this mood by trying to make them more comfortable (whether that is through making them tea, running to the store for them). 

And you bring up a very interesting point; subjective and objective because there is always both. It's interesting how Se vs Ne might influence this; in my mind it seems much more blurred because there is the rough, overall "what is" and the multiple "what it might also be" all lined up next to each other simultaneously. So with each there is a unique perspective; I would think we both miss what the other sees.


----------



## O_o

FearAndTrembling said:


> I need to stop talking and thinking so much about this stuff. lol. One last point. A previous poster mentioned that Fi is never good enough for Fe. This can be seen in Jesus vs God. God wants results. God is the ultimate Fe. Jesus said give these people one more chance. More possibilities. Give them freedom. Jesus only got himself killed, and proved God right.
> 
> I am not claiming anything I say is true. It is a poetic description of the world. Jung described God as "the highest value". It is what the world should be like. We put it in the sky, and it is eternal, while the world can do whatever. The highest value can never be touched. It is also eternity or the kingdom of God. Ni-Fe can want to merge heaven and earth. Time with eternity. Bring the kingdom of God. The story has a climax, and a happy ending. They want to construct it. Make it happen. Fe does construct, like you said. I think Jung said that about Te. It is constructive. It has an end. It applies to Fe as well.


It's interesting because that craft is by people. A whole culture came together to craft that ideal; God is what was crafted. It is one of the largest representations of Fe on earth. It can't be anything else if It was crafted by the whole. Any God is the values a whole culture has crafted and chosen to therefore value; there is no better example of Fe, I would imagine. The spread of a religion is the spread of objective values, in a way. 

But in a sense... it makes one wonder. Did these values exist before... before whatever God came to rule over the people. Was He crafted out of the values already existing in the society, or by an individual. An individual with their own unique values which they wished their society to value as well?


----------



## ferroequinologist

Laf said:


> What is being subjective ?
> Also, the analogy is the suitable one because it illustrate how Fe and Fi would react when it comes to situations when they have to *share*.


It is subjective because you are making it one-sided--why does it have to be that sharing is necessary? Especially because, if I had to share a blanket, I would be far more likely to let you have the whole blanket rather than both of us be miserable... But we aren't talking about sharing _things_, and so your analogy just doesn't fit... it just sounds weird--because _sharing_ is something that Fi is all about if there's a need (actually, a better term would be sacrifice--but that gets into wholly different territory), but Fe is _only_ about "share and share alike" but far too often, in my experience, it says "you need to share with me." And I could share real-life stories about how Fe types tend to try to make others feel guilty so that they will "share" with them... And I will tell you, I have literally slept on floors, gone without blankets because Fe types put the screws to me, so please, don't tell me that Fe is about sharing and Fi isn't... 



> Faulty perception, which I addressed below (*''*Fi sees it as Fe trying to assert itself. Fi is likely to see Fe as controlling because of this.'')
> Fi and Fe have to coexist, but Fi is quiet and wants to be left alone *while still getting cared about by Fe*. Fe can't read Fi, because only Fi knows Fi, so Fe addresses Fi in universal terms (which are not Fe OR Fi btw) because that ensures a greater probability of Fi being pleased.


I've bolded your faulty assumption... Fi isn't asking Fe to care for it! Fe is _insisting_ it care for Fi, while Fi is saying "Just stop already!" But Fe insists despite that--because how could Fi not want Fe to care? This is a huge part of the premise that you don't see that you are getting wrong! And again--real life examples if I had to--many times Fe types have pretty much forced me to accept their help, not because I needed it, but to make them feel better--to make them feel like they were helping. Fe needs to be needed. And Fe can't imagine that someone would not want to be helped, nor want to help Fe by letting Fe help them. It's twisted, I tell you...
(actually, INFPs might want to find a way to give everybody a blanket, and the ISFP would just give away his own blanket, so this isn't entirely accurate, other than the fact that there is absolutely no reason why Fi would be selfish with his blanket)

Look, the premise is simple. Fe judges (acts on) others, Fi judges (acts on) self--extrovert vs. introvert. You try to describe things beyond that, and you get the sort of mess that you are creating--false assumptions, false dichotomies, etc. 



> You are not directly addressing my reply, but merely reframing it. There's a reason why I chose those examples. I'm trying to illustrate how Fi and Fe act in *specific* instances.


Of course I'm reframing it! You shared a one-sided perspective, and are totally misrepresenting the Fi side. If you could re-read my post as an Fi view of the things you are talking about, you will see that this was my point--reframing it with a more honest Fi perspective. If I make Fe sound bad--well, that's because that is how it is from an Fi perspective... You might say that I was returning the favor as well.  

I suggest trying again, only this time, start with my Fi perspective, and your Fe perspective, and _combine_ the two... Maybe you'll get close to reality, but honestly, your specific examples just don't work. I had hoped you would get that from my first post, but I guess I have to spell it out in black and white...

(and really--sharing a blanket??? I'm still a bit taken aback on that one... That was just too insulting for words. I don't think you realize how much giving and taking Fi people do for Fe types. We bend and mold all day long, silently attempting to go along with all kinds of garbage until someone pushes us too far--and then _we_ get blamed for not sharing a blanket???)

It's late. I'm tired. I'm going to bed... I suppose I shouldn't send this, but I doubt I could sleep if I didn't get this out...


----------



## Du Toit

ferroequinologist said:


> It is subjective because you are making it one-sided--why does it have to be that sharing is necessary? Especially because, if I had to share a blanket, I would be far more likely to let you have the whole blanket rather than both of us be miserable... But we aren't talking about sharing _things_, and so your analogy just doesn't fit... it just sounds weird--because _sharing_ is something that Fi is all about if there's a need (actually, a better term would be sacrifice--but that gets into wholly different territory), but Fe is _only_ about "share and share alike" but far too often, in my experience, it says "you need to share with me." And I could share real-life stories about how Fe types tend to try to make others feel guilty so that they will "share" with them... And I will tell you, I have literally slept on floors, gone without blankets because Fe types put the screws to me, so please, don't tell me that Fe is about sharing and Fi isn't...


Again, I chose those *particular* examples to highlight how the function would behave in those *specific* circumstances (Edit: And the blanket analogy was covering the overall functioning of Fi and Fe).Also, even if we had to adopt your perspective, your argument would still be invalid because you are *trying to disprove an idea on the basis of exceptional cases* (Just because *you* don't fit into a general rule doesn't make it any less true).

Btw here is something I made sure to state earlier.


> Does that mean Fi is not capable of sharing the blanket ? No. That means sharing the blanket is dependent on how Fi feels about it.





> I've bolded your faulty assumption... Fi isn't asking Fe to care for it! Fe is _insisting_ it care for Fi, while Fi is saying "Just stop already!" But Fe insists despite that--because how could Fi not want Fe to care? This is a huge part of the premise that you don't see that you are getting wrong! And again--real life examples if I had to--many times Fe types have pretty much forced me to accept their help, not because I needed it, but to make them feel better--to make them feel like they were helping. Fe needs to be needed. And Fe can't imagine that someone would not want to be helped, nor want to help Fe by letting Fe help them. It's twisted, I tell you...
> (actually, INFPs might want to find a way to give everybody a blanket, and the ISFP would just give away his own blanket, so this isn't entirely accurate, other than the fact that there is absolutely no reason why Fi would be selfish with his blanket)
> 
> Look, the premise is simple. Fe judges (acts on) others, Fi judges (acts on) self--extrovert vs. introvert. You try to describe things beyond that, and you get the sort of mess that you are creating--false assumptions, false dichotomies, etc.


I don't know how I can be faulty when you're the one going off a tangent. Again, I chose the case where Fe and Fi *have to coexist* (Fi is asking to be taken care of) to *highlight how Fi and Fe would act in those instances.*






> Of course I'm reframing it! You shared a one-sided perspective, and are totally misrepresenting the Fi side. If you could re-read my post as an Fi view of the things you are talking about, you will see that this was my point--reframing it with a more honest Fi perspective. If I make Fe sound bad--well, that's because that is how it is from an Fi perspective... You might say that I was returning the favor as well.
> 
> I suggest trying again, only this time, start with my Fi perspective, and your Fe perspective, and _combine_ the two... Maybe you'll get close to reality, but honestly, your specific examples just don't work. I had hoped you would get that from my first post, but I guess I have to spell it out in black and white...
> 
> (and really--sharing a blanket??? I'm still a bit taken aback on that one... That was just too insulting for words. I don't think you realize how much giving and taking Fi people do for Fe types. We bend and mold all day long, silently attempting to go along with all kinds of garbage until someone pushes us too far--and then _we_ get blamed for not sharing a blanket???)
> 
> It's late. I'm tired. I'm going to bed... I suppose I shouldn't send this, but I doubt I could sleep if I didn't get this out...


You are missing the whole point. I really think you might want to read about each cognitive functions individually because you are denying the nature of Fe and Fi. I'm not making Fi look bad, I'm describing Fi. If that implies making Fi bad, so be it; but that's not my intention.

If you want to give your take on Fe and Fi, by all means do so. But *do not confuse functions and types*; answer my reply directly first, or reply to the OP.

And how do you know I am not describing this from a Fi-perspective ?

Btw I said that *how Fi and Fe manifest themselves in the person depends on other factors*, but you seem to have ignored that, because you keep mentioning personal experiences in your posts.



> PS: - This is describing the functions independently of how they interact with the rest.
> - I'm not saying that Fi (on its own) lacks the ability to see the other person needs, but how it goes about that depends on purely personal rules.
> - How you exhibit either Fi or Fe traits depends on where it sits in your functions' stack, your environment, and your level of awareness.


----------



## The Hungry One

ferroequinologist said:


> I suggest trying again, only this time, start with my Fi perspective, and your Fe perspective, and _combine_ the two... Maybe you'll get close to reality, but honestly,* your specific examples just don't work*. I had hoped you would get that from my first post, but I guess I have to spell it out in black and white...
> 
> (and *really--sharing a blanket???* I'm still a bit taken aback on that one... That was just too insulting for words. I don't think you realize how much giving and taking Fi people do for Fe types. We bend and mold all day long, silently attempting to go along with all kinds of garbage until someone pushes us too far--and then _we_ get blamed for not sharing a blanket???)


 Agreed.


----------



## Grandalf

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yup, you summed up pretty well why I want to murder most of the FJs I know :laughing:


I will join your noble crusade against conformity. For us, for earth, for mankind....


----------



## ferroequinologist

Laf said:


> I don't know how I can be faulty when you're the one going off a tangent. Again, I chose the case where Fe and Fi *have to coexist* (Fi is asking to be taken care of) to *highlight how Fi and Fe would act in those instances.*


I will put it shortly. There is absolutely no "how Fi and Fe _would_ act in _any_ instances. How you are portraying/describing the difference between Fi and Fe is flawed. You are coloring it, whether you see it that way or not. What I am doing is _countering_ your coloring with my own. I'm not attempting to be be balanced. I'm attempting to bring balance. I find your inability to see that to be quite... um... enlightening? Yeah, I'll call it that--enlightening.

I'll repeat myself. Fi is about judging oneself, and Fe is about judging others. 



> Look, the premise is simple. Fe judges (acts on) others, Fi judges (acts on) self--extrovert vs. introvert. You try to describe things beyond that, and you get the sort of mess that you are creating--false assumptions, false dichotomies, etc.




It's really nothing more than that. It is just like Ti and Te in that respect.


Edit:
You know what, I just realized that you really aren't worth my time. Go ahead, think what you want about Fi. I don't really care, and it doesn't change my life in any way what you think, whether right or wrong. This is a dumb argument, and I was stupid to let myself get into it, and it's a waste of my time. Think what you want. It's cool.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

FearAndTrembling said:


> I need to stop talking and thinking so much about this stuff. lol. One last point. A previous poster mentioned that Fi is never good enough for Fe. This can be seen in Jesus vs God. God wants results. God is the ultimate Fe. Jesus said give these people one more chance. More possibilities. Give them freedom. Jesus only got himself killed, and proved God right.
> 
> I am not claiming anything I say is true. It is a poetic description of the world. Jung described God as "the highest value". It is what the world should be like. We put it in the sky, and it is eternal, while the world can do whatever. The highest value can never be touched. It is also eternity or the kingdom of God. Ni-Fe can want to merge heaven and earth. Time with eternity. Bring the kingdom of God. The story has a climax, and a happy ending. They want to construct it. Make it happen. Fe does construct, like you said. I think Jung said that about Te. It is constructive. It has an end. It applies to Fe as well.


I don't know what I am getting myself into here, but had a similar conversation with an xNFJ recently, and she said something very beautiful. She said "God created man in his own image, by instilling a divine spirit into man, but then man created God in his own image -- a God imposing limitations upon his creator" ;-)) A fun spin on the Fi/Fe issue?


----------



## Du Toit

ferroequinologist said:


> I will put it shortly. There is absolutely no "how Fi and Fe _would_ act in _any_ instances. How you are portraying/describing the difference between Fi and Fe is flawed. You are coloring it, whether you see it that way or not. What I am doing is _countering_ your coloring with my own. I'm not attempting to be be balanced. I'm attempting to bring balance. I find your inability to see that to be quite... um... enlightening? Yeah, I'll call it that--enlightening.
> 
> I'll repeat myself. Fi is about judging oneself, and Fe is about judging others.
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]It's really nothing more than that. It is just like Ti and Te in that respect.
> 
> Here's a question. What exactly _is_ your point?



There is a way of knowing how Fe and Fi would act, and that by noting that Fe is outward oriented, while Fi is the opposite; that means Fe will act on *universal rules* (rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default), while Fi would act the opposite(by opposite, meaning subjective rules by default, which promote self-preservation because of the nature of introverted attirude. This last bit is a paraphrasing of Jung Model Of Typology by Daryl Sharp I'll make sure to quote later on. Fi could well on act in ways that promote compassion once again, but how it goes about that will depend on factors personal to Fi).

You, saying that Im wrong would imply elaborating on why Fe and Fi behaviors can't be predicted. and stating which understanding of Fi and Fe you are going off. Replying to me with tangents for no valid reason compels me to believe that your response is purely knee-jerked.

Also, I wouldn't try to be scornful if I was you because quite frankly, you are not willing to see my point or address it directly. There is no balance to reach here; we are trying to describe things as they are, not trying to be fair.

BTW, can you address my previous reply in its fullness ? You haven't replied some important points I made.

Oh, and my point was to answer the OP question...

Edit: Isn't that such a typical way to exit an argument ? Welcome to my ignore list, you apparently weren't worth the time either.


----------



## O_o

Laf said:


> There is a way of knowing how Fe and Fi would act, and that by noting that Fe is outward oriented, while Fi is the opposite; that means Fe will act on *universal rules* (rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default),


Not necessarily. 

There is nothing really 'universal' about Fe. 

It goes as far as the individual's surroundings. If they aren't around individuals who don't share those "universal rules" which you state, they won't either because they aren't exposed to them, rather they will promote whatever vales are around them that they are exposed to. Say; what happened during Hitler's rules with his followers; so much for promoting compassion for those gypsies, jews, etc. They can devalue others if that is what is devalued around them and they can devalue them right to their face. 

Fe can be assholes too. And bullies. Narcissists. Murderers. World is wide lol. Fe =/= auto promoting compassion, compromise and self-effacing. Fe = promoting/encompassing the values around them. Those values can be filled with various things depending on the persons surroundings and circumstances.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fluff'n'Fury said:


> I don't know what I am getting myself into here, but had a similar conversation with an xNFJ recently, and she said something very beautiful. She said "God created man in his own image, by instilling a divine spirit into man, but then man created God in his own image -- a God imposing limitations upon his creator" ;-)) A fun spin on the Fi/Fe issue?


That is similar to Gnosticism. Jesus is light. The body is deception. The light is Sophia. Or knowledge. 

 Like the movie Avatar. His body is irrelevant. It is deception. His spirit is what is important. His light. Like an eclipse. The body hides the light. When everything is light, nothing can be seen. Only the body is seen, if it is there. That body is whoever shines his light on Jesus. You project on him whatever you want. He tells you who you are. Like saying gays are bad. You can't blame Jesus for that. Jesus is light. That is you. He is a whipping boy. He is what you do to him. He is your image. Same with God. 

God is small because most people who read him were small. He is as big as you make him. He is always evolving. Or devolving. I said guys like Jung made God big. Whitehead too:

*Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe throughout time. On the other hand, he sees God as permanent but as deficient in actuality and change: alone, God is merely eternally unrealized possibilities, and requires the world to actualize them. God gives creatures permanence, while the creatures give God actuality and change.* Here it is worthwhile to quote Whitehead at length:
"In this way God is completed by the individual, fluent satisfactions of finite fact, and the temporal occasions are completed by their everlasting union with their transformed selves, purged into conformation with the eternal order which is the final absolute 'wisdom.' The final summary can only be expressed in terms of a group of antitheses, whose apparent self-contradictions depend on neglect of the diverse categories of existence. In each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition into a contrast.
"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
"It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
"It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
"It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.
"It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
"It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God ...
*"What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world ... In this sense, God is the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands.*


----------



## Du Toit

O_o said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> There is nothing really 'universal' about Fe.
> 
> It goes as far as the individual's surroundings. If they grow up around individuals who don't share those "universal rules" which you state, they won't either because they aren't exposed to them, rather they will promote whatever vales are around them that they are exposed to. Say; what happened during Hitler's rules with his followers; so much for promoting compassion for those gypsies, jews, etc.
> 
> Fe can be assholes too. And bullies. Narcissists. Murderers. World is wide lol. Fe =/= auto promoting compassion, compromise and self-effacing. But wouldn't that be nice?


I added *"rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default''* to elaborate of what I meant by *universal rules* because when Fe is in an environment where a certain behavior pertains, it's going to *adjust itself to fit the environment behavior* (*compromise and self-effacing*). When faced with trouble that comes from without, it's going to try to fix or understand it (*compassion*). But if the environment promotes the opposite of compassion, Fe is going to follow because *self-effacing and compromising* is of bigger influence of Fe: *So if an environment favors killing, Fe will follow.* That's automatic for Fe because it's outward oriented.

Also, it acts according to the trend of a *specific environment, at a specific time*. This last bit is why Fe *is often perceived as inconsistent, and fake, when i reality, it is nothing but a result of external forces*; *Fi is capable of doing that btw, but won't do that by default (self-preservation nature), and how Fi goes about doing that would depends on rules personal to Fi.*

Also, I've mentioned that *I'm not talking about individuals or types but functions only*. Damn! Why no one ever reads my replies fully  *sobs*



> PS: - *This is describing the functions independently of how they interact with the rest.*
> - *I'm not saying that Fi (on its own) lacks the ability to see the other person needs, but how it goes about that depends on purely personal rules.*
> - *How you exhibit either Fi or Fe traits depends on where it sits in your functions' stack, your environment, and your level of awareness.*


Your notif' gave me that "heart attack" thing. Hope I didn't.


----------



## O_o

Laf said:


> I added *"rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default''* to elaborate of what I meant by *universal rules* because when Fe is in an environment where a certain behavior pertains, it's going to *adjust itself to fit the environment behavior* (*compromise and self-effacing*). because that's That's automatic for Fe because it's outward oriented; Fi is capable of doing that btw, but won't do that by default (self-preservation nature), and how Fi goes about doing that would depends on rules personal to Fi.
> 
> Also, I've mentioned that *I'm not talking about individuals or types but functions only*. Damn! Why no one ever reads my replies fully  *sobs*


By adding 'rules that promote compassion, compromise and self-effacing by default' you're automatically speaking of individuals; individuals who happen to be in an environment with similar values to this. But the world's values often differ vastly. Certain cultures don't promote compassion, being self-effacing etc. 

I am reading your replies. If you have so many individuals apparently 'misinterpreting' them, then perhaps you should attempt to reword it better also?

so I say


> Fe =/= auto promoting compassion, compromise and self-effacing. Fe = promoting/encompassing the values around them. Those values can be filled with various things depending on the persons surroundings and circumstances.


 as an attempt to actually do what you are = isolate Fe as a seperate being without the individuals. This is why I didn't include the values which you state. Because they are not always the case. Providing an example and using them might be defeating your purpose of isolating Fe from the individual.


----------



## Du Toit

O_o said:


> By adding 'rules that promote compassion, compromise and self-effacing by default' you're automatically speaking of individuals; individuals who happen to be in an environment with similar values to this. But the world's values often differ vastly. Certain cultures don't promote compassion, being self-effacing etc.
> 
> I am reading your replies. If you have so many individuals apparently 'misinterpreting' them, then perhaps you should attempt to reword it better also?
> 
> so I say  as an attempt to actually do what you are = isolate Fe as a seperate being without the individuals. This is why I didn't include the values which you state. Because they are not always the case. Providing an example and using them might be defeating your purpose of isolating Fe from the individual.


Just because many seem to misinterpret what I say doesn't mean I need to word it differently. Remember I'm not in your mind like you are not in mine, so we're all trying to understand the other person's language as best as we can. Do you mind reading my post again ? I edited some parts of it.


----------



## O_o

Laf said:


> Do you mind reading my post again ? I edited some parts of it.


Better worded~

This has nothing to do with you though, or us. I want it to be clarified better, like you had done above, because I don't want there to be some sort of confusion for other individuals who might be confused between the two. The term 'self-preservation' can be taken out of context but I get the circumstances which you're trying to use it for; not in the context of it being self-focused (only caring for the self, etc), rather (like Ti) to retain a consistant sort of mind frame. 

ahaha, no I know. I read your post regarding the nerves thing. That's definitely not my purpose because I know how shitty it is. I just thought that specific aspect should be clarified better and wing 8 marches into spot


----------



## O_o

Laf said:


> Just because many seem to misinterpret what I say doesn't mean I need to word it differently. Remember I'm not in your mind like you are not in mine, so we're all trying to understand the other person's language as best as we can. Do you mind reading my post again ? I edited some parts of it.


It's not necessarily about rephrasing. It's about things such as saying


> _There is a way of knowing how Fe and Fi would act, and that by noting that Fe is outward oriented, while Fi is the opposite; that means Fe will act on _*universal rules (rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default),*


 without elaborating further. But at the same time; if someone misinterprets or finds too vague they can simply question.


----------



## Du Toit

O_o said:


> Better worded~
> 
> This has nothing to do with you though, or us. I want it to be clarified better, like you had done above, because I don't want there to be some sort of confusion for other individuals who might be confused between the two. The term 'self-preservation' can be taken out of context but I get the circumstances which you're trying to use it for; not in the context of it being self-focused (only caring for the self, etc), rather (like Ti) to retain a consistant sort of mind frame.
> 
> ahaha, no I know. I read your post regarding the nerves thing. That's definitely not my purpose because I know how shitty it is. I just thought that specific aspect should be clarified better and wing 8 marches into spot



Thanks. And yes I'm not always the best when it comes to explaining things, alas. Another reason why notifs throw me into anxious mode: "I tried my best to make things clear, and you still misconstrued what I said. Now you'll infer offensive things I never mentioned, and ask for further explanation, and I won't always be able to do better. Does that mean I can't share my thoughts around this forum anymore ?" type of thing.

Reading how others structure their reply helps me though.


----------



## O_o

Laf said:


> Thanks. And yes I'm not always the best when it comes to explaining things, alas. Another reason why notifs throw me into anxious mode: "I tried my best to make things clear, and you still misconstrued what I said. Now you'll infer offensive things I never mentioned, and ask for further explanation, and I won't always be able to do better. Does that mean I can't share my thoughts around this forum anymore ?" type of thing.
> 
> Reading how others structure their reply helps me though.


Hmm definitely. But it's still good practice for us in the long run. It helps with communication skills so that, say, if we get into an argument/debate/misunderstanding with someone irl it's sort of a "aw man. I've been through this countless of times on perc, I got this" lol.


----------



## PaladinX

Laf said:


> There is a way of knowing how Fe and Fi would act, and that by noting that Fe is outward oriented, while Fi is the opposite; that means Fe will act on *universal rules* (rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default), while Fi would act the opposite(by opposite, meaning subjective rules by default, which promote self-preservation because of the nature of introverted attirude. This last bit is a paraphrasing of Jung Model Of Typology by Daryl Sharp I'll make sure to quote later on. Fi could well on act in ways that promote compassion once again, but how it goes about that will depend on factors personal to Fi).


Fe is not necessarily compassionate, compromising, or self-effacing. Even if you were, how could you predict the compassionate act? An Fe friend of mine, a regional manager for a retail chain, had to fire a person who was very depressed and suicidal. This person wasn't doing her job well and bringing down the staff. She made attempts to offer help. Since no offer was taken and the person's behaviour didn't improve, she let the person go. She felt justified because she had to consider the group and she did everything that was required of her by her company's policies. Her Fi husband on the other hand, found this action to be despicable. He felt that she should have walked the person into the hospital or tried to do more to help.

The point here is that both made acts of compassion.

Fe is the general interest* in "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling-tones that are based on external factors/standards. Fi is the general interest* in "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling-tones that are based on internal factors/standards.

*attention, curiosity, concern in something

So the Fe person made the call based the group's needs and company's requirments (external factors/standards) while Fi's personal value of helping others (internal factors/standards) was the determining factor for him. Both were compassionate in different ways.


Self-preservation isn't necessarily a descriptor of Fi either. That sounds more enneagramish. That same Fi friend actually helped others to his own detriment at work because he felt that it was right to do so. He is self-sacrificing, but on his own terms. A Fi psychologist friend I know is the same way. She works 12-14 hours a day and sometimes on weekends to help people. She is pushed by her inner value system even though she takes on too much. She's about to retire though, so she's finally trying to reduce her hours and clients, but it's still really hard for her.


----------



## Du Toit

PaladinX said:


> Fe is not necessarily compassionate, compromising, or self-effacing. Even if you were, how could you predict the compassionate act? An Fe friend of mine, a regional manager for a retail chain, had to fire a person who was very depressed and suicidal. She wasn't doing her job well and bringing down the staff. She made attempts to offer help. Since no offer was taken and her behaviour didn't improve, she let her go. She felt justified because she had to consider the group and she did everything that was required of her by her company's policies. Her Fi husband on the other hand, found this action to be despicable. He felt that she should have walked her into the hospital or tried to do more to help.
> The point here is that both made acts of compassion.


I'm merely talking about Fi and Fe on their own, not how the interact with other functions to influence the individual's decision making process.



> Fe is the general interest* in "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling-tones that are based on external factors/standards. Fi is the general interest* in "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling-tones that are based on internal factors/standards.


This is the best way I could put it, so I'll quote what I've said earlier. ↓



> I added *"rules that promote compassion, compromise, or self-effacing by default"* to elaborate of *what I meant by universal rules* because when Fe is in an environment *where a certain behavior pertains*, it's going to adjust itself to fit the environment behavior (*compromise and self-effacing*). When faced with trouble that comes from without, it's going to *try to fix or understand it* *(compassion)*. But if the environment *promotes the opposite of compassion, Fe is going to follow because self-effacing and compromising is of bigger influence on Fe: So if an environment favors killing, Fe will follow.* That's automatic for Fe because it's *outward oriented*.
> 
> Also, it acts according to the *trend of a specific environment, at a specific time. This last bit is why Fe is often perceived as inconsistent, and fake, when i reality, it is nothing but a result of external forces*; *Fi is capable of doing that btw, but won't do that by default (self-preservation nature), and how Fi goes about doing that would depends on rules personal to Fi.*





> So the Fe person made the call based the group's needs and company's requirments (external factors/standards) while Fi's personal value of helping others (internal factors/standards) was the determining factor for him. Both were compassionate in different ways.


We are saying the same thing,in different ways. 




> Self-preservation isn't necessarily a descriptor of Fi either. That sounds more enneagramish. That same Fi friend actually helped others to his own detriment at work because he felt that it was right to do so. He is self-sacrificing, but on his own terms. A Fi psychologist friend I know is the same way. She works 12-14 hours a day and sometimes on weekends to help people. She is pushed by her inner value system even though she takes on too much. She's about to retire though, so she's finally trying to reduce her hours and clients, but it's still really hard for her.


I knew I shouldn't have used "self-preservation" because it is likely to be confused with the meaning Enneagram has assigned to it, but I couldn't find a better word to express my sentiment.


----------



## PaladinX

Laf said:


> I'm merely talking about Fi and Fe on their own, not how the interact with other functions to influence the individual's decision making process.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best way I could put it, so I'll quote what I've said earlier. ↓
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are saying the same thing,in different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew I shouldn't have used "self-preservation" because it is likely to be confused with the meaning Enneagram has assigned to it, but I couldn't find a better word to express my sentiment.


That's an interesting way of looking at it. However, how could it not equally apply to Fi? Also I would say that, if anything, Fi is more likely to apply universal rules and Fe is going to be more dependent on the environment.

What do you mean by "self-preservation?"


----------



## Du Toit

PaladinX said:


> That's an interesting way of looking at it. However, how could it not equally apply to Fi? Also I would say that, if anything, Fi is more likely to apply universal rules and Fe is going to be more dependent on the environment.
> 
> What do you mean by "self-preservation?"

















That's an accurate assessment, but why it falls short in regards to my point is because I talked about "universal truths" by addressing them from their core purpose (the bigger picture), which is to promote harmony because it facilitates interdependence. Harmony is achieved primarily through compassion and compromising, but also through self-effacing.















Don't pay attention to the attached thumbnail. I edited it at pic.3


----------



## Du Toit

@PaladinX


----------



## PaladinX

@Laf are you objected to typing? :S

I am having trouble making out some of the words, especially in the blurrier pics.


----------



## Du Toit

PaladinX said:


> @Laf are you objected to typing? :S
> 
> I am having trouble making out some of the words, especially in the blurrier pics.


Edited. And yes, I am against calling out people on mistype if they didn't ask for it, or if you can't be assured that they'll take it well.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

FearAndTrembling said:


> That is similar to Gnosticism. Jesus is light. The body is deception. The light is Sophia. Or knowledge.
> 
> Like the movie Avatar. His body is irrelevant. It is deception. His spirit is what is important. His light. Like an eclipse. The body hides the light. When everything is light, nothing can be seen. Only the body is seen, if it is there. That body is whoever shines his light on Jesus. You project on him whatever you want. He tells you who you are. Like saying gays are bad. You can't blame Jesus for that. Jesus is light. That is you. He is a whipping boy. He is what you do to him. He is your image. Same with God.
> 
> God is small because most people who read him were small. He is as big as you make him. He is always evolving. Or devolving. I said guys like Jung made God big. Whitehead too:
> 
> *Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe throughout time. On the other hand, he sees God as permanent but as deficient in actuality and change: alone, God is merely eternally unrealized possibilities, and requires the world to actualize them. God gives creatures permanence, while the creatures give God actuality and change.* Here it is worthwhile to quote Whitehead at length:
> "In this way God is completed by the individual, fluent satisfactions of finite fact, and the temporal occasions are completed by their everlasting union with their transformed selves, purged into conformation with the eternal order which is the final absolute 'wisdom.' The final summary can only be expressed in terms of a group of antitheses, whose apparent self-contradictions depend on neglect of the diverse categories of existence. In each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition into a contrast.
> "It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
> "It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
> "It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
> "It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.
> "It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
> "It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God ...
> *"What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world ... In this sense, God is the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands.*


Listening to Dyer's "Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life: Living The Wisdom of the Tao", a lot of what you say in this post is reflected in his book... such as life being composed of simultaneously present paradoxical dichotomies such as being & nonbeing, undepletable & empty, Tao/Flow/Spirit/The Invisible Energy & the 10,000 things (the material world), simultaneous coexistence and interdependence of separation & unity between things... etc.


----------



## Zuflex

It is quantum. It is the secret. It is the Maconic wisedom. It is Toa. Gnostics. It is finding what can not be found. 

Accessible through Ni. That is the old learning: seek in yourself to understand the outer world.

The world is the enactment of God, and therefore is God, however the world is not the same as God. 
I feel like it is only possible to understand these things after having "seen" God. Then you 'see the light' :laughing:
Only contradictions can express it, but this kind of expressing is not able to explain.


----------



## Chamondelle

lookslikeiwin said:


> That's really interesting. FPs make me feel like crap all the time haha. Its all miscommunication. I have plenty of FP friends, but sometimes FPs seem too harsh or something. Yet somehow it doesn't bother me coming from TJs, who are all cuddly underneath their hard shells. Maybe it is because I expect it from the TJs but not the FPs.


I tend to clash often with fellow FPs than FJ, but it is hard to connect with FJ for me. Misunderstanding easily happen to underdeveloped XXFPs. And I love the way you described the TJs. XD


----------



## lookslikeiwin

Corleo said:


> I tend to clash often with fellow FPs than FJ, but it is hard to connect with FJ for me. Misunderstanding easily happen to underdeveloped XXFPs. And I love the way you described the TJs. XD


Haha yeah but they ARE aren't they? XD So squishy on the inside.

Anyway, yeah, that does sound true. I've always wondered if TJs and FPs generally have that problem. I guess we have similar problems too though. FJs and ENTPs in my life often find me too standoffish and snobby. I always thought you had to actually think of yourself as better to be snobby though...? I just don't have the energy to carry on many or unexpected conversations T_T

But yeah, it seems like when people are willing to talk things out and explain themselves, there are far fewer problems.


----------



## AesSidhe

I didn't read the whole thread, but why would Fe and Fi hate each other? I myself have an extremely hard time being sure if I'm really an Fe or Fi user. I can see myself in both. So I'm or an Fi user with a very strongly developed Fe, or an Fe user with a very strongly developed Fi and I myself find no problem in this xDD


----------



## Ode to Trees

Fe might be overwhelming to Fi dom/aux user. It might feel pushy. Hate is too strong of a word. Fe is abundant and overreaching. It is expressive and eloquent. Sometimes, It suffocates. I have two of aux Fe users in my home. It pains me to feel their pain always since ads to my load. I have to separate when they deeply suffer. It is too much. Also, I do not like to overwhelm them. They complain "Why are you so distant?" No, unless I operate in unhealthy "screams injustice Te mode." 
Fe might be misconstrued as not genuine to Fi user when is actually rather genuine. Not to say, it is always genuine either. Also, I often felt that sometimes demands a socially appropriate way of feeling. Fe is more present in the society anyways. It has to be.

 I feel deeply inside. I do not always show what might be a really a feeling volcano outside. In addition, Fi might be misunderstood as rigid, unbending, unyielding, which is not true. Ne aids Fi in INFPs to see possibilities in others and not only others but many things. It questions a lot! It is curious. It gives chances and sometimes too many of it to the detriment of a Fi dom user. Fi dom users are good at reading people. This is not the privilege of the Fe users only. That being said, both can be blind to others depending on their relationship dynamics due to personal cognitive schemas and rigidity in idealistic tendencies (INFJ and INFP).

I feel the energy of others; I do not need words. I sense something is not right. These feelings and emotions can anger me especially if they do not fit what I feel about a particular issue and what is not right assessment of my behavior. I will not try to express them always since I am being overwhelmed already by my internal processes. Also, do I want to engage in social exchange with people that I know that it will produce any effect for any side involved? No. That is why I do not tell what it bothers me. They operate on assumptions and who can bring down a myth? Then, I become cynical and enigmatic due to frustration. I feel that a Fe user could easily misconstrue Fi users’ distance and disengagement by not understanding or not being able to understand Fi users’ internal state. Coupled with other functions, they might make their mind easily disregarding delicacy and depth of feeling in Fi users. I feel that Fe users read Fi users sometimes superficially especially non-dominant Fe ones, if they are able to read them at all.


----------



## Inveniet

Hmm holding the cognitive functions up as hating each other becomes rather weird.
In fact the situations that spawn the hate is to complex to attribute it just to Fi vs Fe.
The people rallying to their respective functions as a banner to group under on this forum
and hate the other virtually is in my opinion severely misguided.
As I said the issues are more complex and hence any projected slight over the function strawman,
just become an excuse to curse someone for all the wrongs in ones life.
How better to explain the stresses in life than to blame the "users" of an abstract psychological framework.
A framework that the majority the people cussing about it know alarmingly little about.
Identifying with a label feels real good in the beginning, but it isn't a be all end all of self-knowledge.
In fact it is a stale limiting trap that end up swallowing you whole when you try to conform to a narrow stereotype.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Cognitive functions are not emotive; they are simply processes. _People_ add emotive content, not functions. Fe and Fi can't hate. They simply indicate two different methods of making value judgements.


----------



## PaladinX

tanstaafl28 said:


> Cognitive functions are not emotive; they are simply processes. _People_ add emotive content, not functions. Fe and Fi can't hate. They simply indicate two different methods of making value judgements.


I agree on the emotional content part, but hate is a feeling. Hate is a value judgment.

Here's a short blurb on emotions vs feeling from Jung:



> If you study emotions you will invariably find that you apply the word "emotional" when it concerns a condition that is characterized by physiological innervations. .. Then you have a real emotion. But when you have "feeling" you have control. You are on top of the situation, and you can say, "I have very nice feeling or a very bad feeling about it". Everything is quiet and nothing happens. You can quietly inform somebody, 'I hate you' very nicely. But when you say it spitefully you have an emotion. To say it quietly will not cause an emotion, either in yourself or the other person.


Here's another one where he talks about the function of feeling as feeling in the colloquial sense:



> The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject—it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. *Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love*. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.


----------



## PaladinX

For funzies this thread makes me think of this:


----------



## tanstaafl28

@_PaladinX_

Point taken. Why do I suddenly feel like I'm sliding down a slippery slope into some sort of semantic hair splitting festival? 

My real concern here is preventing a fallacious chain of logic from being constructed around the notion that "Xe" and "Xi" functions must always conflict, and therefore "hate" one another. 

It isn't that "Cognitive Function Xe" hates "Cognitive Function Xi," they are just two different ways at arriving at a particular conclusion, one that suits the temperament and preferences of the individual drawing that conclusion. 

It may very well be that the conclusions thus drawn turn out to be in conflict with one another, but that is far from being automatically true, and furthermore, just because they are in conflict with one another does not automatically lead to hatred.


----------



## Ode to Trees

It is called personification. Of course Fi and Fe cannot hate each other. In some languages, including my own, it is quite common to use it not only in poetry but in phrases and everyday language.
And no, using one function that is clashing with another does not ultimately leads to hatred, if they are always in a clash at all.


----------



## PaladinX

tanstaafl28 said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> Point taken. *Why do I suddenly feel like I'm sliding down a slippery slope into some sort of semantic hair splitting festival?*
> 
> My real concern here is preventing a fallacious chain of logic from being constructed around the notion that "Xe" and "Xi" functions must always conflict, and therefore "hate" one another.
> 
> It isn't that "Cognitive Function Xe" hates "Cognitive Function Xi," they are just two different ways at arriving at a particular conclusion, one that suits the temperament and preferences of the individual drawing that conclusion.
> 
> It may very well be that the conclusions thus drawn turn out to be in conflict with one another, but that is far from being automatically true, and furthermore, just because they are in conflict with one another does not automatically lead to hatred.


Because you are letting your imagination run away with you. 

I do agree with this and I got that from your original post. I should've clarified that. My bad.

EDIT: Now I wonder what kind of rides and acts there would be at such a festival! :O


----------



## tanstaafl28

PaladinX said:


> Because you are letting your imagination run away with you.
> 
> I do agree with this and I got that from your original post. I should've clarified that. My bad.
> 
> EDIT: Now I wonder what kind of rides and acts there would be at such a festival! :O


^Would we seriously be ENTPs if we didn't? 

:tongue:


----------



## General Lee Awesome

for example if some how I harm a Fi user due to their sensitivity I will adjust my behaviour and not to offend them in the future

where as Fi user will think, everyone has their own way of seeing things, and will less likely be offended by me 

it takes more time, but generally I get a long with Fi personalitys.

I actually love Fi people because they are so dramatic and i like to tease them and get a reaction from them xD.


----------



## Thalassa

I would guess that Fi types hate you because you envision them crying for help, and you Fe being the wise man with the answers. That would be my best guess, FaT.


----------



## with water

tanstaafl28 said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> Point taken. Why do I suddenly feel like I'm sliding down a slippery slope into some sort of semantic hair splitting festival?
> 
> My real concern here is preventing a fallacious chain of logic from being constructed around the notion that "Xe" and "Xi" functions must always conflict, and therefore "hate" one another.
> 
> It isn't that "Cognitive Function Xe" hates "Cognitive Function Xi," they are just two different ways at arriving at a particular conclusion, one that suits the temperament and preferences of the individual drawing that conclusion.
> 
> It may very well be that the conclusions thus drawn turn out to be in conflict with one another, but that is far from being automatically true, and furthermore, just because they are in conflict with one another does not automatically lead to hatred.


Stop breaking the narrative integrity of the thread.


----------



## tanstaafl28

WT_Neptune said:


> Stop breaking the narrative integrity of the thread.


 whatever.


----------



## Lady D

FearAndTrembling said:


> I never realized how hard it is to communicate with people. I thought I was good at it. It is a brick wall. Eventually you run into something. It is so much work. I think people don't want to put in the work, and just half ass it. I do too. It is way too much work. You would probably win a Nobel if you could make a universal translator for humans of the same language even.
> 
> Words don't mean anything. It is the underlying narrative. Words aren't clear. They are colored with our own experiences in life, and we attach narratives to them. Words are numbers, we agree on those numbers. But we all use different equations. And tell everyone else, their math is wrong. It is the longest division problem in the world to communicate, and people don't use many decimals. It is Pi. It is. Goes on forever. It's depressing to think about it that way.


Never read Tolstoi.


----------



## DAPHNE XO

In my opinion I think Fe and Fi clash because Fe is _forever_ seeking signals from Fi in order to "update their emotional environment." Like they need to know from you that the environment is pleasing before they can relax. But to Fi, this feels like "BITCH WILL YOU PAY ME SOME GODDAMN ATTENTION WHY ARE YOU ACTING SO SELFISH BY FOCUSING ON YOURSELF, I'M SUPPOSED TO BE IMPORTANT AS WELL. OH, SO YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME AT ALL THEN HUH? WELL FUCK YOU, I'MMA GO FIND PEOPLE WHO DO CARE ABOUT ME."

...And it just goes on, and on, and on, and on.... And I just tune it out, like "wow, when you're ready to stop being crazy, maybe we can try again."

And "slight" push from Fe feels like a tornado to Fi. Just stahp. 

I've always been told people find it hard to read me when I just go silent on them and say nothing, but the thing is, if I decide I care about someone, unless they break a huge value of mine-- of which I only have two: lie to me or harm one of my family members -- I'm pretty much never going to change my mind about that person. So nothing changes, even though I don't really say anything. I still feel the same, even if I don't show it.

Perhaps I should learn to be more affectionate, but it does really take it out of me. It's not in my nature.

And I'll also ignore the hell out of someone if I don't like them, so people can never truly be sure I guess.:laughing:

----

Also, that "deep well" imagery for Fi works really well! I've also been told I bring out the worst in people. Like I draw out their biggest fears, or just things they'd rather forget because if I'm pissed off at someone -- I go all out pissed off at them. And it truly frightens people, they never see it coming. But they say it's like a mirror into their soul type of feeling which they don't like-- 'keep your eyes out of the sunlight!' type of thing.Which is why I don't understand why people keep pushing until they get the reaction they don't want?

Fe-logic!

Anyway, I don't hate Fe at all. I just hate how much external validation it constantly seems to need. Just trust me: if I say my feelings are real, my feelings are the realest, I have no reason to lie.


----------



## owlboy

DaphneDelRey said:


> In my opinion I think Fe and Fi clash because Fe is _forever_ seeking signals from Fi in order to "update their emotional environment." Like they need to know from you that the environment is pleasing before they can relax. But to Fi, this feels like "BITCH WILL YOU PAY ME SOME GODDAMN ATTENTION WHY ARE YOU ACTING SO SELFISH BY FOCUSING ON YOURSELF, I'M SUPPOSED TO BE IMPORTANT AS WELL. OH, SO YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME AT ALL THEN HUH? WELL FUCK YOU, I'MMA GO FIND PEOPLE WHO DO CARE ABOUT ME."


That's funny, because the biggest attention-seeking black hole of a person I've ever known was an ENFP.

You could not leave her alone for fifteen minutes or she would threaten self harm.

[It's a real ''Fe sucks, I know because (insert stupid reason)'' party for the FPs on PerC tonight, isn't it?]


----------



## DAPHNE XO

owlboy said:


> That's funny, because the biggest attention-seeking black hole of a person I've ever known was an ENFP.
> 
> *You could not leave her alone for fifteen minutes or she would threaten self harm.
> *
> [It's a real ''Fe sucks, I know because (insert stupid reason)'' party for the FPs on PerC tonight, isn't it?]


She doesn't sound mentally stable, thus is in no way representative of average ENFPs.

By extension, your last conclusion makes no sense. At all. And is probably you getting defensive. Why are you bothered what FPs think if your opinions hadn't been made biased by your ENFP friend?

You genuinely sound bitter from the experience, because if you read my post, I have nothing against Fe. Nothing; it is what it is. We work in different ways and that's about it. You can also see in that post, an attempt on my behalf, to put forward reasons why I might need to change to accommodate a Fe user in the future.

And how do you even know she was ENFP for sure? Or are you just typing her that way because it must've fit based on what you know of Fi?


----------



## owlboy

DaphneDelRey said:


> She doesn't sound mentally stable, thus is in no way representative of average ENFPs.


Ya think?

Did I even insinuate she was representative of all ENFPs? No, I was using her as an example to point out your generalizations were biased.



> By extension, your last conclusion makes no sense. At all. And is probably you getting defensive. Why are you bothered what FPs think if your opinions hadn't been made biased by your ENFP friend?


I've seen at least three different threads with some version of ''Fe is shallow / attention seeking / Fe doms are sheep'' etc tonight. I'm not defensive, I'm irritated, because frankly people who have upwards of 1000+ posts on this site should know better by now. 

This particular section of the site is usually _better_ than the other ones in terms of people who know what they're actually talking about, which is why I hang out here. Not tonight though, apparently.



> You genuinely sound bitter from the experience,


This is one thing that bugs me about Fi. You project your assumptions onto other people like you actually know what they're thinking. You know nothing about me, lol.




> I have nothing against Fe. Nothing;


The aggressive, all caps, sweeping generalizations make that seem really convincing.



> And how do you even know she was ENFP for sure? Or are you just typing her that way because it must've fit based on what you know of Fi?


Because I've actually studied the theory.

BTW, my best friend of 20+ years is an ISFP, so you can quit assuming I just have a hate hard-on for FPs just because I disagree with you.


----------



## DAPHNE XO

owlboy said:


> Ya think?
> 
> Did I even insinuate she was representative of all ENFPs? No, I was using her as an example to point out your generalizations were biased.


My generalisations?
The whole point of the thread is to generalise. It's you that got your knickers in a twist.



> I've seen at least three different threads with some version of ''Fe is shallow / attention seeking / Fe doms are sheep'' etc tonight. I'm not defensive, I'm irritated, because frankly people who have upwards of 1000+ posts on this site should know better by now.


So you decided to take out that irritation on me, _wonderful_.
Can you get over yourself? Read the post again. There is no way I have shaded Fe. And if you think that way, it's you that needs to stop being so sensitive.

And don't tell me what I "should" know, because it's you that sounds grossly misinformed. If there are lots of threads popping up with the same themes, what the fuck does that have to do with me? Why am I being held responsible for the actions of other people?

Take your irritations out on them, not me. But of course you won't, because it takes actual ballz to do that, instead you'd rather jump off one part of an entire post and act like you're somehow the enlightened one.

Please, do continue, I'm sure people somewhere actually give a damn what you think... somewhere.



> This is one thing that bugs me about Fi. You project your assumptions onto other people like you actually know what they're thinking. You know nothing about me, lol.


I do know what you're thinking, because you're the one who brought it up. If you didn't bring up your friend, how else would I have known about her?
It's quite clear from your tone of voice, you are still bitter about the experience. Or are you not?



> The aggressive, all caps, sweeping generalizations make that seem really convincing.


Who is making assumptions now?
You've taken ONE part of my ENTIRE post and then just jumped off the back of it, came to a stupid conclusion, and not even bothered to think you might be wrong.

Urgh. So over you~



> Because I've actually studied the theory.


But not your friend, the one you actually needed to study in order to know you were applying the theory correctly. But hey, even more brilliance. Fantastic.



> BTW, my best friend of 20+ years is an ISFP, so you can quit assuming I just have a hate hard-on for FPs just because I disagree with you.


Again, another tidbit of your life, that makes it obvious what your motivations are, but if I point it out, "I know nothing about your life." I don't even have to assume since you're the one giving me a life story I couldn't care less about if I tried.

You are clearly on the defensive. I have no idea why, because you started this entire exchange. You could have just moved on with your irritation, but no, you decided to be the knight in shining armour for Fe.

Congratulations.

But no one gives a shit.


----------



## owlboy

Ah, you really are as nuts as your first post implied. 

Bye!


----------



## DAPHNE XO

owlboy said:


> Ah, you really are as nuts as your first post implied.
> 
> Bye!


And here we spot a pattern everyone!!!

When someone disagrees with him, and they're ENFP, they *must *be crazy!!!!!
Of course, _I'm _the crazy one! Because the chances of you being wrong? Lol 0%, amirite? :laughing:

LOGIC STRIKES AGAIN!


----------



## Maryanne Francis

FearAndTrembling said:


> ...Fe pushes Fi, and Fi gets angry. ...Nobody understands anybody. Because Fi is a person's experience...



This is so very INFJ thing to say...hahaha.:laughing:


In a nutshell:
_*Fe* are the fake ones. *Fi *are the self-oriented ones._
Agree or disagree? No brownie points for you though... :tongue:


----------



## LibertyPrime

owlboy said:


> That's funny, because the biggest attention-seeking black hole of a person I've ever known was an ENFP.
> 
> You could not leave her alone for fifteen minutes or she would threaten self harm.
> 
> [It's a real ''Fe sucks, I know because (insert stupid reason)'' party for the FPs on PerC tonight, isn't it?]


:crazy: so tell her she should kill herself. >.> what I actually ended up saying to such an ENFP....and she didn't do jack shit.

I don't actually see a point in being a emotional crutch for ppl...that shit is annoying. Maybe its because I'm a Fi user or something, but I have no preference for taking care of other ppl's feels or expressing mine for that matter, prefer to act on it.

 I'm a selfish asshole like that.


----------



## KraChZiMan

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have witnessed it so many times. Fe pushes Fi, and Fi gets angry. That is the total process. The anger of fi, is then channeled back to Fe, and it increases the force pushing on Fi. It's like a particle accelerator, it just gets faster and stronger. It obviously has to end at some point, but here is the key: Fe can walk away with less of the baggage, less dust that is made in that debate. Because they were just a conductor, and will cool down. They detach, and walk away. It is still a tornado in Fi, it is hotter. And Fe is always coming back and stirring it. Doesn't even know it. Because they don't feel it. I don't. I get angry to normal in a second. I go with the situation. I cool down. So I am sometimes entering a tornado, and thinking it is just normal weather.
> 
> Nobody understands anybody. Because Fi is a person's experience. I don't know that. But I treat them like a cookie cutter, a mean. To strangers anyway. People I know, I get to know better and make more personal profiles. But I basically have a cookie cutter, and apply it to most dough. No dough perfectly fits it. And Fi does somehow have to compromise, and fit in, in some way with the standard. But not with one across the board. It is such delicate thing. It is surgical. Nobody even knows it. The stitches are big and ugly, and everywhere.


Your title is provocative and it makes no sense for cognitive functions to hate each other


----------



## owlboy

FreeBeer said:


> :crazy: so tell her she should kill herself. >.> what I actually ended up saying to such an ENFP....and she didn't do jack shit.


I haven't seen the nutter in about 10 years, thankfully.

There's a quote in Party Monster that's along the lines of, ''we all know you love yourself too much to actually kill yourself''. That applies to this girl completely.


----------

