# Can Fi mimic Fe?



## rwm4768 (Sep 9, 2011)

In general terms, Fe is supposed to support group harmony and group values, while Fi is more concerned with individual harmony, and the individual definition of what's right and wrong. Fe users tend to engage in host-taking and caring endeavors to feel intimate oneness with other people.

However, what if your Fi values turn out to produce the same results as Fe values? A lot of people say Fi is more selfish than Fe, but it doesn't seem like it has to be. If you determine, as an Fi user, that helping others is one of your core values, or that keeping people around you happy is important to you, it's still Fi? It might arrive at the same result, but it's a different process.

For a while now, I've identified as INFJ, but I've never felt comfortable with all the aspects of extroverted feeling. I value some of what Fe users value, but not everything. I also have my own values that I've formed apart from what the people around me have. I'm much more of an individualist than a conformist.

I used to type as INTJ, but I couldn't identify with the INTJs who showed no development of their feeling side (though I did initially). When I was younger, I wasn't much of a feeler, which leads me to wonder if I am in fact INTJ. I'm in my 20s, so I'm at the time of life when the tertiary function is supposed to present itself. In my case, I might have developed Fi, and through that Fi, I think I've developed some attitudes that appear more like Fe behavior.

As people might have seen in other threads, I'm not completely sold on cognitive functions (mainly the function order), but I'm still interested to see what applicability the functions could have for me and others.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Can I say that your personal path is ringing so many bells that it's actually quite incredible? When I joined PerC, I was fairly sure I was an INTJ, but then I quickly found that the INTJ's on here were just... well, if we were porcupines, they were more sharp needle than soft underbelly and I was more soft underbelly than sharp needle. Then I briefly considered ISTJ, but @reckful pointed me in the right direction by suggesting I "flipped the wrong letter", and that I was an INFJ, not an INTJ or ISTJ.

Waaay back when, I used to think I was an INTJ with "strong Fi", but further along my path I thought I was an INFJ with "strong Ti". I'm summarizing here, but this was a long drawn out process of thought and self inspection. I realize now that it's actually quite typical for INFJ's, especially male INFJ's, to feel this (these) way(s) about themselves.

I'm not really into functions these days, and if I could point to a single issue that persuaded me that "function talk" is less useful and applicable than "dimension talk", it would be the issue of Fe and Fi. If you were to go back through my post history (what a nightmare experience that would be for you!), you would probably find that the tipping point for me was a thread (or maybe a few threads) back in March discussing Fi vs. Fe. It became clear around that time that even if Feeling could, conceptually, be neatly divided into two attitudes (and at that time I not only thought it could be divided, I also thought I understood it very well), the division had very little to do with actual, living, breathing, INFP's and INFJ's (let alone INTJ's).

I had many a dialog here with INFP's but also with my INFP sister (who is perfectly described by every INFP profile and description I've ever read). The process went something like the following: I offered up my thoughts on how feeling might appear (and live and breathe and act and everything else) when it's introverted and when it's extraverted. The response I got, over and over, is "No, that's not how it is for INFP's." And then they would offer their take, and I would say, "well, what if we look at it from this angle?" And they would say "No, that's not right either", and on and on it would go. So it was extremely validating to me to learn that not only do the type experts argue about Fi and Fe, when they do agree, neither Fi or Fe ends up being a better description than just "Feeling" all by itself.

I'll get out of the way and let the people who enjoy discussing functions do their thing, but I just wanted to say how much I resonate with your story.


----------



## sentilopis (Dec 13, 2010)

In my opinion, we use all 8 of our functions, what type you are is a matter of function preference. 

Fe works with Ti, which governs logic that can apply universally
Example: thou shalt not steal and why it should be so?

in contrast to Te, which is logic that pertains to particular circumstances
Example: how to bake bread, how to fix a car, and why I want to do it(Fi)

You can be the judge of which function you are most aware of.


----------



## jocr1627 (Jun 23, 2013)

Teybo said:


> Can I say that your personal path is ringing so many bells that it's actually quite incredible? When I joined PerC, I was fairly sure I was an INTJ, but then I quickly found that the INTJ's on here were just... well, if we were porcupines, they were more sharp needle than soft underbelly and I was more soft underbelly than sharp needle. Then I briefly considered ISTJ, but @_reckful_ pointed me in the right direction by suggesting I "flipped the wrong letter", and that I was an INFJ, not an INTJ or ISTJ.
> 
> Waaay back when, I used to think I was an INTJ with "strong Fi", but further along my path I thought I was an INFJ with "strong Ti". I'm summarizing here, but this was a long drawn out process of thought and self inspection. I realize now that it's actually quite typical for INFJ's, especially male INFJ's, to feel this (these) way(s) about themselves.
> 
> ...


Yes. Just... yes.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@_rwm4768_ it may be helpful to think of *Feeling *as separate from *emotion. *What you'll find is that Feelers with Fi or Fe will make assessments off of what they value, or know others around them to value in a given scenario. A personal story, resonance (@Teybo I'm stealing your verbage here XD), someone's reaction to something, how someone sounded or what they meant may all be cues to preference of a Feeling function over a Thinking. They may not mean that the person is jumping for joy or weeping uncontrollably at the object being assessed, but there is an awareness of meaning or tribal values, either within one's own expectations (Fi), or with respect to what is objectively accepted (Fe). 

It is not always the case that INTJ, or any Thinking type does not have strong, passionate emotions. They very often do (seriously, who doesn't?), and it is commonly an annoying mission of Feelers to "pull" them out, because it would help them understand the Thinker better. I'm never going to monsoon the serengeti in tears, but there can be a lot going on at times. It's that they have very little role in a Thinker's communication to others, and the focus of attention is significantly less on the values or assessments that would deem such emotions critical. Thinking is often described as facts or judgments as they stand regardless of emotion - and Feeling the reverse.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Fe is full of nurture and self sacrificing saint BS stereotypes. Period.

I for one don't identify with the care taking of Fe.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

The important thing to bear in mind is that Fe doesn't necessarily mean sucking up group values like a kind-hearted vacuum cleaner. Fe values are still *your* values, many may be unique to you, at least amongst your peers, but their primary consideration will be directed outward. Where Fi might compel someone to treat others with respect because they believe people deserve to be treated with respect (subjective), Fe might compel someone to be respectful because they don't want to do harm (objective). It's motivation vs application. 

If an Fi-Dom has a different take on it I'd be glad to hear it. Reading Teybo's post reminds me that no matter how hard I try I still have trouble really understanding Fi.


----------



## Hespera (Jun 3, 2011)

"kind-hearted vacuum cleaner" :laughing:



Khiro said:


> Where Fi might compel someone to treat others with respect because they believe people deserve to be treated with respect (subjective), Fe might compel someone to be respectful because they don't want to do harm (objective). It's motivation vs application.


This is very true. I'm Fi and my mother is Fe so I think I've been programmed to value similar things (maintaining social harmony, taking care of others, shared expressions of emotion, etc.), but my way is an obviously introverted way, i.e., subjective. For her, it's all a hard and fast language that is just apparent in the outside world, whereas I have to apply it in a personal way. An example: gift giving. She always has cards and presents on hand to give out for any occasion because that's socially appropriate, whereas I carefully choose gifts for a select few friends. In fact I usually forget the card because I myself don't care to receive one, so I figure it's not important. To her, that's inconsiderate, bordering on offensive, because there's an objective code for how to express these things.

The other thing is, Fi doesn't dictate what you value (besides it being people versus logic based), but rather _how _you value. Had I been raised differently I very well could have absorbed different values. My values happen to seem Fe-like because I was raised in an Fe-rich atmosphere. Heck, in another universe I might have been a crotchety hermit who hated everyone.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

One would think that Fe would also be good, or better, at mimicking Fi in an Fi-rich environment. Fe, an objective judging function, like Te, is a very "monkey see monkey do" type function because it is focused on the outer environment--especially when it comes to Fe doms.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Khiro said:


> Where Fi might compel someone to treat others with respect because they believe people deserve to be treated with respect (subjective), Fe might compel someone to be respectful because they don't want to do harm (objective). It's motivation vs application.


That's true. But I'm annoyed when people describe Fe as objective to be honest, it makes it sound soulless, like Fi are the only 'real ones'. Everything I do is still because I feel it and I will protect it if it's something I'm dead set on. Fe for me is mostly that I tend to weigh and measure outer influences to see if I agree or not, but it doesn't mean other people have a direct say, they can merely present.

What Fe is to me also is that I view others through me 'How would I feel?' 'What was it like for me' (and the like) such meaning that I might reach out and give a hand or whatever. I know how being left out feels, I know how feeling unwelcome feels, I know how it feels to be insulted, I know how it feels to be belittled etc etc. If it happens infront of me I will react, not because others find so or whatever the fck but because I know and it's wrong to me. Nothing objective about it if you ask me. All that is, is that it serves an objective cause with subjective reasons.


----------



## jocr1627 (Jun 23, 2013)

Merihim said:


> That's true. But I'm annoyed when people describe Fe as objective to be honest, it makes it sound soulless, like Fi are the only 'real ones'. Everything I do is still because I feel it and I will protect it if it's something I'm dead set on. Fe for me is mostly that I tend to weigh and measure outer influences to see if I agree or not, but it doesn't mean other people have a direct say, they can merely present.
> 
> What Fe is to me also is that I view others through me 'How would I feel?' 'What was it like for me' (and the like) such meaning that I might reach out and give a hand or whatever. I know how being left out feels, I know how feeling unwelcome feels, I know how it feels to be insulted, I know how it feels to be belittled etc etc. If it happens infront of me I will react, not because others find so or whatever the fck but because I know and it's wrong to me. Nothing objective about it if you ask me. All that is, is that it serves an objective cause with subjective reasons.


Word. Personally, the way I view it is, as an INFJ, I'm always ramping through more analytical 'objective' (if you wanna say anything human is remotely objective) things internally. Part of the reason I express myself as Fe is because I value the outburst of subjective, momentary emotional will. It contrasts with the way I think and gives me more complete humanity.

I agree that people tend to sound like Fi is more 'personal' or 'real'. I think it's because people tend to be more protective over their introverted functions. That's part of why they get kept down- so people can't criticize/burst the bubble. Not a critique on Fi's in particular- I think everybody does it and it's healthy. But I think it makes Fi's lean toward glorifying their emotional experience in the same way a Ti might glorify the objectivity of their analysis, an Si might rate their understanding of the details at hand as supreme, and an Ni thinks they know the damn future.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Sometimes I think the problem lies in interpretation of personal values and principles, when one could argue that 'seeking harmony' is subjective in nature or ad hoc dependent upon requirements of the many or the one i.e. how something like 'be good to others and your entitled to receive the same in return'... by what standard or cultural expectation some might ask in the oh so persistant debate of fe-fi usage.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

It seems to me that the idea that I_FJs are likely to adopt group values stems, to a significant degree, from a multi-layered misreading of Jung.

First, as further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude. So it arguably doesn't make sense to be thinking of I_FJs as "Fe types" in the first place.

But even if you're inclined to take the view that "Fe" is an I_FJ's auxiliary function, there's really no question that Jung didn't think _any_ of the introverted types were inclined to adopt group values. As further explained in this post, Jung associated a tendency to favor external/group values with _extraverts generally_, and said that introverts, by contrast, were sufficiently allergic to group values that that they'd sometimes reject a value simply _because_ "it is pleasing to everyone else." So the reason the group-value stuff is there in Jung's Fe descriptions is mostly because Jung is describing an _Fe-dom_ — i.e., an _extravert_ — and not because Jung thought that that aspect of Fe would apply to an introvert with an F auxiliary.

ADDED: As further discussed in the linked post, I think an ISFJ is significantly more likely to be an adopter of group values than an INFJ, but I'd say that's better viewed as more of an S vs. N (and maybe especially SJ vs. NJ) thing than an "Fe" thing.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

reckful said:


> It seems to me that the idea that I_FJs are likely to adopt group values stems, to a significant degree, from a multi-layered misreading of Jung.
> 
> First, as further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude. So it arguably doesn't make sense to be thinking of I_FJs as "Fe types" in the first place.
> 
> ...


Thanks. That's the first thing that actually makes sense on the Fi vs Fe thingy. I rejected 'group adherence' many times as a kid especially. Merely because groups tend to reject the individual or because I didn't want to do something for the sake of the group for too many reasons to mention. It wasn't until one could convince me that this wasn't the case that I would consider to get on with it.

It had been one of many causes why I would sometimes go anti-group. Either because it rejected the individual or because I had other plans.


----------

