# Fi: The Human Experience



## gargoyle (Mar 13, 2018)

uhuhu... i only read the first page and it's already super funny to me: all this arguing over what fi is and what isn't, what's stereotypes and what isn't. For the record, as a fe user i have likes and dislikes, i am awkward at comforting others and i wish they weren't sad because it sucks being around sad people lol but if someone tells me to lighten up i get really mad - this made me think i was a fi user based on some sources. but at the same time my emotions appear on my face and people know if i'm happy or sad really quickly. i think the selfish part is truly the telling difference between fe and fi since most parts are blurred. also i think that fi is: self validation and fe needs validation from others: even if all humans need some level of fellow human validation, fe basically thrives on it. Fi is selfish in the sense that won't be so affected if they have pink hair and others disagree, meanwhile fe is somewhat like low self esteem in the sense that if 10 people tell me that i suck with pink hair i will be really affected and attacked. of course fe is also selfish and despite popular belief i get grumpy when things don't go my way and i even ruined a party mood because they didn't want to play some of the songs that i wanted. EQUALITY IN SONGS!!! ayeee. so the type of selfish that fi is, to me, refers to the fact that it's self validated before seeking for external validation. tbh fi isn't empathy nor is fe. fi is not some super god nor is fe nor is any other function. Also i don't think "society doesn't accept fi" - why do you care anyway and how are you so sure society doesn't accept it when, to be honest, i've met more "self-validating" people than people who cared about others' input first and foremost. I actually think this is Fi's era, where everyone is first looking after themselves and their goals rather than feeling the need for unity and putting the other person first. Tbh i WISH i met more esfj like they say the world is full of - because so far i've only met rude, selfish people, and fe is not about that. All in all: mbti isn't perfect, it's not even clear, so there's so many mistyped people out there who've blurred the lines so much that we can't even tell fi from fi(and i meant to write fi as y'all have so very different opinions on what it is). Maybe i'm not even esfj nor any other type. huh? this is all for our fun after all.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> I think this explains fairly well, why and how Fi types become egotistical -- they start to rely on their Te to relate to the world when it's primitive and unconscious. It's been like that from my experience too - being at a Te 'grip', i.e. trying to judge people on Te-based reasoning is when I'm at my worst in regards to behavior towards others.
> @OliveBranch @Kynx
> and any other Fi-dom, what do you think?


I think the Fi description captures it quite well, too. 

I would say this is my normal state of mind, the sense that there's something above me which prevents me from being an asshole whenever I feel like it. It's strongly attached to and directed by empathy and sympathy. 



Jung said:


> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal




He talks about going over to the unconscious functions and growing unsympathetic. 



Jung said:


> This is the mystical, ecstatic stage, which prepares the way over into the extraverted functions repressed by feeling.





Jung said:


> But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic


I consider under what circumstances I "grow unsympathetic". Usually when I've tried to empathise from every angle and nothing fits their behaviour except immoral and inconsiderate motives. Which is the point when my mind shifts and I stop empathising. Then I feel like I no longer need to 'hold back', like "OK, so they're just being an asshole, I will too and I don't need to feel bad about it". I've begun doubting that they deserve 'the benefit of the doubt'.



Jung said:


> Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values.


I view this as the psychological withdrawing of empathy, but not quite ready to give up on someone yet. So I'm refusing to empathise until I've assessed whether or not they deserve it, because they've already indicated to me that's a possibility. 



Jung said:


> The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed.


What do think? Does that make any sense to you?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> Critical error in the OPs post.
> 
> Empathy is an extroverted process.
> Empathy =/= Fi.
> ...


How is empathy an extroverted process? If Fi is about likes and dislikes, does that mean Fe types don't have any?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kynx said:


> I think the Fi description captures it quite well, too.
> 
> I would say this is my normal state of mind, the sense that there's something above me which prevents me from being an asshole whenever I feel like it. It's strongly attached to and directed by empathy and sympathy.
> 
> He talks about going over to the unconscious functions and growing unsympathetic.


yea you're right, these fit the one I quoted too, only that it's a bit clearer in the other quote, I think



> I consider under what circumstances I "grow unsympathetic". Usually when I've tried to empathise from every angle and nothing fits their behaviour except immoral and inconsiderate motives. Which is the point when my mind shifts and I stop empathising. Then I feel like I no longer need to 'hold back', like "OK, so they're just being an asshole, I will too and I don't need to feel bad about it". I've begun doubting that they deserve 'the benefit of the doubt'.
> 
> I view this as the psychological withdrawing of empathy, but not quite ready to give up on someone yet. So I'm refusing to empathise until I've assessed whether or not they deserve it, because they've already indicated to me that's a possibility.


Yea this is familiar. I had something else in mind though, I guess it's a more personal example, but because my mother is ISTJ I can get affected by her view of the world and sometimes become imbalanced, so for example with her voice in mind I may judge someone over something practical, i.e. achievement, VS something ethical/moral/individual the way I'd do with Fi. In those cases I become less sympathetic and more closed-minded and I think it's what Jung meant in that quote.



> What do think? Does that make any sense to you?


It actually does feel like I'm trying to lower a slider into 'middle feeling' when engaging with someone who's very emotional, mostly to avoid too much emotion contagion so that I can understand better what's happening. Of course, it depends on the situation.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> yea you're right, these fit the one I quoted too, only that it's a bit clearer in the other quote, I think
> 
> 
> Yea this is familiar. I had something else in mind though, I guess it's a more personal example, but because my mother is ISTJ I can get affected by her view of the world and sometimes become imbalanced, so for example with her voice in mind I may judge someone over something practical, i.e. achievement, VS something ethical/moral/individual the way I'd do with Fi. In those cases I become less sympathetic and more closed-minded and I think it's what Jung meant in that quote.
> ...


That's interesting about your mother and I think the same thing I was describing only applying it to a different situation.
Are your inferior functions personified into your mother?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kynx said:


> That's interesting about your mother and I think the same thing I was describing only applying it to a different situation.
> Are your inferior functions personified into your mother?


I'm not entirely sure, because my father was a Te-dom too, probably ESTJ
I think different situations call for a different image/personification in my head, for example:
when it comes to interacting with other people I think her influence is larger because I never remember my father talking about other people, while my mother did and does, and she tends to be judgy and negative in her thinking
when it comes to doing tasks like cleaning my room/driving/keeping records etc, I feel my father's image more because he would do those things typically (he worked from home many times)


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> If you're going to use definitions, at least use the wikipedia one


First thing I got taught at Uni was to not use Wikipedia as a source.
So I'm going to pass on that.


@Wisteria - I already covered why empathy is an extroverted process here.

Re: likes and dislikes - _no_, not at all - F is about likes/dislikes. Just F, Feeling in general.
Fi types are all about _themselves_, their own likes and dislikes - and Fe types are about _others_, and other peoples likes and dislikes.

If you will note, the notion that Fi is selfish and all about itself is supported by the fact _this thread was even created._


* *


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> First thing I got taught at Uni was to not use Wikipedia as a source.
> So I'm going to pass on that.
> 
> 
> ...


we're not writing a dissertation, wikipedia has plenty of sources to look at to get a more nuanced understanding, beyond the semantics

nice ignoring the rest of my post lol 



> Re: likes and dislikes - _no_, not at all - F is about likes/dislikes. Just F, Feeling in general.
> Fi types are all about _themselves_, their own likes and dislikes - and Fe types are about _others_, and other peoples likes and dislikes.
> 
> If you will note, the notion that Fi is selfish and all about itself is supported by the fact _this thread was even created._
> ...


We have countless threads about functions and how they are being experienced so that's really not a good argument.
F being about likes and dislikes isn't all that it is, you are ignoring the chance to understand something in more depth and frankly that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> First thing I got taught at Uni was to not use Wikipedia as a source.
> So I'm going to pass on that.
> 
> 
> ...


If Fe is about the likes and dislikes of others, doesn't that mean you're saying that Fe types have no personal likes/dislikes?

Also, all the functions are based from objective information. So I wouldn't rule out empathy for Fi types.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> we're not writing a dissertation, wikipedia has plenty of sources to look at to get a more nuanced understanding, beyond the semantics
> 
> nice ignoring the rest of my post lol


The rest of your post was a setup for a covert insult at my ability to understand - I'm not engaging in those kinds of games with you, or anyone else here - perhaps I'm the true Fi dom here, but I'm way above that kind of behaviour.

Wikipedia has nothing for me. It's not a valid, or credible source for anything.
I'm not going to shun what I've been taught at Uni re: credible sources in favour of somebody on an internet forum.



> We have countless threads about functions and how they are being experienced


By who? A bunch of mistypes? People who haven't read anything? Done no research?
People who returned a certain result via _dichotomy _and now run around talking about their dominant _function_?
I'll _*pass *_on putting any faith into that - you can feel free to. 



> F being about likes and dislikes isn't all that it is, you are ignoring the chance to understand something in more depth and frankly that's your problem, not mine.


I'm not ignoring anything, and yes, F is about likes and dislikes.
Feeling is a function of subjective judgment and/or valuation - however you want to swing it - it's likes/dislikes.

Jungs Feeling refers _*strictly*_ to the way in which we _subjectively evaluate what something, or someone, is worth to us_ - it _is _likes, and dislikes. That's F.
It does not pertain to the ordinary use of the word 'feeling'.

Fi - _my _likes and dislikes (which form 'values').
Fe - _everyones _likes and dislikes (which form 'values').


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> If Fe is about the likes and dislikes of others, doesn't that mean you're saying that Fe types have no personal likes/dislikes?


No, it doesn't mean I'm saying that at all - Fe types look out towards what is liked, dislikes and valued, and sees where their own likes, dislikes and values fall into place - there is an emphasis on the wider social spectrum of likes and dislikes.

Fi doesn't give two shits where their likes, dislikes or values fall onto the wider social spectrum, they like/dislike something and that's it, it's a much, much more narrowed in 'selfish' (as in, about themselves) form of _valuation_.

You can basically pick the Fe and Fi types apart at a party - assuming the Fi type is even there (pretend they got dragged along).
Fe type selecting music - asks people what they want, or puts on something they know is popular (in context).
Fi type selecting music - puts on what they personally like or want to hear, without considering others - so now you've got a bunch of bikies listening to _The Cure_ and the only Cure fan is.. the Fi type.



> Also, all the functions are based from objective information. So I wouldn't rule out empathy for Fi types.


I wouldn't rule out empathy for Fi types either - but these people need to understand, any empathy they're experiencing is not and can not be due to their _introverted _Feeling.
If they have a second preferred function that is extroverted, sure - but I'm not being brainwashed by these people into believing something that is simply untrue.

Fi can not experience empathy. Fi is introverted. Empathy requires extroversion.
Fi 'types' can experience empathy - through their _*extroverted *_functions.
Fi itself, no, not empathy. Not possible. Doesn't work. Not a thing.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> The rest of your post was a setup for a covert insult at my ability to understand - I'm not engaging in those kinds of games with you, or anyone else here - perhaps I'm the true Fi dom here, but I'm way above that kind of behaviour.
> 
> Wikipedia has nothing for me. It's not a valid, or credible source for anything.
> I'm not going to shun what I've been taught at Uni re: credible sources in favour of somebody on an internet forum.


The wikipedia article on empathy has 206 sources, almost all being studies published and listed in scientific journals and Pubmed = credible sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#References



> By who? A bunch of mistypes? People who haven't read anything? Done no research?
> People who returned a certain result via _dichotomy _and now run around talking about their dominant _function_?
> I'll _*pass *_on putting any faith into that - you can feel free to.


lol you just shot down your own previous argument about this topic and Fi




> I'm not ignoring anything, and yes, F is about likes and dislikes.
> Feeling is a function of subjective judgment and/or valuation - however you want to swing it - it's likes/dislikes.
> 
> Jungs Feeling refers _*strictly*_ to the way in which we _subjectively evaluate what something, or someone, is worth to us_ - it _is _likes, and dislikes. That's F.
> ...


Likes/dislikes implies no reasoning and I already said it's more nuanced than that, not that it isn't about that. For example, someone who's Fi may refrain from doing something they like, because of a value they hold higher. Communicating that nuance is important so that people understand.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Likes/dislikes implies no reasoning


Likes/dislikes does not imply no reasoning - where did you pull that idea from?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Turi said:


> No, it doesn't mean I'm saying that at all - Fe types look out towards what is liked, dislikes and valued, and sees where their own likes, dislikes and values fall into place - there is an emphasis on the wider social spectrum of likes and dislikes.
> 
> Fi doesn't give two shits where their likes, dislikes or values fall onto the wider social spectrum, they like/dislike something and that's it, it's a much, much more narrowed in 'selfish' (as in, about themselves) form of _valuation_.
> 
> ...


fair enough. 



> I wouldn't rule out empathy for Fi types either - but these people need to understand, any empathy they're experiencing is not and can not be due to their _introverted _Feeling.
> If they have a second preferred function that is extroverted, sure - but I'm not being brainwashed by these people into believing something that is simply untrue.
> 
> Fi can not experience empathy. Fi is introverted. Empathy requires extroversion.
> ...


But just because it's an introverted function, that doesn't mean it doesn't pay attention to external information. It's impossible not to. All functions are extroverted to begin with, sort of. But the way the person reacts to and processes it is the difference between extroversion and introversion. 

It cannot be experienced through an extroverted function, because that would mean Te. Te is a thinking function so of course it has nothing to do with feeling.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Likes/dislikes does not imply no reasoning - where did you pull that idea from?


people commonly being unable to explain why they like or dislike something -- I'm talking in the context of communicating concepts in commonly understood terms


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I wouldn't rule out empathy for Fi types either - but these people need to understand, any empathy they're experiencing is not and can not be due to their _introverted _Feeling.
> If they have a second preferred function that is extroverted, sure - but I'm not being brainwashed by these people into believing something that is simply untrue.
> 
> Fi can not experience empathy. Fi is introverted. Empathy requires extroversion.
> ...


No one is trying to 'brainwash' you, both me and @Kynx used Jung's work and you ignored the possible explanation about empathy vs einfühlung.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> people commonly being unable to explain why they like or dislike something -- I'm talking in the context of communicating concepts in commonly understood terms


..what exactly do you think Feeling is?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Back to the thread topic though, I disagree with the OP. This suggests that only Fi has the capacity to feel and emphasise on a deeper level, while Fe...well, doesn't. This isn't true at all and is probably the reason why there is so many more FPs than FJs on this forum.

Introverted functions aren't to be confused with depth and intensity, and extroverted ones are not shallow but broad. This isn't how it works i'm afraid.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> ..what exactly do you think Feeling is?


already explained it in this thread


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> No one is trying to 'brainwash' you, both me and @Kynx used Jung's work and you ignored the possible explanation about empathy vs einfühlung.


I can't even imagine how a self directing feeling function could even operate without empathy.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> You just ignore what is inconvenient for your argument, as always.


Your argument is based on multiple fallacies, it's a strawman.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> Your argument is based on multiple fallacies, it's a strawman.


That's not how fallacies work.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> That's not how fallacies work.


K
Fallacy:


> a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> K
> Fallacy:


My original argument was literally quoting Jung. I wanted to know why you were disregarding a fundamental part of his description. When you once again attempted to distract from the issue I simply made an observation of your behaviour. Where is the fallacy in that? You can't replace thinking for yourself with imposing dictionary definitions on me, you know.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> My original argument was literally quoting Jung. I wanted to know why you were disregarding a fundamental part of his description. When you once again attempted to distract from the issue I simply made an observation of your behaviour. Where is the fallacy in that? You can't replace thinking for yourself with imposing dictionary definitions on me, you know.


It doesn't get much more crazy than this - you're trying to get me to respond to an argument you made that was completely irrelevant and not related to anything I said, in a completely different thread.

Pass and stop derailing the thread - if you've got a problem feel free to PM me.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

OliveBranch said:


> Even as a dominant Fi user, I have found it difficult to understand Fi's place. I contribute this mainly to society's lack of acceptance towards the function. I think I have really pinpointed the essence of Fi, and wanted to know your thoughts, whether you're an introverted feeler or not. Introverted feeling defines the human experience, the core of humanity. Maybe it is the foundation, but the brick layer that surrounds that foundation is extroverted feeling. Introverted feelers understand pain, boy do we understand pain. Of course every other emotion and the shades of each emotion, but the empathy that Fi brings to someone in pain is due to their understanding of the depths of an emotion. Fi is not "dislikes" and "likes." Sure Fi users are more attached to their interests, but everyone has them. Fe users may be able to react to people's emotional states in general, but Fi users are better at understanding the specifics and showing compassion towards a person's individual experience. It is the self awareness, the idea that maybe there's something more meaningful, the very search for one's purpose and identity that makes introverted feeling so human.


I generally agree, but think you may be conflating some aspects of being Type 4 (as I see you type as, which I did not find surprising, and I type as one too) with Fi, and I do find it happens rather often, and is easy to do. Type 4s, regardless of being Fi or not, often focus on their own pain and emotions, their own individual experience and the individual experiences of others (They are called The Individualist (by Riso-Hudson), for instance), and are in constant search for a sense of purpose, meaning and identity (I also think all NFs share this, but especially NF Type 4s), which are all traits I see you've attributed to Fi here in your OP. I would wonder if you (or others) think that say Fe-users who are Type 4s would also share this, or that Fi-doms who aren't Type 4s would focus on their pain and individuality as much, like say in the case of an INFP 9. As a 4 who uses Fe, I've outlined the parts above that I think are more related to Type 4 than Fi, but I do agree with you that Fi is the most "human" of functions, and I have often heard Fi-users say things like, "That's what makes you/him/her human," and wanting to see a person for who they truly are, recognizing their innate sense of humanity, which I think can engender one to have a whole lot of empathy for others, especially for more disadvantaged/forgotten members of society, whereas Fe may be more interested in one's "role" and how one relates to others on a larger scale, seeking to adhere to more widespread societal standards of how one "should" be/act, which can often be more removed from one's true desires/self; That is, one's innate sense of being "human".

In this sense, Fi is less willing to compromise for others, as a way of not betraying one's values and internal "feeling" standards, and thus can seem more "selfish" to those who have different ways of viewing the world. I think perhaps what @*Turi* means by saying Fi is "selfish" is that Fi is self-referential, in that it draws on its own self-experience first and foremost, as that is their dominant function, in understanding others. Though, I also don't think Fe-users are incapable of doing this either, but will often do so as a way to connect to others (See what we both have in common?), which can seem more outwardly empathic. This doesn't mean Fi doesn't empathize with you, but they may have a harder time showing or communicating it in a way that "feels" empathic to the receiving person. Jung says, and really should be said that I don't think he had a very high opinion of Fi, or Fe, or Te really, in my opinion, but he sure seemed like he valued Ni and Ti, I wonder why??: "There is little effort to respond to the real emotions of the other person". On the other hand, Fe can also be rather unempathetic, harsh even, at times too, if the Fe user, mostly seen in FJs, starts deciding they know what's best for you (and everyone else), regardless of how you personally feel about it (I'm doing this for your own good!). I really wouldn't think Fi would be susceptible to this, for as Jung says they have "no desire to affect others, to impress, influence, or change them in any way," but Fi can become too focused on itself that it refuses to compromise, which is really true for all of the introverted functions/types when unbalanced in their different manifestations, but Fi comes at it from a sense of "feeling-values", whereas say Ni won't compromise for the sake of their "intuitive-perceptions".


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Anything that is _internal_ is inherently _self_-ish. Everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes an _internal_ or _external_ value. That's why everyone's perception of Fi/Fe/Ti/Te is different.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> It doesn't get much more crazy than this - you're trying to get me to respond to an argument you made that was completely irrelevant and not related to anything I said, in a completely different thread.
> 
> Pass and stop derailing the thread - if you've got a problem feel free to PM me.


Lol. But I did already, didn't you notice.

If you can't see how the earlier issue is related to this then I truly feel sorry for you lol. I shall do my best not to engage with you from now on.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Empathy is a process of understanding emotion, and Fi is very proficient in analyzing the shit out of emotion, the same way Ti analyzes systems. I spent the better part of my childhood+puberty observing people, their reactions as well as using the wealth of collectively expressed emotions (through media, books, stories, etc) and analyzing it to reach understanding. Which is why I can help friends and acquaintances understand why they feel a specific way and they come to me for that. 

Fi isn't empathy in itself and neither is Fe. The cognitive processes potentially help _process_ and develop/build the skill of empathy, the younger age the better of course. 

I think the difference may lie in that Fe is more reactionary to other people's expressions/more open to emotion contagion and perhaps in childhood they built empathy through that way, whereas I had to experience as many emotions on my own as I could through the use of imagination and the sources I had available, to eventually understand what each emotion is and tie them to expressions & behaviors in other people.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think perhaps what @*Turi* means by saying Fi is "selfish" is that Fi is self-referential, in that it draws on its own self-experience first and foremost, as that is their dominant function, in understanding others.


Yes, this is correct.

Re: empathy, I just think as a process, it simply can't be introverted (not saying introverted types don't experience empathy, but empathy itself requires extroversion).

Referring to yourself and own experience/s to understand others =/= _sharing somebody elses_ pain/emotions etc i.e empathy - the way Fi refers to itself = not empathy, due to introverted nature.



Conscience Killer said:


> Anything that is _internal_ is inherently _self_-ish. Everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes an _internal_ or _external_ value. That's why everyone's perception of Fi/Fe/Ti/Te is different.


Well well well - you first state every word that comes out of my mouth is bullshit - yet here you are, agreeing with the exact foundations my arguments relating to Fi and empathy, and Fi and selfishness are built upon.

Introversion = internal - surely, we are in agreement here.
So, introverted Feeling = selfish (refer to self above others) Feeling.
Empathy requires sharing in _someone elses_ pain/emotions etc etc - ergo, _*not *_referring to 'self' (distinguished from sympathy, which is to _understand _someone elses pain/emotions etc and _not _to _share _in it).

Empathy then, can not possibly relate to an introverted, selfish function.



DOGSOUP said:


> I shall do my best not to engage with you from now on.


Brilliant.



Red Panda said:


> Empathy is a process of understanding emotion


Not quite - empathy is a process of understanding and _*sharing *_the emotions/pain etc of _someone else_.
Sharing.. someone else.. _extroversion required_.



> Fi isn't empathy in itself and neither is Fe.


Absolutely agree, no function = empathy. Empathy is empathy.
_Feeling _in Jung land =/= emotions or 'feelings' in the ordinary sense of the word as outlined in this post.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Not quite - empathy is a process of understanding and _*sharing *_the emotions/pain etc of _someone else_.
> Sharing.. someone else.. _extroversion required_.


Which Fi doms achieve due to their understanding of what each emotion is, through their lifelong analysis of emotions with introverted feeling = relating personally to each emotion through that process of analysis. Without understanding, you only have emotion contagion, i.e. getting upset when seeing someone else upset.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

*Affective and cognitive*

Empathy is generally divided into two major components:[SUP][48][/SUP]


*Affective empathy*, also called *emotional empathy*:[SUP][49][/SUP] the capacity to respond with an appropriate emotion to another's mental states.[SUP][48][/SUP] Our ability to empathize emotionally is based on emotional contagion:[SUP][49][/SUP] being affected by another's emotional or arousal state.[SUP][50][/SUP]
*Cognitive empathy*: the capacity to understand another's perspective or mental state.[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP] The terms _cognitive empathy_ and _theory of mind_ or _mentalizing_ are often used synonymously, but due to a lack of studies comparing theory of mind with types of empathy, it is unclear whether these are equivalent.[SUP][52][/SUP]
Although science has not yet agreed upon a precise definition of these constructs, there is consensus about this distinction.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP] Affective and cognitive empathy are also independent from one another; someone who strongly empathizes emotionally is not necessarily good in understanding another's perspective.[SUP][55][/SUP][SUP][56][/SUP]
Affective empathy can be subdivided into the following scales:[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][57][/SUP]


*Empathic concern*: sympathy and compassion for others in response to their suffering.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][58][/SUP][SUP][59][/SUP]
*Personal distress*: self-centered feelings of discomfort and anxiety in response to another's suffering.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][58][/SUP][SUP][59][/SUP] There is no consensus regarding whether personal distress is a basic form of empathy or instead does not constitute empathy.[SUP][58][/SUP] There may be a developmental aspect to this subdivision. Infants respond to the distress of others by getting distressed themselves; only when they are 2 years old do they start to respond in other-oriented ways, trying to help, comfort and share.[SUP][58][/SUP]
Cognitive empathy can be subdivided into the following scales:[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][57][/SUP]


*Perspective-taking*: the tendency to spontaneously adopt others' psychological perspectives.[SUP][48][/SUP]
*Fantasy*: the tendency to identify with fictional characters.[SUP][48][/SUP]
*Tactical (or "strategic") empathy*: the deliberate use of perspective-taking to achieve certain desired ends.[SUP][60][/SUP]Somatic
*Somatic empathy* is a physical reaction, probably based on mirror neuron responses, in the somatic nervous system.[SUP][2][/SUP]


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Which Fi doms achieve due to their understanding of what each emotion is, through their lifelong analysis of emotions with introverted feeling = relating personally to each emotion through that process of analysis.


Referring to yourself and your own life experience and understanding of emotions in order to understand those of another is _not _empathy.

What you are outlining is not _sharing _in someone elses emotions or pain. It is understanding them from _your own_ perspective - this is exactly the selfishness I'm talking about with Fi (and all introverted functions, imo).

What you have described is _*precisely *_what I outlined in my first post in this thread.
It's awesome to see we're actually in agreement.

Empathy is to actually share in the emotions/feelings of somebody else - not refer to your own understandings of them, but literally feel the same thing.
Empathy is when you see someone stub their toe, and you 'feel' it in your own toe - you're sharing in their pain - you are not referring to yourself and trying to understand how they're feeling, you're not sympathizing with them, you're empathizing with them i.e _sharing _in their pain.

This process requires extroversion. Empathy requires an introjection of the object (other persons pain).
Introjection is an _extroverted _process, from Jung:



> Introjection is a process of extraversion, since assimilation to the object requires empathy and an investment of the object with libido. A passive and an active introjection may be distinguished: transference phenomena in the treatment of the neuroses belong to the former category, and, in general, all cases where the object exercises a compelling influence on the subject, while empathy as a process of adaptation belongs to the latter category.


Empathy, and empathizing with another - _requires _extroversion.

The manner in which you outline Fi as relating to peoples emotions via a process of what is essentially a self-referential lifelong analysis of emotions is _decidedly not empathy_.



> Without understanding, you only have emotion contagion, i.e. getting upset when seeing someone else upset.


Am I correct in assuming you're sort of 'looking down' on emotion contagion?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi said:


> Well well well - you first state every word that comes out of my mouth is bullshit - yet here you are, agreeing with the exact foundations my arguments relating to Fi and empathy, and Fi and selfishness are built upon.
> 
> Introversion = internal - surely, we are in agreement here.
> So, introverted Feeling = selfish (refer to self above others) Feeling.
> ...


 I thought you said you were blocking me, Turi. If you did, this is passive aggressive as hell and extremely immature. If you didn't, what's up with the hollow threats?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Either way, empathy is a value. That value can be interpreted internally or externally. Problem solved.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Referring to yourself and your own life experience and understanding of emotions in order to understand those of another is _not _empathy.
> 
> What you are outlining is not _sharing _in someone elses emotions or pain. It is understanding them from _your own_ perspective - this is exactly the selfishness I'm talking about with Fi (and all introverted functions, imo).
> 
> ...



You misunderstand.

The analysis and self-reference is something that takes place long before I even meet a person in that emotional situation. It's like preparing oneself for the future. Analyzing something to use it, understand it and react to it when the time comes. So when someone in front of me is sad, I understand this sadness and allow myself, spontaneously now, to feel it because in the past I spent countless hours analyzing sadness. This can happen without the person necessarily expressing their emotion visibly, but through talking.

sympathy is an expression of empathic concern but it doesn't require understanding, i.e. reacting to someone's distress in the moment

also the actual scientific consensus shows that empathy is a lot more complex than you think, look my post above.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> I thought you said you were blocking me, Turi. If you did, this is passive aggressive as hell and extremely immature. If you didn't, what's up with the hollow threats?


You are blocked, I just decided to see what you were chiming in with and was pleasantly surprised to find we're in agreement.
Re: hollow threats - I suppose this is what an inferior intuition looks like. No 'threats' to be found there. I don't 'threaten' anybody.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi said:


> You are blocked, I just decided to see what you were chiming in with and was pleasantly surprised to find we're in agreement.


 We're not really in agreement, because you don't see empathy as a value inside a framework. Both Fi and Fe _value_ empathy, they just perceive and express it differently.


> Re: hollow threats - I suppose this is what an inferior intuition looks like. No 'threats' to be found there. I don't 'threaten' anybody.


 I think you're failing to grasp figurative speech, here. In this scenario, a hollow threat is something you claim you're going to do (blocking a person, ergo putting yourself 'above' them, which is typical of your posts) but then don't follow through on.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Turi said:


> Not wrong though, Jung even pointed out himself that he knew people would get it all kinds of fucked up.
> 
> Lemme quote you some classic Jung, see if this shit sinks in this time.
> 
> ...


You're wrong about what I was referring to, for a start. When did I mention 'affect' or anything about feelings which are intense enough to produce 'physical innervations'? 

I didn't. Once again, your intuition perceived something that wasn't there and rather than applying some judgment to your perception, you just run with it. I realised what you were doing in my other thread. That was why I said I didn't plan on quoting you anytime soon. I can't debate with anyone who relentlessly argues that something is there, when it actually isn't there. You even said that your idea came from what you believed was _implied_ in Jung's description, not from his actual words. You argue based on assumptions and you don't stop to check that your assumptions are valid, at all. 

Secondly, you're wrong about the feeling thing anyway, because the Feeling function is linked to emotions/feelings. The difference between Feeling and 'affect' is the intensity of the emotions. Feeling is low intensity emotions which don't "produce physical innervations", affect is high intensity emotions that do. It's still emotion, different levels of intensity doesn't change the fundamental basis of what it actually is. That's neither here nor there,since I didn't mention it, but another chance for me to point out you're wrong and another chance for you to deny it based on your assumptions. I won't quote my source because you won't read what's there anyway, you will just read what you believe is _implied_, again 

If anybody else would like to see the quote that supports this, please let me know and I'll provide it. 

Lastly, you're wrong because the i-e attitudes don't change the process of the Feeling function, only the appearance of it, due to the standard being taken from a different place. The attitude doesn't change how it operates.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> You misunderstand.
> 
> The analysis and self-reference is something that takes place long before I even meet a person in that emotional situation. It's like preparing oneself for the future. Analyzing something to use it, understand it and react to it when the time comes. So when someone in front of me is sad, I understand this sadness and allow myself, spontaneously now, to feel it because in the past I spent countless hours analyzing sadness. This can happen without the person necessarily expressing their emotion visibly, but through talking.


I don't misunderstand anything - and if you'd actually read the sources you linked to in that wikipedia (sketchy) post, you'd realize it's all in support of my argument that empathy requires extroversion.

The way in which you attempt to understand peoples feelings/emotions via analysis, whether ahead of time or not - is decidedly not empathy.

Here's some quotes, straight from the sources you just linked to:



> Empathy broadly refers to our reaction to the observed experiences of others (_Davis_, 1980)


*Extroversion.
*


> Empathy is thought to be a motivating factor for unselfish, prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987)


Unselfish = extroversion.



> The basic emotional contagion system is thought to support our ability to empathize emotionally (‘I feel what you feel’)


Emotional contagion is reactionary, ergo, _extroversion _required.

I won't go on - I looked into all of the sources provided, and some are too sketchy - some don't even go to an article or any kind of supporting evidence (the 'response to letter to editor' stands out like a sore thumb - no 'letter' there, lol) - and the ones with studies have far too small a sample size to consider reliable or 'proof' of anything - one had a sample size of 38 - how is this usable?
This is why wikipedia is a horrendous source. You need to actually go through, and check each and every source because people include shit that just doesn't fly.

Now if we're to look at 'cognitive empathy' - we're actually shifting into intuition here, as outside of somatic empathy, all facets pertain to imagination - a focus on something that isn't there, i.e abstract world, perception - going there would wind up way off topic and we're already 300 miles from land.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I watched Michael Pierce's (INFJ) videos on Fi vs Fe. They are long because it's a ramble, but I think he's done a pretty good job to understand it, using his Ti as a reference point since they are equivalent.
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Thanks, but I can't watch it right now, can you summarize what you retained from it? Or, at least, what you mostly agree with.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kizuna said:


> Thanks, but I can't watch it right now, can you summarize what you retained from it? Or, at least, what you mostly agree with.


Ti/Fi want to analyze and get to the core principles/values instead of looking to the environment for validation that the system/value is correct. It doesn't matter if they reach the same conclusion or a different one, Ti/Fi must do it on their own. @Catwalk 's posts in this thread and this post also basically say the same.

This is what Jung means when he says the extroverted T/F overvalues the outside (object) perspective, while introverted T/F overvalues the self (subject) and both undervalue the respective opposites.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

@*Red Panda*

Surely, the position of Ti/Fi, the Fe/Te that balance them out, your riff or "declination" of your type, and the perceptions used all have a say in this "analysis and getting to the core" of things? Ti and Fi are not in isolation even when deep in their element, after all.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Is Fi's "kind" of empathy (forgive me this horrible generalization) the kind that occurs in real-time, or does it have to "sink it" and be a little bit mulled over to be fully processed?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kizuna said:


> @*Red Panda*
> 
> Surely, the position of Ti/Fi, the Fe/Te that balance them out, your riff or "declination" of your type, and the perceptions used all have a say in this "analysis and getting to the core" of things? Ti and Fi are not in isolation even when deep in their element, after all.


I'm not sure I understand the question here



Kizuna said:


> Is Fi's "kind" of empathy (forgive me this horrible generalization) the kind that occurs in real-time, or does it have to "sink it" and be a little bit mulled over to be fully processed?


It depends on the situation and the person, of course, can't speak for all Fi doms. Sudden, more visceral type of situations like someone crying or getting hurt, are probably just as immediate. But I have to say that for myself, seeing just anyone cry won't get me a big reaction but I will notice it and then decide if I wanna know why and how, in order to connect with that person more, or not. On the other hand, if it catches me by complete surprise it has the potential of overwhelming me, which then makes me shut down, at least for a while.
During my puberty and early 20s, I had a lot of issues with standing up for myself because of the thought of getting other people emotionally hurt through my opposing actions, something that I've read other INFPs, but also INFJs can have trouble with.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you refuse to empathize with someone (or a group, really) because of your values, or are they "still human and thus deserving of empathy"?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> But I have to say that for myself, seeing just anyone cry won't get me a big reaction but I will notice it and _*then decide if I wanna know why and how, in order to connect with that person more, or not*_.


Interesting.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Kizuna said:


> Is Fi's "kind" of empathy (forgive me this horrible generalization) the kind that occurs in real-time, or does it have to "sink it" and be a little bit mulled over to be fully processed?


I reckon it manifest(s) distinctively depending on (Fi) positon. For myself, it takes a week to register any specimen being hurt by actions. Either that, or it must sink in (&) be brought to light. It usually happen(s) with feeling specimens. In spite of being expressive, they hold things in. I say what bugs me right away. I just say get lost, or hit the road. Get out of here, you are annoying. You stink, take a bath. I get up during a show, and leave without consideration. INFP may tough it out for their friends sake. When I am done, I am done. That is tet or inferior Fi in XNTJs. Look at the INTJ sub-forum, when they are done talking, they shut the whole thing down. XNTJs like being forum mods for this reason, as well. Fi-humanoids love being mods. Everything revolves around one INTJ or 3 in some mutual-agreement cult. Fi. Being understood by few, then enforcing your values/opinions on some poor INFJ/XNFP looking for advice. Then there is some big argument about why INTJ's should be empathatic/nicer to new-comers. I feel sorry for the specimen(s), the Fe-users get slaughtered in INTJ-land then claim they do not use much Fi. High _self-fixation/awareness_ - and paradoxically no objective understanding of themselves. That is Fi. EXTJ are most clueless. Ever talk to one of them about "themselves" [honestly] _in depth_? It takes a lot to get them there. 

Often, I do not realize any of my action(s) are hurtful until an (F)-dom mentions it. "_Did you know, your comment about my fat lovehandles really bugged me?_" And then it clicks. *That *is why you moped for a week (&) ignored all my calls. It does not even occur to check on someone that has been dormant for a week. And even following, I would say the specimen is being irrational making a big deal of it. Fi again. Fe notices right away. Sally sits alone = sally is feeling under the weather. That is (Fe). For Fi, it hasn't a clue what Sally is doing in the corner. Why care? She obviously wants to sit in the corner. She chose that. 

As @Red Panda said, not an INFP. They care. Too much. Every action is calculated stepping on someone. They do not want to be mean. Dom-fi (vs) tet-fi / inferior fi.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kizuna said:


> Can you refuse to empathize with someone (or a group, really) because of your values, or are they "still human and thus deserving of empathy"?


the latter, usually
it's why INFPs are famous for rooting for the underdog or generally giving people more chances than others think they deserve
when someone has done something bad, I wanna know what made him do that, down to how much he's suffered in his life, how much his parents mistreated him, all that, so I can have his perspective and understand and feel what he feels.

I empathize very easily with someone, but I don't necessarily show it to them or anyone. There have been small things with people I saw or talked to, that affected me all day, or even multiple days and no one knew.

empathizing with other things is also usual, more so when I was a child of course, but just yesterday, I felt pretty bad for this fish, it looks terrified and confused, or at least that's how it seems to me and without controlling it I mentally transferred myself in its place


* *


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Interesting.


in what way?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I was reading older threads and came across this post by @OrangeAppled which describes how it works for me, nicely 
i hope you don't mind




OrangeAppled said:


> I don't relate to this.... I find it very easy to imagine what it's like to be someone & experience & feel things I never have, so vividly, it's as if I have simulated that person within me. I've been able to successfully give insight & advice to people in situations I had no experience with because of this.
> 
> When I was younger, I'd purposely seek to stir up emotion in myself via books, art, movies, etc, because I just wanted to feel things. I did this privately & quietly. I'd imagine terrible things, wonderful things, & all things between, and it's like I created a back catalog of extremely nuanced emotions to reference. I may not know what it's like to feel X in Y situation, but I have a concept of what X is & why Y would trigger it, without ever needing to have experienced something similar myself. I may not have lost a parent in death, for example, but I know what "loss" is, as an abstract concept, and in both a general & nuanced way.
> 
> ...


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> Is Fi's "kind" of empathy (forgive me this horrible generalization) the kind that occurs in real-time, or does it have to "sink it" and be a little bit mulled over to be fully processed?


The mental image I ended up with after talking to lots of people with both functions is.... Fi and Fe empathy both happen in real time but they happen on a different "radio frequency."

By that I mean... Fe users often don't notice when Fi people are being empathetic because Fi empathy isn't the same type of empathy that Fe brains are wired to notice/want/need.
And Fi users often don't notice when Fe people are being empathetic because Fe empathy isn't the same type of empathy that Fi brains are wired to notice/want/need.

I'll give an example, my ENTP ex's dad died at the same time as my cat and when it happened he kept telling me "I'm not feeling sad about my dad. I'm not letting grief get in the way of us. I'm focusing on us." To him, that was empathy. But to my Fi brain, it sounded and looked and felt like denial. In fact I didn't even realize until years later that he was trying to deliver empathy to me when he said that. I honestly thought he was just in the denial stage of grief. 

And the kind of empathy that my Fi brain is wired to notice/want/need (sitting silently with me and feeling something similar to what I feel, with quiet knowledge and quiet acceptance of that feeling in both people, not trying to replace the feeling with something different but just feeling all the details of it and understanding it) - he was unable to do that with me because he was very out of touch with his feelings like most Fe users are. I kept trying to do this type of empathy for him and he didn't seem to notice it.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> Is Fi's "kind" of empathy (forgive me this horrible generalization) the kind that occurs in real-time, or does it have to "sink it" and be a little bit mulled over to be fully processed?


I should add something to my previous reply because my previous reply might be biased by my own Fi brain picturing empathy happening in real time _as the feeling is shared_ by the person who is feeling it. and I realized your Fe brain might have a totally different mental image of when feelings are shared.

To my Fi brain, the feeling is shared when someone communicates their feeling to other people. This could be a spoken or written sentence about how they feel, or a nonverbal look with a lot of emotion - usually the first one happens sooner for me, feelings become verbal thought before they start to affect my body language or facial expressions, and I think it is similar for other Fi users too.

But even earlier than that...maybe hours or days or weeks earlier.... is the nonverbal moment when Fe people seem to think a feeling is shared (based on even more subtle body language or a vibe or something like that). Fe people are not very good at guessing my emotions with any accuracy though. So my brain totally disregarded this moment earlier when I said empathy happens in real time. There is a time lag between an Fe user guessing my emotions incorrectly ... and then me later sharing my emotions and wanting empathy ... that time lag isn't even in my head at all when I say empathy happens in real time because to me the need for empathy starts when the emotion is shared by the person who feels it.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Kizuna said:


> Thanks. But I'm really struggling to understand WHAT pain... For example, if you have never known the pain of, say, being an orphan, where will your Fi be coming from when it empathises with a person with said pain?


She never said she had an archive(si) for 'everything' someone had been through. As much as the Fi dom may scramble for one. But if you just happen to express a type of pain, one that the Fi dom has also experienced, they can empathise with it themselves and be able to maybe provide a response based on something more tangible.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Alesha said:


> There's a very negative connotation to the word selfish which can make me, at least, feel very misunderstood. I hope that young and also self-depreciating Fi users are not upset by this and if I am, they easily could be. It is pretty upsetting to hear "You're only selfish!" kind of forced on me, when I know my own Fi and I know what it can do to help others. If you have no negative connotation in your mind towards the word "selfish", others still might.


I thought this too. How very selfish of me for looking at my own internal process in order to find agreement with you. Never mind the daily courtesies, consideration for others because it's something to be valued, appreciation for others Fi doms make throughout their lives. Self referentialism = selfishness, mmm. Empathy is present in non psychopaths, Fi does not mean psychopathic. There seems to be a desperate attempt to stick selfishness on Fi without understanding what selfishness actually means.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Bottom line, Fi dom and Fi aux both know how they themselves feel and both are highly involved in trying to figure out how others feel and make decisions based on this. 
Something that hasn't been brought up, but I am always looking for that Fi or Ti core in someone else so that I know how to trust them and how to predict how my actions affect them. If that Fi or Ti core isn't there, (lets say until tert Ti or inferior Ti in a Fe user) then it seems a bit scary sometimes--- like-- how do I know what you're going to feel about this? How do I know if you really like me? I have to watch their actions for a long time and usually hear some reassurances in order to relax with it. lol. In my family I've got Fi doms and Ti doms, so trusting Fe and figuring out why I felt this kind of "What the heck do they think/feel?" is actually still something I'm learning.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

I don't see how @Turi was wrong about Fi being selfish and not having empathy. Fi is introverted, cares about itself, there for is self-ish/centered/referential. I do not see how this is wrong.

I think XNFPs use Ne to help with empathizing " Imagining what it's like in that person's shoes." But once again you are imagining how YOU would feel in their shoes, and you understand your feelings so greatly that you do have the capacity to understand how people could feel. Therefore you can understand others through your-self, but that still is self-ish because it involves the self, no where in there were _you_ NOT involved or referred to. Fe on the other hand has it's emotions affected by the external environment, so they are directly affected by the object without their own self-referential process. << If that's empathy than that's not Fi. Fi is more sympathy "I know how you feel because I have felt the same." The feeling is not directly shared, but it has been mutually experienced, even if not in real time, and with the deep and nuanced understanding on that feeling in yourself you can understand it if it is in others. Id say Fi has Sympathy. Fe has Empathy. But no Type is one single function and every type has conscious and unconscious Fi/Fe.

And being selfish isn't always an evil thing. If you protect your family because you love them and because you believe people should protect their fmailies. You are still selfih- because YOUr love for your family and YOUR beliefs for you family caused you to protect them. My Te determines that because the family is protected, selfish Fi can also create good.

I'm willing to bet all introverted functions are selfish.

Ti - Look at all the facts _I _know.
Si - Look at all _my_ past memories and experiences.
Ni - Look at all the patterns _I_ have picked up 
Fi - Look at all the emotions _I_ experience.


Te - Information gathered from_ people_
Se - Experience that happens to _people_
Ne - Patterns that happen to _people_
Fe - Emotions felt by _people_

on a very basic level, the I functions are selfish and the E functions are selfless.<<<Not to be confused with the moral definitions, but the technical definitions are used here. 


But Turi did mention this pedestal better than though thing that I simply do not agree with about Fi.




Kizuna said:


> Thanks. But I'm really struggling to understand WHAT pain... For example, if you have never known the pain of, say, being an orphan, where will your Fi be coming from when it empathises with a person with said pain?
> 
> Since I was little I could tap into "archetypes" of pain, things I have, myself, never experienced but could or can (but avoid to) get really deep into. Very, very different kinds. At the same time, my own pain is a mystery to me. I wish another human (an NFP would be great) could help me understand it. But then again, how'd Fi do THAT?? Argh so confusing)))


In your orphan example. Being an orphan _can_ come with the pain of feeling like one doesn't belong anywhere, or has no home, or is abandoned, lost and seeking answers. Relate to those feelings than one could guess what it's like to be an orphan( atleast an XNFP would guess due to Ne.). Or just have the orphan explain to you what it feels like and if you have experienced the feelings than yea you can relate. If not then you are correct Fi wouldn't have any reference to the emotion the other person is feeling and they will not be able to relate. I have had times where I did not know how someone felt, and once something similar happened to me all of the sudden I felt like I understood them completely. It is extremely hard to empathize with someone if I have no idea what they are going thru feels like, if I ever do show empathy, it's my just trying to be there for them, or it's fake.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi was wrong about it because empathy is a basic neurological process. It's like saying that Fi-types can't judge time or distance. Being unable to understand what someone is going through unless you've experienced it yourself is a completely ordinary setback of _regular affective empathy_. That doesn't mean certain people can't do it, but it's more in-depth than type or cognitive function. 

I'm not trying to sound like a dick or like I know better than everyone, but I've seen it a lot across this forum: the confusion here is coming from the fact that most people do not understand what Fi and Fe are. It's not about emotions, or group, or empathy. Fi analyzes ethical systems and Fe applies ethical systems. 

That's all there is to it. Empathy can occur in either of those frameworks.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Lord Pixel said:


> I don't see how @Turi was wrong about Fi being selfish and not having empathy. Fi is introverted, cares about itself, there for is self-ish/centered/referential. I do not see how this is wrong.
> 
> I think XNFPs use Ne to help with empathizing " Imagining what it's like in that person's shoes." But once again you are imagining how YOU would feel in their shoes, and you understand your feelings so greatly that you do have the capacity to understand how people could feel. Therefore you can understand others through your-self, but that still is self-ish because it involves the self, no where in there were _you_ NOT involved or referred to. Fe on the other hand has it's emotions affected by the external environment, so they are directly affected by the object without their own self-referential process. << If that's empathy than that's not Fi. Fi is more sympathy "I know how you feel because I have felt the same." The feeling is not directly shared, but it has been mutually experienced, even if not in real time, and with the deep and nuanced understanding on that feeling in yourself you can understand it if it is in others. Id say Fi has Sympathy. Fe has Empathy. But no Type is one single function and every type has conscious and unconscious Fi/Fe.
> 
> ...


These have been addressed in part, in previous posts. 
Ne gathers information, but that information must be processed or else it falls on void. Moreover, the theory goes that functions, develop more as we age, I'm not sure I believe that exactly, but in my experience, intuition is something I developed better after puberty kicked in. So, by that logic this would mean we should be lacking empathy until then. In reality, I could very well empathize before, using my understanding of what it means to be human, which came from Fi and obviously innate neurological wiring that gives empathy in all of us. 

Also by that logic, no Fe user should be able to empathize with anyone who is not in their immediate environment, because they need to see them in order to react, which of course isn't true. 

I have explained in several posts that empathy is a complicated, cognitive process, part of it IS putting yourself in one's shoes (actually it's pretty much the definition) besides the usual emotion-contagion that Turi is referring to and Fe is sensitive to. His argument is based on the idea that any introverted function is closed off to the external world entirely, but this idea is arbitrarily decided and neurologically unlikely/impossible.

Using words like "selfish" which has a specific definition (being inconsiderate of others) are a poor choice, at best.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Lord Pixel said:


> I'm willing to bet all introverted functions are selfish.
> 
> Ti - Look at all the facts _I _know.
> Si - Look at all _my_ past memories and experiences.
> ...


No, you've got this wrong. 
Ti and Fi both analyze systems, it's not about showing the facts you know or the emotions you feel. 
Fi will analyze the value system of the community and reach its very core and principles in order to understand what it's made of and decide if it's worthy to keep, or toss, "what makes us human". The same way Ti will take apart a system to understand what it's made of.
Fi will form its own moral code based on the parts that are worthy/true, to hell what the community thinks. This is what Jung calls "undervaluing the object (external world)"
Fe undervalues the subject (the person) because it relies on the outside world to know what is right, it doesn't trust itself to know.

I quoted catwalk recently in this thread, she made a nice post explaining that, should be a page or two back.

If you don't want any confusion to happen, then don't use words that have a different meaning from what you're trying to convey. Perpetuating this notion about selfishness/selflessness and functions, when it's already wormed in the community, is not going to do any good.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

cuddle bun said:


> And the kind of empathy that my Fi brain is wired to notice/want/need (sitting silently with me and feeling something similar to what I feel, with quiet knowledge and quiet acceptance of that feeling in both people, not trying to replace the feeling with something different but just feeling all the details of it and understanding it) - he was unable to do that with me *because he was very out of touch with his feelings like most Fe users are*. I kept trying to do this type of empathy for him and he didn't seem to notice it.


I think this is a misconception about Fe, as it may apply to more TPs (who have Fe), as your ex was an ENTP, but I don't think Feelers, in general, are out of touch with their feelings. The difference for FJs is that we tend to have our personal feelings mixed up with the feelings/opinions/expectations of others, so we may not be as aware (as an Fi-dom, for instance) of what we truly feel, especially around others, but that doesn't mean we are out of touch with our feelings as a _rule_. It's more of a balancing act.



Lord Pixel said:


> I don't see how @*Turi* was wrong about Fi being selfish and not having empathy. Fi is introverted, cares about itself, there for is self-ish/centered/referential. I do not see how this is wrong.


Yes, that's what Turi meant by "selfish" = "self-referential", as he replied to my post from before where he clarified it, but people are taking his meaning to be the common understanding of "selfish" = "not caring for others", but can you blame them? 

Still think @*Turi* has a point in what he says, and shouldn't always be chided (Isn't that a bit authoritarian?), even if he goes about it in a misguided way. Hey, I'll even say he makes things pretty interesting around here because of it haha. 



Lord Pixel said:


> I think XNFPs use Ne to help with empathizing " Imagining what it's like in that person's shoes." But once again you are imagining how YOU would feel in their shoes, and you understand your feelings so greatly that you do have the capacity to understand how people could feel. Therefore you can understand others through your-self, but that still is self-ish because it involves the self, no where in there were _you_ NOT involved or referred to. Fe on the other hand has it's emotions affected by the external environment, so they are directly affected by the object without their own self-referential process. << If that's empathy than that's not Fi. Fi is more sympathy "I know how you feel because I have felt the same." The feeling is not directly shared, but it has been mutually experienced, even if not in real time, and with the deep and nuanced understanding on that feeling in yourself you can understand it if it is in others. Id say Fi has Sympathy. Fe has Empathy. But no Type is one single function and every type has conscious and unconscious Fi/Fe.


I take "empathy" merely to mean, _understanding_ what another person is feeling, not necessarily feeling the same (as Turi does), and I think Fi can be fully capable of that, as of course, anyone can, but think they are very well suited to it since they put such a primary on _understanding emotions_. I actually find that because I feel people's feelings too much, in a very overwhelming, visceral way, I almost have had to shut off my empathy for others, so there's even that problem with_ too much_ empathy. At 1:30, John Green talks about that here:






I personally think Fi is more related to empathy, and Fe is compassion (at least that's how it feels to me), since Fe tends to want to make the person also _feel better_ in the process, improve their emotional condition, in a more _active_ sense. So if someone is feeling down, I can also make jokes to make them laugh, if I think that's what they need. It's not very empathetic, since I'm not recognizing their emotional "situation" for what it is, but Fe works in this way too. We're not always going to (or even want to haha) listen to your problems!


----------



## Potatooesunshinerays (Dec 26, 2017)

alas, a lot of people will like OP's post because they want to feel like special snowflakes.
without caring about what it actually meant.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> alas, a lot of people will like OP's post because they want to feel like special snowflakes.
> without caring about what it actually meant.


What do you mean by that?


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Actually, now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense for this difference in Fi / Fe empathy.

I think it is more or less sure to say that Fi is deeper and more intense, to the point of utterly overwhelming the user at times (not always negatively!!), and has a more limited number of emotional states it can empathize with (as Fi users said in this thread), all compared to the more immediate, (oftentimes instinctively mirroring), expansive Fe that can relate to MORE states but doesn't feel them as deeply as Fi in the moment of "empathizing"...

What I mean to say is that it makes sense for Fi's empathy "register" being more modest than Fe's, because, were it as large, it would not be able to function in day to day life. It would be inundated by triggers, and it would have a hard time always finding its much valued inner peace/balance/harmony.

I feel like I'm stating sth so obvious people are gonna laugh, lol, but whatever.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think this is a misconception about Fe, as it may apply to more TPs (who have Fe), as your ex was an ENTP, but I don't think Feelers, in general, are out of touch with their feelings. The difference for FJs is that we tend to have our personal feelings mixed up with the feelings/opinions/expectations of others, so we may not be as aware (as an Fi-dom, for instance) of what we truly feel, especially around others, but that doesn't mean we are out of touch with our feelings as a _rule_. It's more of a balancing act.


Well if that exists I would not be the one to mention it because I've actually never had any Fe user read my feelings accurately yet (TP or FJ...they all guess my emotions totally wrong and then seem resistant to changing their perception when I give them more accurate info)

so.......yeah

because of that I've never actually seen the distinction that you are talking about. I just see Fe users of all kinds resistant to telling me things like "I feel ____" .... instead they try to talk to me about emotion like "I feel like you feel ____" (where _____ is a totally inaccurate guess)

and to me that does indeed look like general confusion about their own feelings.

and maybe this is because my emotions are unreadable to Fe users in general, who knows.
maybe someone whose emotional language is compatible with Fe would be able to experience what you are talking about.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> Actually, now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense for this difference in Fi / Fe empathy.
> 
> I think it is more or less sure to say that Fi is deeper and more intense, to the point of utterly overwhelming the user at times (not always negatively!!), and has a more limited number of emotional states it can empathize with (as Fi users said in this thread), all compared to the more immediate, (oftentimes instinctively mirroring), expansive Fe that can relate to MORE states but doesn't feel them as deeply as Fi in the moment of "empathizing"...
> 
> ...


The reason you see Fi's scope as smaller than yours is because it's not your emotional language.
I have the same problem (seeing Fe's scope as smaller than Fi) ... to my Fi brain, Fe empathy looks like inaccurate guessing or denial a large part of the time. Those same situations, if they were done between two Fe people for each other, would probably feel like empathy to those people, but it just doesn't register as successful empathy to me when they do the same to me. At best Fe behavior registers with my brain as an unsuccessful attempt to empathize - but more often registers as faking or denial - and worst case scenario it registers as rudeness (ignoring what I said about how I feel, replacing it with their own inaccurate story). It's not what my brain is wired to want in those situations. Likewise, Fi is not what your brain is wired to want so you probably don't notice Fi empathy in lots of situations where it is offered.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

cuddle bun said:


> The reason you see Fi's scope as smaller than yours is because it's not your emotional language.
> I have the same problem (seeing Fe's scope as smaller than Fi) ... to my Fi brain, Fe empathy looks like inaccurate guessing or denial a large part of the time. Those same situations, if they were done between two Fe people for each other, would probably feel like empathy to those people, but it just doesn't register as _successful_ empathy to me when they do the same to me. It registers as an unsuccessful attempt or as denial.


I'm sorry but I don't get it... You can "grade" or judge of an Fe user's empathy as successful or unsuccessful?? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Also, you could be basing your impressions on people you mistyped as Fe users, just stating it's a possibility.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> I'm sorry but I don't get it... You can "grade" or judge of an Fe user's empathy as successful or unsuccessful?? It doesn't make much sense to me.


Yes ... successful if they read the other person's emotions accurately...unsuccessful if they read the other person's emotions inaccurately. Seems like the 2nd one happens a lot more than Fe users realize.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Kizuna said:


> Also, you could be basing your impressions on people you mistyped as Fe users, just stating it's a possibility.


The reason I didn't include this possibility in my reply earlier is because Fe and Fi empathy are observably different emotional language with different styles of empathy... when I see which type of empathy someone prefers to give then it's clear their type is narrowed down to Fe or Fi, and for the purposes of this question don't need to know much about their type beyond that. 

When someone thinks "Fi types are less empathetic than Fe types" or vice versa then I do think they are very susceptible to mistyping people though, because that sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't know yet how to see both styles of empathy. If both types of empathy aren't in mind then it's very easy to mistype people in a "This person empathizes therefore they must be Fe!" kind of way - not realizing that Fi is also empathetic.

I like to think of it as empathy delivered on a different frequency. When you are tuned in to expect and want empathy on an Fe frequency then you might not even notice an attempt to send empathy at the Fi frequency. And vice versa. People completely miss attempts to empathize in both directions, from Fi person to Fe person and from Fe person to Fi person. They end up with an impression that some types are ruder or less empathetic than others but actually they just missed it because their brain is wired to notice the other kind of empathy.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

cuddle bun said:


> The reason I didn't include this possibility in my reply earlier is because Fe and Fi empathy are observably different emotional language with different styles of empathy... when I see which type of empathy someone prefers to give then it's clear their type is narrowed down to Fe or Fi, and for the purposes of this question don't need to know much about their type beyond that.
> 
> When someone thinks "Fe types are less empathetic than Fi types" then I do think they are very susceptible to mistyping people though, because that sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't know yet how to see both styles of empathy. If both types of empathy aren't in mind then it's very easy to mistype people in an "This person empathizes therefore they must be Fe!" kind of way - not realizing that Fi is also empathetic.
> 
> I like to think of it as empathy delivered on a different frequency. When you are tuned in to expect and want empathy on an Fe frequency then you might not even notice an attempt to send empathy at the Fi frequency. And vice versa. People completely miss attempts to empathize in both directions, from Fi person to Fe person and from Fe person to Fi person. They end up with an impression that some types are ruder or less empathetic than others but actually they just missed it because their brain is wired to notice the other kind of empathy.


 You worded this really well. 

Empathy is _a neurological process_. If you are not severely personality disordered or brain damaged, _you have empathy_. Cognitive functions affect _how_ a person perceives and expresses empathy, they don't affect whether or _not_ someone has empathy.


----------



## iblameyou (Oct 1, 2016)

Lord Pixel;41288601
I think XNFPs use Ne to help with empathizing " Imagining what it's like in that person's shoes." But once again you are imagining how YOU would feel in their shoes said:


> you[/I] NOT involved or referred to. Fe on the other hand has it's emotions affected by the external environment, so they are directly affected by the object without their own self-referential process. << If that's empathy than that's not Fi. Fi is more sympathy "I know how you feel because I have felt the same." The feeling is not directly shared, but it has been mutually experienced, even if not in real time, and with the deep and nuanced understanding on that feeling in yourself you can understand it if it is in others. Id say Fi has Sympathy. Fe has Empathy. But no Type is one single function and every type has conscious and unconscious Fi/Fe.


I am reading an article on empathy and cognition, and based on their theory, the classic definition "image yourself in their shoes" is too shallow to be defined as empathy. Imagination can only take you so far. My love and frustration for Fi is this reason. When an Fi feels with you it will be deep. If not, it will be far off. Mutually experiences does not implied your understanding of my experience nor are you allowing me to experience my own emotions. I push back when an Fi makes a claim of similarly experience because the point is lost. The point is _you_ now.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Turi was wrong about it because empathy is a basic neurological process. It's like saying that Fi-types can't judge time or distance. Being unable to understand what someone is going through unless you've experienced it yourself is a completely ordinary setback of _regular affective empathy_. That doesn't mean certain people can't do it, but it's more in-depth than type or cognitive function.
> 
> I'm not trying to sound like a dick or like I know better than everyone, but I've seen it a lot across this forum: the confusion here is coming from the fact that most people do not understand what Fi and Fe are. It's not about emotions, or group, or empathy. Fi analyzes ethical systems and Fe applies ethical systems.
> 
> That's all there is to it. Empathy can occur in either of those frameworks.


I didn't intend on posting in this thread again - but for this to actually be what you've taken from my posts, shows a complete and utter lack of understanding (and, a blatant dismissal of the numerous times I explicitly stated that there is literally no reason an Fi type can't or doesn't possess 'empathy').

You agree with everything I've said, so it mystifies me to read you believe I'm wrong.
If you think I'm wrong, you're also wrong, as we're making the same point.

I've also noted that Fi and Fe aren't about emotions, empathy or anything else - I _literally _quoted Jung saying the same thing where he expresses there is a distinction between the Feeling function, and 'feeling' in the ordinary sense of the word and was incorrectly '_corrected_' again by she who shalt not be named.

I feel like I have to repeat the same thing I've said for the last hundred pages -_ I do not believe Fi types can not and do not possess empathy this has never been my position I have never said this, I simply state (accurately) that empathy requires extroversion and therefore empathy can not be the result of an introverted function ala Fi._

People possess more than one function, we have _all _of them, Fi dominants definitely can, and do, empathize with others - it's just _not _on account of their _introverted _F*i*.

Consider the old school system of 16 types - even there, both Fi dominants have an extroverted process following Fi - Se, or Ne - there we go, extroverted process, capable of empathy.

I'll say it again because for some reason, everybody here is just strawmanning the absolute shit out of everything I say - _I. Do. Not. Think. Fi. Types. Don't. Possess. Empathy._
Fi itself, due to introversion, isn't _empathetic_.

If somebodies entire perspective of themselves is their dominant type, _*isolated*_, and is therefore reading what I'm saying as "_OMG I'M AN FI DOM AND I EXPERIENCE EMPATHY YOU'RE WRONG_" well, sorry, can't help you, you need to understand what you're talking about - because as outlined, the within the Myers-Briggs 16 types - Fi doms have Se or Ne as auxiliary, and also have Te as inferior so extroversion is there, within this (limited) system we're discussing.

Fi on it's own though, again, is introverted. This means it itself is not and can not be responsible for 'empathy'.



Conscience Killer said:


> You worded this really well.
> 
> Empathy is _a neurological process_. If you are not severely personality disordered or brain damaged, _you have empathy_. Cognitive functions affect _how_ a person perceives and expresses empathy, they don't affect whether or _not_ someone has empathy.


Yeah, pretty much what I've been saying. 



Lord Pixel said:


> I don't see how @Turi was wrong about Fi being selfish and not having empathy. Fi is introverted, cares about itself, there for is self-ish/centered/referential. I do not see how this is wrong.


Exactly. Dude gets it.



> I think XNFPs use Ne to help with empathizing " Imagining what it's like in that person's shoes." But once again you are imagining how YOU would feel in their shoes, and you understand your feelings so greatly that you do have the capacity to understand how people could feel. Therefore you can understand others through your-self, but that still is self-ish because it involves the self, no where in there were _you_ NOT involved or referred to. Fe on the other hand has it's emotions affected by the external environment, so they are directly affected by the object without their own self-referential process. << If that's empathy than that's not Fi. Fi is more sympathy "I know how you feel because I have felt the same." The feeling is not directly shared, but it has been mutually experienced, even if not in real time, and with the deep and nuanced understanding on that feeling in yourself you can understand it if it is in others. Id say Fi has Sympathy. Fe has Empathy. But no Type is one single function and every type has conscious and unconscious Fi/Fe.


Yeah man, you've totally got what I'm saying - it's so good to see I'm not going crazy here - and I love how you've also touched on Fi types as also possessing empathy - you didn't explicitly state it - but in mentioning no type is one single function - I know your mind has the doors open to understanding even as an Fi dom, you also have either Se or Ne.

Even an Fi dominant, that is in Sleep mode and is Fi-Ni or Fi-Si preferred - _STILL _has extroverted qualities (Ne/Se, and Te) - so they're *STILL CAPABLE* of empathy due to extroversion being present (even in an introverted type).



> And being selfish isn't always an evil thing. If you protect your family because you love them and because you believe people should protect their fmailies. You are still selfih- because YOUr love for your family and YOUR beliefs for you family caused you to protect them. My Te determines that because the family is protected, selfish Fi can also create good.


Yep, dude gets it. Someone actually fucking gets it. So good. Thank you.



> I'm willing to bet all introverted functions are selfish.
> 
> Ti - Look at all the facts _I _know.
> Si - Look at all _my_ past memories and experiences.
> ...


Indeed they are all selfish, correct.
I'll expand a little, for the lulz.

Ti - also looks at my own ideas, my own concepts, my own facts, my own understandings.
Si - my own experiences, my own perspectives, my own sense impressions.
Ni - my own patterns, my own images, my own perspectives.
Fi - my own likes, my own dislikes, my own personal values.

And they all focus more on all of that, than those of literally anybody elses in the entire world.
All introverted functions are selfish *AF*.

They can all manifest as complete and utter cockheads:
Ti - my own ideas are right, my facts are right, I know this is correct (even if it's not).
Si - my own experiences dictates this, well my own observations are that xxxx (even if they're shit or wrong).
Ni - my own patterns I've recognised suggest this, my own images mean this (even if they're shit or wrong).
Fi - my own personal values are right, my own likes/dislikes are the best (even if they're not).

So all introverts push their own subjective bullshit onto the outer world.
You can get super 'extroverted' 'introvert' leads - you know that kid who always chimes in, speaks up, extroverts his thoughts, but always thinks he's right, even when he's not?
And it's like no dipshit, that's not an Ankylosaurus - it's a Stegosaurus - but he keeps being like no, I know it's an Ankylosaurus even though he's wrong - that dipshit is Ti'ing hard, but he's also being loud, obnoxious, objectively wrong etc.

Fi types are those dudes who are like Dashboard Confessional is the best band ever - and you're like, well, I mean I dig 'em but best band ever? Wouldn't they need a slew of awards? Who votes this? How do you even be the 'best' band ever?
And they're like, don't know, don't care - they're just the _best _and it's as simple as that - because, to them, they may very well be the best - doesn't reflect the wider, Fe spectrum of likes/dislikes with regards to music, but Fi doesn't give a shit about that because Fi is selfish same as _all _introverted functions.




> Te - Information gathered from_ people_
> Se - Experience that happens to _people_
> Ne - Patterns that happen to _people_
> Fe - Emotions felt by _people_
> ...


Yeah I'm with you, I don't really agree with those specific definitions but I know you get the 'gist' or 'essence' of what I'm saying - which I swear, is true to Jung.

So good to see somebody else understanding this.



> But Turi did mention this pedestal better than though thing that I simply do not agree with about Fi.


Think about it a little more, just apply the general idea of introversion, to personal values, likes and dislikes, and you'll see what I mean.

Fi types see their own as the truth - which means they basically shoot everything else down - things they don't like, boom, down it goes. Not interested.
Gotta be something _worthy _of their _subjective valuation_ - otherwise, might as well not even be there - they themselves determine the worth of things - everything - literally what Feeling is - determining worth.

So you can picture the Fi type up on their pedestal, shooting down/dismissing anything not worthy of their subjective valuation.

It's the exact same situation with all introverted functions, imo - and, to tie it back to empathy - this self-referential thing, default 'to self' (all introverted types) = not empathy - this is definitely not, like I've said 2 batrillion times now - to say introverted types don't experience empathy.

It's just not *due *to their introversion (and, Fi, is introverted).


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi said:


> You agree with everything I've said, so it mystifies me to read you believe I'm wrong.


 My contention is with where you say that _empathy is an extroverted process_. You've said multiple times, and you say it below, that empathy requires _extroversion_ and therefore cannot be the result of an _introverted_ function. The problem with what you're saying here is that empathy *is not the result of any cognitive function, at all*. It is not an _introverted_ or _extroverted_ process. Empathy has absolutely _*nothing to do with MBTI or JCF*_. It is a *neurological process*.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> My contention is with where you say that _empathy is an extroverted process_. You've said multiple times, and you say it below, that empathy requires _extroversion_ and therefore cannot be the result of an _introverted_ function. The problem with what you're saying here is that empathy *is not the result of any cognitive function, at all*. It is not an _introverted_ or _extroverted_ process. Empathy has absolutely _*nothing to do with MBTI or JCF*_. It is a *neurological process*.


Ah, what we're actually witnessing here, is the difference between your _Sensation _and my _Intuition _- you are focused on what you think empathy 'is' - what you believe empathy to 'be' etc (the facts) - and I am focused on _causation _ (the why).

I think we're actually in agreement on a more broader level, though we're perceiving the same thing through completely different lenses that it makes it look like we're actually disagreeing with each other.

You're saying 'empathy is a neurological process' etc etc not related to functions (I'm actually referring to _orientations_, introversion-extroversion exclusively, but the thread is about Fi, so it sort of looks like 'functions' on a superficial level, I admit) - and my entire argument has been from a _causation _perspective, which is to say, without 'extroversion', empathy can't exist.

You can't empathize with somebody without any kind of external stimuli. It's impossible.
This is my argument.
Empathy doesn't exist without extroversion.

I suppose I could summarize my position up quite succinctly by asking you this question:
_How can you empathize with nobody?_

I am aware, of course, of 'self-empathy' however, I'm sure it's clear enough that this not what the discussion has pertained to thus far, and so any suggestion of 'self-empathy' would be of utmost pedantry and irrelevance.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Kizuna said:


> Is Fi's "kind" of empathy (forgive me this horrible generalization) the kind that occurs in real-time, or does it have to "sink it" and be a little bit mulled over to be fully processed?


This post is directed at this thread in general: Fi is a cognitive function, not a person; it doesn't have _any_ kind of empathy. _People_ have empathy, people who use multiple cognitive functions in different combinations and have different life experiences, maturity levels, and other things that affect the way they empathize. This whole thread seems muddied by the lack of this distinction. Exploring empathy through the lens of a single cognitive function makes no sense. There is no "Fi kind of empathy." Whatever effect Fi has on empathy is more or less just as individually specific as any other factor affecting empathy.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Jeux de Silence said:


> This post is directed at this thread in general: Fi is a cognitive function, not a person; it doesn't have _any_ kind of empathy. _People_ have empathy, people who use multiple cognitive functions in different combinations and have different life experiences, maturity levels, and other things that affect the way they empathize. This whole thread seems muddied by the lack of this distinction. Exploring empathy through the lens of a single cognitive function makes no sense. There is no "Fi kind of empathy." Whatever effect Fi has on empathy is more or less just as individually specific as any other factor affecting empathy.


Precisely.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ah, what we're actually witnessing here, is the difference between your _Sensation _and my _Intuition _- you are focused on what you think empathy 'is' - what you believe empathy to 'be' etc (the facts) - and I am focused on _causation _ (the why).
> 
> I think we're actually in agreement on a more broader level, though we're perceiving the same thing through completely different lenses that it makes it look like we're actually disagreeing with each other.
> 
> ...


 If what you're saying now is truly what you believe, then over the course of this thread, your point has changed from _it's impossible for Fi to be empathetic because of how Fi works_ to _empathy requires external input_. Because I assure you that the former was what you were saying for pages upon pages. 



> I wouldn't rule out empathy for Fi types either - but these people need to understand, any empathy they're experiencing is not and can not be due to their introverted Feeling.
> If they have a second preferred function that is extroverted, sure - but I'm not being brainwashed by these people into believing something that is simply untrue.
> 
> Fi can not experience empathy. Fi is introverted. Empathy requires extroversion.
> ...


 Empathy has absolutely nothing to do with functions. That is my point, that is the point I've always made. Whether or not you redefine what you're saying or change what you're saying, or whatever. Because of what empathy _is_, it does not _work_ the way you say it works in the quote above. That is my contention. If now all you're saying is that _empathy needs something to be empathetic *toward*_, then, sure. But that doesn't have anything to do with MBTI or JCF.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> If what you're saying now is truly what you believe, then over the course of this thread, your point has changed from _*it's impossible for Fi to be empathetic because of how Fi works*_* to empathy requires external input*. Because I assure you that the former was what you were saying for pages upon pages.


There is no contradiction here, if that's what you're implying. 

It is impossible for Fi, itself, to be empathetic, because Fi is introverted. 
Empathy requires extroversion. 
Extroversion and external stimuli are the same thing here. 

I feel like you're attempting to 'catch me out' changing views, rest assured, no such event has taken place. 



> Empathy has absolutely nothing to do with functions. That is my point, that is the point I've always made. Whether or not you redefine what you're saying or change what you're saying, or whatever. Because of what empathy _is_, it does not _work_ the way you say it works in the quote above. That is my contention. If now all you're saying is that _empathy needs something to be empathetic *toward*_, then, sure. But that doesn't have anything to do with MBTI or JCF.


This is comical, you're trying to disagree with me even though we're in agreement. 

No, functions don't have anything do to with empathy. 
Yes, it's impossible to have empathy without extroversion.
Empathy requires extroversion, basically by definition. 

I'm not changing anything I'm saying, same argument same position all daaayyyy.

Mate.. you realize extroversion isn't a 'function', right?

IMO, empathy can't exist without extroversion, like it's a necessity for empathy to even..occur.. I believe 'the experience' of empathy has to be _introverted_ to some degree because it itself is a feeling or perception that you basically abstract from the external stimuli and put into yourself - but we haven't made it this far in the discussion because without extroversion, you can't abstract shit so extroversion is required for empathy to exist and not many people appear to be comprehending this.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

I'm telling you that when you say _Fi is incapable of empathy_, we disagree.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> I'm telling you that when you say _Fi is incapable of empathy_, we disagree.


Without extroversion, empathy doesn't exist. 

Empathy as an entire process, obviously incorporates aspects of both extroversion (external stimuli) and introversion (that content reaching within yourself).

Without extroversion though, empathy can't ever occur, at all, not one time. 

Fi itself as I've already outlined, possesses a bipolar relationship with an inferior extroverted Thinking which means even isolated, Fi 'types' are still capable of empathy due to that extroversion - I've already covered this, as well as Fi types having either Se or Ne (these IMO are the closest direct functions to empathy, if any) means regardless, the Fi type is capable of empathy.

This has always been my position. 

I'm stating, as a fact, that without extroversion, anything introverted, can't experience empathy as it's required. 


Fi, itself, just Fi, not inferior Te or mixture with Se/Ne is definitely incapable of empathy due to lack of extroversion.
Which is required for empathy. 

Fact. Not even an opinion. Why are you debating this?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi said:


> Without extroversion, empathy doesn't exist.


 Once again you are trying to describe how human empathy works in the context of typology, which _is not how human empathy works_. That is the crux of why we disagree. Empathy has nothing to do with the functions, so it is not possible for Fi to be _incapable of it_ just as it's not impossible for Fi to read an analog clock, despite requiring _external stimulus_ to do so. If that sounds awkward, it's because both of these things have absolutely zero to do with typology.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Once again you are trying to describe how human empathy works in the context of typology, which _is not how human empathy works_. That is the crux of why we disagree. Empathy has nothing to do with the functions, so it is not possible for Fi to be _incapable of it_ just as it's not impossible for Fi to read an analog clock, despite requiring _external stimulus_ to do so. If that sounds awkward, it's because both of these things have absolutely zero to do with typology.


Why do you keep mentioning empathy has nothing to do with functions?
I'm not talking about functions. 

You're straw-manning so hard it's gotta be intentional. 

Take your clock example, Fi, isolated, can't read a clock. 
It's got no Sensation on its own and Sensation is required to perceive anything in the real, tangible world. 

Fi, due to introversion, isolated, can not experience empathy as it would never have anything to empathize with due to zero extroversion. 

Extroversion _required_ for empathy to even begin to manifest.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Because it's comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to bridge cognitive functions into neurophysiology, and it just doesn't work. Cognitive functions are about how we _think_, not how our _brains work_.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Also, I am not 'strawmanning,' is that just a word that you throw around when you can't understand the argument that someone has made? I haven't restated your points at all except to clarify your meaning. Call off the Fallacy Police. This isn't PubMed.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Because it's comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to bridge cognitive functions into neurophysiology, and it just doesn't work. Cognitive functions are about how we _think_, not how our _brains work_.


I am not bridging _cognitive functions _with anything but if you'd like me to, I could provide a convincing argument that would support the idea of perceiving functions as being the best 'functions', _if any had to be forced into it _, to relate to how empathy works.

Not to mention cognitive functions, JCF at least, are *not* exclusively about how we _think_, there are literally four that pertain to how we perceive (irrational) but beyond this my argument _has and always_ has pertained to the mechanics of introversion and extroversion, _not_ the 8 _cognitive functions_.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Also, I am not 'strawmanning,' is that just a word that you throw around when you can't understand the argument that someone has made? I haven't restated your points at all except to clarify your meaning. Call off the Fallacy Police. This isn't PubMed.


Ever since basically my first post in this thread, people have been - you included - attacking some position I haven't taken.

Basically the definition of a strawman, intentional or not - only like two members have actually grasped what I've been saying, everyone else has crushed it beyond comprehension, and then attacked the little cube that got spat out the other end.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Why do you keep mentioning empathy has nothing to do with functions?
> I'm not talking about functions.
> 
> You're straw-manning so hard it's gotta be intentional.
> ...



your mistake is that you believe introverted functions to be 'isolated' from the world, when their real function is that they analyze the world to its core, without value/reasons (fi/ti) of the tribe affecting the process. 

Jung speaks of introverted functions undervaluing the object, meaning this exact thing. There's absolutely no tangible reason to believe they are 'isolated'. And empathy isn't just about expressing, like we've already exhausted in this thread, it's about understanding.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ever since basically my first post in this thread, people have been - you included - attacking some position I haven't taken.
> 
> Basically the definition of a strawman, intentional or not - only like two members have actually grasped what I've been saying, everyone else has crushed it beyond comprehension, and then attacked the little cube that got spat out the other end.


Even _if_ I failed to understand your argument, _failing to understand an argument_ is not the definition of a strawman. This already tells me that you fundamentally lack the comprehension necessary to engage in rational discourse, and I'm tired of repetitively explaining my perspective to you.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> your mistake is that you believe introverted functions to be 'isolated' from the world


No. Wrong. How do you even get there?
Like honestly, how?
I have literally expressed an opposing view to this multiple times _in this thread_.

In no way, shape or form, do I believe any function of any orientation is 'isolated' for among other things, reasons I _outlined earlier_.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> No. Wrong. How do you even get there?
> Like honestly, how?
> I have literally expressed an opposing view to this multiple times _in this thread_.
> 
> In no way, shape or form, do I believe any function of any orientation is 'isolated' for reason I _outlined earlier_.





Turi said:


> Fi, due to introversion, isolated, can not experience empathy as it would never have anything to empathize with due to zero extroversion.


literally your own words...

you believe Fi to be unable to connect with others due to it not being extraverted, hence it can't relate to the outside world, which is false

I realize you used 'isolated' in a different way than I said, but the meaning you convey is the same.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

And yet, somehow introverted processes are incapable of discerning _external stimuli_. 

You are all over the place, bud.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> literally your own words...
> 
> you believe Fi to be unable to connect with others due to it not being extraverted, hence it can't relate to the outside world, which is false
> 
> I realize you used 'isolated' in a different way than I said, but the meaning you convey is the same.


There is so much wrong with this I feel like I need to hire some a slew of employees, full-time to transcribe my dictations.

Here's a little summit for ya - Fi isolated, as in pure Fi, literally _can't_ communicate with others because it doesn't even know they exist. 

It can't perceive them without sensation.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> There is so much wrong with this I feel like I need to hire some a slew of employees, full-time to transcribe my dictations.
> 
> Here's a little summit for ya - Fi isolated, as in pure Fi, literally _can't_ communicate with others because it doesn't even know they exist.
> 
> It can't perceive them without sensation.


Says who?

you say I misunderstand you but then you proceed to repeat the same thing I actually perfectly understand you believe...


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> your mistake is that you believe introverted functions to be 'isolated' from the world, when their real function is that they analyze the world to its core, without value/reasons (fi/ti) of the tribe affecting the process.
> 
> Jung speaks of introverted functions undervaluing the object, meaning this exact thing. There's absolutely no tangible reason to believe they are 'isolated'. And empathy isn't just about expressing, like we've already exhausted in this thread, it's about understanding.


Yes, I would be very interested to hear that if introverted functions are that isolated, WHAT do they contain? Does every Fi dom just start as a tabula rasa and just "invent" values out of nothingness with no relation to anything? How would they evaluate, where do they gather their way of evaluating things? Not even talking about things that can be perceived, but the feeling process itself... where would it originate from? 

Rejecting learned/traditional/tribal values would imply the existence of a vacuum, if there is no other way of forming and recognizing values. I do not see any other explanation that some of Fi's understanding is inherent and instinctive, and that from my perspective is the humanity if Fi, because it can reach values that are timeless and universal - not dependent on changing external factors.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ah, finally, you're getting it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> Yes, I would be very interested to hear that if introverted functions are that isolated, WHAT do they contain? Does every Fi dom just start as a tabula rasa and just "invent" values out of nothingness with no relation to anything? How would they evaluate, where do they gather their way of evaluating things? Not even talking about things that can be perceived, but the feeling process itself... where would it originate from?
> 
> Rejecting learned/traditional/tribal values would imply the existence of a vacuum, if there is no other way of forming and recognizing values. I do not see any other explanation that some of Fi's understanding is inherent and instinctive, and that from my perspective is the humanity if Fi, because it can reach values that are timeless and universal - not dependent on changing external factors.


This is Jung's general description of introversion and extraversion:

_The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. 
The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount._ (chapter X, Psychological Types)

therefore, introversion is not only interacting with the object, but also analyzing it, trying to reach the core of its being and potentially change it
while extraversion holds the object in higher importance than the subject, therefore having the inclination to maintain the object as it is

Libido by Jung is not sexual, like Freud's definition:

"What is it, at this moment and in this individual, that represents the natural urge of life?" 
[Libido] denotes a desire or impulse which is unchecked by any kind of authority, moral or otherwise. Libido is appetite in its natural state. From the genetic point of view it is bodily needs like hunger, thirst, sleep, and sex, and emotional states or affects, which constitute the essence of libido. [“The Concept of Libido,” CW 5, par. 194.]

"the core" as I mentioned


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> This is Jung's general description of introversion and extraversion:
> 
> _The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on the part of the object had to be continually frustrated.
> The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount._ (chapter X, Psychological Types)
> ...


Introverted types want to not have anything to do with 'the object' and constantly try to keep it at bay, got it. 

Now make 'the object' other peoples emotional states - drowning in empathy, right? 

Hey you wouldn't happen to have the entire Chapter VII of _Psychological Types_ available by any chance, would you?
I'd love for you to share it with us.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Introverted types want to not have anything to do with 'the object' and constantly try to keep it at bay, got it.
> 
> Now make 'the object' other peoples emotional states.
> 
> ...


"want nothing to do with" is a strawman
and 'keeping it at bay' is a misunderstanding - if anyone 'keeps at bay' the object, is the extravert

I dunno if it's legal to link it, it's in archive. org


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> "want nothing to do with" is a strawman
> and 'keeping it at bay' is a misunderstanding - if anyone 'keeps at bay' the object, is the extravert
> 
> I dunno if it's legal to link it, it's in archive. org


Extraverts - keeping the outer world at bay and making sure it stays away from themselves at all costs since the dawn of time. Lol. 
Wut. 

No misunderstanding, link it anyway, I won't tell anyone. 
My spidey senses are telling me it might be somewhat relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Extraverts - keeping the outer world at bay and making sure it stays away from themselves at all costs since the dawn of time. Lol.
> Wut.
> 
> No misunderstanding, link it anyway, I won't tell anyone.
> My spidey senses are telling me it might be somewhat relevant to the discussion.


the extraverts view the object at a higher importance than the subject, therefore they will be more inclined to maintain it as it is - reproduce it if you will

you should not think of these in terms of black & white or absolutes

well alright https://archive.org/stream/Vol06PsychologicalTypes/Vol 06 Psychological Types_djvu.txt


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> the extraverts view the object at a higher importance than the subject, therefore they will be more inclined to maintain it as it is - reproduce it if you will
> 
> you should not think of these in terms of black & white or absolutes
> 
> well alright https://archive.org/stream/Vol06PsychologicalTypes/Vol 06 Psychological Types_djvu.txt


I'm not the one with black and white thinking here, this discussion has been my comprehensive colour spectrum VS an old TV with no reception. 

That link is terrible, though I am on my phone. 
If anyone else has _Psychological Types_ I'd love for them to give Chapter VII a read.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I'm not the one with black and white thinking here, this discussion has been my comprehensive colour spectrum VS an old TV with no reception.
> 
> That link is terrible, though I am on my phone.
> If anyone else has _Psychological Types_ I'd love for them to give Chapter VII a read.


seriously? you're the one who makes absolute statements such as
_"Fi isolated, as in pure Fi, literally can't communicate with others because it doesn't even know they exist."_

Chapter 7 talks about art and emotional aesthetic appreciation, not much to do with empathy between people as we've been discussing.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> seriously? you're the one who makes absolute statements such as
> _"Fi isolated, as in pure Fi, literally can't communicate with others because it doesn't even know they exist."_


Can you tell me which part of Fi, without perception (obviously) is able to sense something is there? 



> Chapter 7 talks about art and emotional aesthetic appreciation, not much to do with empathy between people as we've been discussing.


Now _this_ is black and white thinking.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

If anybody's still reading, here's Quenk discussing Feeling 




Quenk said:


> When Feeling judgement is being used, there is concern for the impacts and consequences of a decision on individuals and groups of people. The goal of a Feeling decision is to maximize harmony and well-being for people and situations. Without conscious effort, people who prefer Feeling take into account their own and others' feelings, values and welfare. They use personal connections and empathy with the people affected by a decision to arrive at a conclusion. People who prefer Feeling can readily recognize logical principles and objective criteria for decision making. However, without exercising considerable conscious effort, they avoid using such criteria if harm and disharmony will result.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> I'm not the one with black and white thinking here, this discussion has been my comprehensive colour spectrum VS an old TV with no reception.


Lmaoo joke of the month.



Turi said:


> Ah, finally, you're getting it.


If you by any chance were referring to me, idk, but I haven't changed my views on Fi all this time.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Can you tell me which part of Fi, without perception (obviously) is able to sense something is there?
> 
> Now _this_ is black and white thinking.


I just explained in my latest posts... Fi isn't closed off to the world, you believe introversion to be something that isn't
and you mistakenly attribute characteristics to perception functions. The same way emotions are not Fe/Fi, so are senses not Se/Si, logic not Te/Ti etc. 
How do you think empathy works for IxFPs?

It's not black & white thinking, I just know you are stuck on the "feeling-into" description in chapter 7 and avoiding to accept the translator himself explains it's not the same as empathy, which is why he's not using the term empathy to begin with


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> logic not Te/Ti etc.


Literally have never made that argument and oppose any and all stereotypes along with those lines. 

This tells me very clearly what's going on here and I want no part of it. 

Laters.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Literally have never made that argument and oppose any and all stereotypes along with those lines.
> 
> This tells me very clearly what's going on here and I want no part of it.
> 
> Laters.


you implicitly make that argument when you say Fi can't perceive the world without a perception function
because you equate perception function with the senses (i.e. reading body language) 

I dunno what you think is going on here, I'm only responding to what you're writing, I don't care for anything else. Whatever.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

iblameyou said:


> I am reading an article on empathy and cognition, and based on their theory, the classic definition "image yourself in their shoes" is too shallow to be defined as empathy. Imagination can only take you so far. My love and frustration for Fi is this reason. When an Fi feels with you it will be deep. If not, it will be far off. Mutually experiences does not implied your understanding of my experience nor are you allowing me to experience my own emotions. I push back when an Fi makes a claim of similarly experience because the point is lost. The point is _you_ now.


I can see that, and I think Fi is more related to sympathy, they will feel their own sadness about your situation, but not share you exact emotions, like when Fe sees someone crying they beg the person to stop crying because the themselves will begin to cry, the exact emotion is shared, <<<baffles me to no end btw. Yea I agree when Fi can relate it is deep because it can relate the many nuances of the feeling, so it has a very detailed understanding, but when it's off it's very off because it can assume someone is experiencing all those details when they might be experiencing something different, it's hard to see the forest from the trees in that case. And I experience the same with Fe, I tend to naturally push back when they assume how I feel as well because they are far off when misinformed by my facial expressions,<<which is the evidence they need to asses my feelings. But when they are right I feel like my emotions are matched by them<<<but leaves me confused in some cases because I think "Why does this matter as much to you as it dos me?". I think all I/E functions experience a miscommunication with each other when expressing their points of view on the same topic.

I also don't like when Fi tries to claim mutual experience when I am trying to experience my own fresh emotions. But I also like when Fi claims mutual experience when I am looking for someone who can relate so I do not feel like I am crazy for feeling what I feel.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yes, that's what Turi meant by "selfish" = "self-referential", as he replied to my post from before where he clarified it, but people are taking his meaning to be the common understanding of "selfish" = "not caring for others", but can you blame them?


Yes, I think people are seeing the words selfish and selfless as good and bad. Selfish= bad and selfless= good. And I do not tihnk this is always the case. Sometimes selfless people struggle to learn how to take care of their own needs. And Sometimes being selfish helps those around you and or close to you. So, I did not see Turi's use of words to be as offensive as the might seem at face value. But yea I can see how it's easy to take it that way since there is a stigma on the words. And when used IRL out of this context yea being called selfish for doing something natural to you sucks.





mistakenforstranger said:


> *I take "empathy" merely to mean, understanding what another person is feeling, not necessarily feeling the same (as Turi does),* !


The definition of empathy isn't just to understand but to actually share the feelings as well. Fi does not share the feelings directly as Fe does. So Fi isn't empathetic. I've even heard an Fe user say they have cried at funerals just because other people are crying, empathy. 

Sympathy is feeling sorrow for someone else's misfortune, that's it's definition, not sharing the same feeling. Understanding and feeling your OWN pain for the person, not sharing their pain like Fe. 

When Fe users show me empathy I am usually confused because I ask myself "Why do you care so much?!" And I try to interpret 

Example: If someone is mad about something Fe might jump in and get mad about it too or avoid the person so they do not get mad, but Fi might see whether or not it's something THEY would get mad about and then get mad or not. The result looks the same but the process is different. One is sharing the anger, one has developed their own anger. Fe doesn't usually say "I would be mad if someone had done that to me." That's an Fi statement. 



I think both types are capable of compassion, they might do it differently but I think both types can try to make someone feel better.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Lord Pixel said:


> The definition of empathy isn't just to understand but to actually share the feelings as well. Fi does not share the feelings directly as Fe does. So Fi isn't empathetic. I've even heard an Fe user say they have cried at funerals just because other people are crying, empathy.
> 
> Sympathy is feeling sorrow for someone else's misfortune, that's it's definition, not sharing the same feeling. Understanding and feeling your OWN pain for the person, not sharing their pain like Fe.
> 
> ...



idk about you, but I've definitely cried when watching other people cry, especially in tragedy... that's because empathy as a whole is NEITHER Fi OR Fe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Definitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Types

emotion contagion is only ONE aspect that can lead to empathy, but it's not empathy entirely, by itself. Crying because someone is crying doesn't mean you UNDERSTAND (the other component of empathizing) their situation or can even HELP them
in fact, affective (emotional) empathy has been found to be WORSE for helping people

"Research investigating the social response to natural disasters looked at the characteristics associated with individuals who help victims. Researchers found that cognitive empathy, rather than emotional empathy, predicted helping behavior towards victims.[34] Others have posited that taking on the perspectives of others (cognitive empathy) allows these individuals to better empathize with victims without as much discomfort, whereas sharing the emotions of the victims (emotional empathy) can cause emotional distress, helplessness, victim-blaming, and ultimately can lead to avoidance rather than helping.[35]"

sympathy (empathic concern) is not a separate thing but a part of affective empathy


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> idk about you, but I've definitely cried when watching other people cry, especially in tragedy... that's because empathy as a whole is NEITHER Fi OR Fe
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Definitions
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Types
> ...


We aren't discussing which one is more helpful or not though. That's fine if one is more helpful or not. But we are discussing which one is involved with the self less. And Fe is involved with the self-less than Fi. The empathy that has less discomfort sounds like Fi because you aren't affected by other's emotions directly. And crying because someone is crying makes you understand how they FEEL, not necessarily their situation but the raw current emotion you understand because you are also feeling it yourself. Understanding someone's situation isn't necessarily empathy, You can understand and still not care, but to understand the actual feeling because you feel it yourself, empathy. Fi in itself does not put it'self in other's shoes if you are doing that you are using your Ne (for INFPs), to imagine what it's like to be that person, and then you are searching your own Fi to see how YOU would feel, NOT THEM! And then you based how that person feels on how YOU would feel because you think how YOU would feel is how people would feel.<<<<Nothing wrong with this method either, but it's still not selfless because it involves YOU in the equation.

If I were to take an inexperienced stab at how Fe would empathize it might be like this : Stacy loves Tom. Tom dies. Fe person feels horrible for Stacy because Stacy loved Tom, and Tom died, and when people lose someone they love it causes sadness.
^ Fe users can correct my if I am way off on how Fe works.

And if it were an Fi person:
Stacy loves Tom, Tom dies. Fi person feels horrible for Stacy because if they lost a loved one they would feel horrible. Or they know what it's like to lose a loved one and the feeling is horrible.
^ Involves the self.

And that's why Fe users might be frustrated with Fi users because they are probably thinking "It's NOT ABOUT YOU! IT'S ABOUT STACY!"
And Fi users are frustrated because they are saying "HOW CAN I UNDERSTAND STACY IF I DON'T THINK ABOUT/KNOW HOW IT FEELS MYSELF!"

With the Fi kind of "empathy" Fi users might think you understand how they feel because you've lost a loved one. The major issue kicks in when that person goes on and on about the person THEY lost instead.

With the Fe kind of empathy Fi users might feel like "if you never lost someone how can you understand how I feel?" (because it won't occur to the Fi user that you are just experiencing the current raw emotion and not having personal sorrow yourself, because don't they process things that way). But the Fi person might feel glad to have someone who cares as much as them for some strange reason. The major issue comes when the Fe person tells you how you feel instead of just believing what you told them. Like "I know you must be feeling horrible." when you are definitely not. Feels like you are touching someone's private spot as if you had permission lol.

I don't know what Fe users would feel like, .


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Turi said:


> Think about it a little more, just apply the general idea of introversion, to personal values, likes and dislikes, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Fi types see their own as the truth - which means they basically shoot everything else down - things they don't like, boom, down it goes. Not interested.
> Gotta be something _worthy _of their _subjective valuation_ - otherwise, might as well not even be there - they themselves determine the worth of things - everything - literally what Feeling is - determining worth.
> ...


This is if a type is simply Fi and that's it, "Fi types" don't do this entirely. Yes if it is worth value subjectively they are more willing to pay attention to it, BUT that's not to say they don't recognize other things that have value to other's as valuable.

For instance, my favorite Disney movie is Tarzan, I recognize it is not the most popular and not the best on most people's lists, "my truth" is that it is my favorite, not that it is the best Disney movie, I would say that's probably Lion King since everybody picks that one. In a vaccuum yes, if Fi was just sitting around and watched the Disney films by itself it would determine Tarzan is the best, but with other's opinions involved it recognizes it has it's own opinion among the crowd and the best movie to itself is not the best to everybody.

Especially when discussing subjective topics, as an Fi dom it is very difficult to pause and constantly remind the person that I am speaking about my subjective taste, I usually think it's a given since we are talking about subjective topics, favorite movies, music, art and such. Constantly having to say "I LIKE" "MY FAVORITE" "I THINK" is just exhausting, when I can just say the best movie is this, <and that being what I fucking think lol. I usually assume when other's say the best movie is ____ they are usually talking about their subjective opinion as well, even if that's not always the case.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Lord Pixel said:


> We aren't discussing which one is more helpful or not though. That's fine if one is more helpful or not. But we are discussing which one is involved with the self less. And Fe is involved with the self-less than Fi. The empathy that has less discomfort sounds like Fi because you aren't affected by other's emotions directly. And crying because someone is crying makes you understand how they FEEL, not necessarily their situation but the raw current emotion you understand because you are also feeling it yourself. Understanding someone's situation isn't necessarily empathy, You can understand and still not care, but to understand the actual feeling because you feel it yourself, empathy. Fi in itself does not put it'self in other's shoes if you are doing that you are using your Ne (for INFPs), to imagine what it's like to be that person, and then you are searching your own Fi to see how YOU would feel, NOT THEM! And then you based how that person feels on how YOU would feel because you think how YOU would feel is how people would feel.<<<<Nothing wrong with this method either, but it's still not selfless because it involves YOU in the equation.
> 
> If I were to take an inexperienced stab at how Fe would empathize it might be like this : Stacy loves Tom. Tom dies. Fe person feels horrible for Stacy because Stacy loved Tom, and Tom died, and when people lose someone they love it causes sadness.
> ^ Fe users can correct my if I am way off on how Fe works.
> ...


The helpful part relates to the "understanding" part of empathy. It's not just about sharing the feeling, which is why I linked the wikipedia article as it explains that empathy is a whole host of behaviors and traits. Just take the time to read it, pls.

I don't believe Fe is involved with the self less, but _differently_, because the way extraverted functions work is that they rely more on the outside world to show them what's important, which then they reinforce with their behavior. They put the object first in order to support the self. Fe types are probably indeed more sensitive to emotion contagion on a wider spectrum (vs Fi being more selective) which may or may not lead to empathy depending on the situation (i.e. being in an angry mob against one person may block empathy towards the person in favor of the valued group)

Going by your example on Fi, that's exactly what "putting yourself in other peoples' shoes" means -> you imagine yourself in their position, which neuro imaging shows [imagination] is very important for empathy (along with mirror neurons firing). But imagination does not equate to Ne same way feelings do not equate F. Tho my understanding is that each function does orient the self towards those traits (F to valuing the realm of feeling, N imagination, etc), but that's just a side note, I digress.

But talking about yourself in this case is simply poor social skill in comforting others, which is fixable. Tho depending on the case, this may be exactly what someone needs to hear. It really depends on who you have in front of you.

I do agree that there are different approaches of the types when it comes to communication and they may not fit each other well. Fe types telling you you feel X way is obviously not empathy, but some kind of projection.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

This is still going on...:laughing::bored:

Anyways, I looked up one of the first videos on empathy on YouTube, and the way she describes empathy, whether you agree with Brown's definition/description of empathy or not, sounds Fi in nature @1:08 and 1:24.






"Empathy is a choice, and it's a vulnerable choice because in order to connect with you, I have to connect with something in myself that knows that feeling." 

Isn't that how Fi works? 

To go back to @*OliveBranch*'s main point, which has been forgotten for a while now, I think this quote from John Steinbeck in East of Eden describes that "human experience" of Fi quite well, and I also think it's interesting how it's in tension to Te (i.e. system), being its inferior function:

"And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost."


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ain't nobody going to like this post, but it's somewhat relevant.

Who doesn't have empathy? Like, at all, who isn't capable of empathy?
I'll tell you who - psychopaths. Among other things, they do not feel empathy, the only pain they are capable of feeling, is their own.
'My pain is my pain. Your pain is inconsequential.'

Within a psychopath, we have a person who can not feel empathy. Void.
So, I deduce that whatever makes up a psychopath, is then the opposite of what makes up empathy.

So, what makes up a psychopath?
Well, I'm no doctor, I'm just some douche on an personality forum on an internet, so I'm going to relate as much of this as possible, to personality theory even though there'll be people who complain about this approach (why are you even here then bra?)

*Hervey Cleckley’s* (author of _The Mask of Sanity_) *List of Psychopathy Symptoms:
*

Considerable superficial charm and average or above average intelligence. _Superficial charm, stereotypically E._
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking. _Lack of introverted perceiving._
Absence of anxiety or other “neurotic” symptoms. Considerable poise, calmness and verbal facility. _Lack of general introverted stereotypes and tendencies - likely E preference, then._
Unreliability, disregard for obligations, no sense of responsibility, in matters of little and great import. _Stereotypically P._
Untruthfulness and insincerity._ Not related to functions._
Antisocial behavior which is inadequately motivated and poorly planned, seeming to stem from an inexplicable impulsiveness. _Preference for Se/Ne, lack of Si/Ni._
Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior. _Eh._
Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience. _Lack of a stereotypical Si, though this is actually a lack of both Si and Ni._
Pathological egocentricity. Total self-centeredness and an incapacity for real love and attachment. _Stereotypically introverted judging._
General poverty of deep and lasting emotions. _Stereotypically T though I don't buy into this_
Lack of any true insight; inability to see oneself as others do. _Lack of introverted perception._
Ingratitude for any special considerations, kindness and trust. _Dunno._
Fantastic and objectionable behavior, after drinking and sometimes even when not drinking. Vulgarity, rudeness, quick mood shifts, pranks for facile entertainment. _Does what one wants. Wonder what function that would suggest - any takers? _
No history of genuine suicide attempts. _Why? Because they love themselves to much. Me me me. Introverted judging._
An impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated sex life. _Unrelated._
Failure to have a life plan and to live in any ordered way (unless it is for destructive purposes or a sham). _No plans, preference for P._

So using Cleckley's list, we can see a pattern that emerges - a preference for some kind of ExxP type - and, likely, ESxP due to the implied lack of ability to project thoughts into the future - suggested (imo) by lack of true insight, lack of planning capabilities, etc.
We also see the manifestations of a likely introverted judging function creeping in as well.

But, why stop there?

*Robert Hare’s Checklist of Psychopathy Symptoms:*


> 1. *GLIB AND SUPERFICIAL CHARM* — the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. He can also be a great listener, to simulate empathy while zeroing in on his targets’ dreams and vulnerabilities, to be able to manipulate them better.


Stereotypically extroverted traits. 



> 2. *GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH* — a grossly inflated view of one’s abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.


Stereotypically extroverted traits as well.



> 3. *NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM* — an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.


Se/Ne, pretty clearly - though, as outlined in my summary of Cleckley's checklist above, I believe it sways more towards Se than Ne.



> 4. *PATHOLOGICAL LYING* — can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative and dishonest.


Honestly this could be anyone, but it's a great fit for the SP temperament, as outlined in Eve DeLunas' 'Survival Play' re: the Blackmail game.



> 5. *CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS*: the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one’s victims.


This to me sounds like a pretty clear preference for introverted judging over extroverted judging - this is a total self-above-tribe mentality, taken from the depths of the ocean into outer space.



> 6. *LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT*: a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one’s victims.


This is, *braces self* a great fit for Jungs _Introverted Feeling_ type - one that's 'gone bad', no doubt, but it's his Fi type that basically fits the above to a T - if you will note, his Fi type is the only one he goes to town on as outlining as somebody that goes cold and dispassionate, of all 10 times he mentions 'cold' in a descriptor, 5 are in the Fi one.



> 7. *SHALLOW AFFECT*: emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness and superficial warmth.


Stereotypically E.



> 8. *CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY*: a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.


Sounds like a shitty Fi/Ti.



> 9. *PARASITIC LIFESTYLE*: an intentional, manipulative, selfis, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline and the inability to carry through one’s responsibilities.


Sounds like P to me, also how can someone really manipulate anybody, without E traits?



> 10. *POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS*: expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.


This reflects Se, to me.
Impatience.. aggression.. can't control anger or temper.. act hastily.. this is all a very 'here and now' mindset, inability to just chill out.



> 11. *PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR*: a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of numerous, multiple relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity (rape) or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits and conquests.


More stereotypical Se (sorry Se people who read this, I'm not saying you're all of the above, or any of the above, it's just Se is a 'best fit' for these traits, in psychopaths).



> 12. *EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS*: a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use and running away from home.


Bunch of things that fit SP re: Keirsey and DeLunas work, as well as fitting stereotypical impulsive 'here and now' aspects of Se, not to mention it's basically all physical and sensory activity in the external world. 
More Se.




> 13. *LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS*: an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.


So, no J tendencies - inability to organize, inability to plan ahead - awl P. Lead P. Se P. ESxP.



> 14. *IMPULSIVITY*: the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations and momentary urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic and reckless.


Massive points towards Se.



> 15. *IRRESPONSIBILITY*: repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.


Stereotypically P.



> 16. *FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS*: a failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.


More P. Maybe even hints at a shitty Fi/Ti.



> 17. *MANY SHORT-TERM RELATIONSHIPS*: a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including in marital and familial bonds.


More stereotypical P.



> 18. *JUVENILE DELINQUENCY*: behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.


Sounds ST or SF to me.



> 19. *REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE*: a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation or failing to appear.


P.



> 20. *CRIMINAL VERSATILITY*: a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes or wrongdoings.


Diversity eh, Se/Ne. P.


So running through both Cleckley's and Harvey's checklists, the pattern solidifies as a preference for some kind of Se dominant type, with a shitty introverted judging function preference, and possibly an ST temperament.
Some kind of ESxP, but with a shitty demon Ti/Fi.

According to Adrian Furnham, psychopaths have little sense of who they are (ergo, lacking a solid Fi/Ti), no value system (stereotypically Fi) or long-range goals (stereotypically Ni).
They like the 'here and now', and an exciting one at that (strong preference for Se/Ne) and they eschew stability and routine - hello _inferior _Si/Ni.


I could go on for much, much longer - but I'll stop here - the point I'm trying to make, is that psychopaths have no empathy, at all - and so in understanding what a psychopath is, we can understand what empathy is not.

Which is, in its most extreme form, an ESxP of some sort that 'maybe' prefers their extroverted judging function over their introverted one, even though their introverted one tends to dictate what they do, I'm not sure how to put this accurately - I'm basically suggested an Se dominant, with an inferior Ni - that _also _has an undifferentiated Ti/Fi.
An ESxP that has a demon Ti/Fi guiding them, perhaps, is one way of seeing the pattern that I see emerge.



This is to say, empathy then, is not solely the realm of extroversion - not that that was ever my argument - which was that without extroversion, empathy technically can't exist.

My own research into what extroversion isn't, suggests there likely is a link between empathy and cognitive functions/orientations, and that link would be that empathy is directly related to perception - when extroverted perceiving (Se, imo) is taken to it's most extreme levels, that's when empathy begins to dissipate.

This then, would suggest that introverted perceiving, if any functions whatsoever had to be forced into being 'empathetic', are where 'empathy' would be found.

Not within Fi, not within Fe, not any J functions - but Si/Ni - this is in dire contrast to a position I took earlier whereby I suggested Se/Ne if anything - I was on the right track, however, with empathy pertaining far, far more to perception, than any kind of judgment.


So to put basically this post, and my previous responses into some 'culmination' people can understand - I believe that without external stimuli, empathy can not exist.
My position here hasn't changed.

What has changed, are my views on introversion - I believe it's actually the J aspects of Fi that are the reasons Fi can't possibly be empathetic - not the introverted aspect.

Without introverting someone elses feelings, or emotional state, into your own - you can't experience empathy - ergo, both extroversion and introversion are required for the entire experience of empathy.


I see a spectrum of sorts, between an overly dominant Se/Ne, and Si/Ni - and that is, where the extroverted perceiving type is actually so.. caught up.. hung up.. consumed by.. (help??) the 'object', that is - the outer world, external stimuli, what they see, touch, feel, hear etc - that they don't actually allow themselves to abstract it's essence, they don't allow it into themselves, they don't allow that extroverted perception to enter within the depths of their psyche, at any level - conscious or unconscious - to experience empathy.


I believe extroverted perceiving, when taken to its extremes, is what both enables (in a healthy person) and _prevents _ (in a psychopath) empathy, which means to my simple little logically deductive brain, that Ni/Si must then be the closest functions we have to 'empathy', if it were to be any 'function' at all.

I picture a magnetic pull, of sorts, whereby once the Se/Ne is too far away from the Si/Ni, the object is out of reach of the magnet, and it's essence therefore not able to be abstracted into the realm of introverted perceiving - therefore, it can not be empathized with.










Likewise, if one is too far Si/Ni the same result is achieved due to being too far from the magnetic pull as well - for different reasons, they're too caught up/hung up on themselves/the subject that they never realize the object in the first place and therefore cannot abstract its essence to empathize with - essentially the Si/Ni types walls are up against the world.


This concept, fits beautifully into this idea that Se/Ne gather information in the real world, and Si/Ni organize known information.

People with an extreme preference for say, Se, as outlined in the psychopath (imo) would then be vastly, vastly preferring to gather new observable information, constantly - hence the impulsiveness and lack of foresight etc etc - so they are Se overlords, constantly craving the new, and are incapable of organizing known information to any degree, there is no inner perspective to relate to, no way of empathizing with another person, there is nothing there.

People with an extreme preference for say, Ni, as outlined in the psychopaths inferior function (imo) would then vastly, vastly prefer to go over known information, overly hesitant of new information (suspicious?) - so they are averse to gathering the new information that might lead to the possibility of empathizing with another in the first place.


I haven't got time right now, but am hopeful to fit in later - but I believe Dario Nardis work fits in perfectly with this idea.


I believe I was mistaken earlier in the thread, in my claims that Fi can't be 'empathy' due to introversion - I shift my position here slightly, to Fi can't be 'empathy' due to it being a rational/judging function - because, I believe 'empathy' is most closely resembled and found within the realms of the irrational functions, i.e perception - obviously, still an I/E thing though they work in tandem - extroversion required for causation, introversion required to experience, it's the J aspect that excludes Fi (isolated) from empathy, not introversion.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

the psychopathic brain is neurologically different from the typical brain, they have differences in all kinds of areas including of course emotional response and impaired empathy (not absent - fully functional cognitive empathy and selective emotional)
they can actually switch empathy on and off willfully, which is why they can make people believe they're not psychopaths


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> the psychopathic brain is neurologically different from the typical brain, they have differences in all kinds of areas including of course emotional response and impaired empathy (not absent - fully functional cognitive empathy and selective emotional)
> they can actually switch empathy on and off willfully, which is why they can make people believe they're not psychopaths


That's the point, re: brain differences.

I'm not convinced by the on/off thing due to the minute sample size, assuming it's the same one I'm looking at.



> "It's dangerous to look at brain activation and say that it means they're empathising. They are able to generate a typical neural response, but that doesn't mean they have the same empathetic experience," Prof Viding told BBC News.


Oh that too bra. That too.


If I could select one single function to identify as that 'switch', assuming it even is a thing, it would simply _have_ to be a subjective decision making function that determines the worth of what it is observing - Fi. 

Be prepared for my next classic post whereby I lay out Fi as definitively unempathetic and also the preferred decision making function of a psychopath (also not empathetic).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> That's the point, re: brain differences.
> 
> I'm not convinced by the on/off thing due to the minute sample size, assuming it's the same one I'm looking at.
> 
> ...



a neurological impairment on emotion and empathy are outside the realm of cognitive functions, it's a defect at the foundation of the brain (emotions are not F, logic not T, etc)
however, if the functions orient the brain towards each of those preferences, as I believe, psychopathic brains probably orient towards T primarily and they repress all F


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I did some googling to find studies if they exist and did find a few.
Empathic Ability and Communication Ability according to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI) Personality Type in Nursing Students | Korea Science
not the greatest sample sizes and probably doesn't reflect the general population either, but SFs and NFs scored the highest with other types not that far away, which makes sense cause they are nurses

https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/dissertations/3220/
this was on nurses again and found no correlations

then this which is behind a paywall that sci-hub can access, but they found T-F to be the most significant factor
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-03187-001


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> I didn't call Xcopy an idiot, but the person he described in the post.


That was the point - you calling someone you've never meant (not Xcopy) an idiot.

Out of nowhere.
From like one little tidbit of information. 

Summed up an entire person as 'an idiot'.

Just like that.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Mr Castelo said:


> Lol, this thread is a shitshow.


Remarkable how it's one of our best threads on this topic and I am still none the wiser than I was before engaging in it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> maybe that's how you want to see it
> I see it as an exchange of opinions and having discussions because that's the core purpose of a forum. Expecting what you say to be addressed is the point and certainly the most important function of this place.


Which part of shooting people down when they say something you don't agree with is "an exchange of opinions".

It's a complete denial of the possibility.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> That was the point - you calling someone you've never meant (not Xcopy) an idiot.
> 
> Out of nowhere.
> From like one little tidbit of information.
> ...


Yea to make him think if he's just generalizing a certain behavior that may be based on the individual. I obviously don't know if that person is an idiot, tho it seems he hasn't put much thought into what he said. Who's taking things literally now?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Yea to make him think if he's just generalizing a certain behavior that may be based on the individual. I obviously don't know if that person is an idiot, tho it seems he hasn't put much thought into what he said. Who's taking things literally now?


Did you just assume the amount of thought someone you've never met, has put into their opinions? 
**triggered**


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Which part of shooting people down when they say something you don't agree with is "an exchange of opinions".
> 
> It's a complete denial of the possibility.


What did I deny? I know Fi types who behave the same way he described. I also know other types (ESTP, too) who behave the same way. That's what I told him in that post. It's not just a matter of type.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> What did I deny? I know Fi types who behave the same way he described. I also know other types (ESTP, too) who behave the same way. That's what I told him in that post. It's not just a matter of type.


An exchange of opinions. 

Dude chipped in his 2p, you chimed in with 'dudes an idiot with an idiotic mindset and I know people who are idiots of other types so that's that' and basically attempted to just shut down that possible 'exchange of opinions' then and there, lol.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> An exchange of opinions.
> 
> Dude chipped in his 2p, you chimed in with 'dudes an idiot with an idiotic mindset and I know people who are idiots of other types so that's that' and basically attempted to just shut down that possible 'exchange of opinions' then and there, lol.


and why can't he respond to that, in any way he wants?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Lady of Clockwork said:


> Really? I'm finding the whole thing amusingly illuminating. Only one person seems to have had a consistent opinion throughout this debate; the others I can't quite make it out: it's like they think one thing, feel a different thing, then say something completely different. I can no longer find anyone anymore agreeable.
> 
> I think @Xcopy also had a good perspective. *I think it a strange dynamic that someone who's trying to argue their points on empathy goes ahead and blatantly calls someone they've never met an idiot with an idiotic mindset simply because they have an opinion of their own*. I'm indifferent to whether its black and white concept falls into Fi or not, but the hypocrisy is too amusing to be true, almost too amusing to be looked at.


It doesn't really effect their argument what they personally do though, does it? As long as we are debating theoretical limitations of Fi, that is.


----------



## fresh (Jul 3, 2011)

Turi said:


> @*fresh* - all that to say, no, you can not support your claim, with any specificity - now you've shifted the posts _again_ by broadening it to 'twisting science', like, science in general or something.
> 
> So we see a clear path from your very specific accusation getting broader and broader and broader in your attempts to evade actually supporting the original claim, that was I twisted scientific studies to support my subjective theory.
> 
> ...


So now it's a deal where you feel you can pick and choose what you want me to respond to? While also being dismissive of pretty much everything I've said so far, not actually arguing against it? Woow. How is THAT for strawman? 

Science is not just brain stuff homie, collection of data that led to those lists of traits were also the outcome of science, but to you, I guess, only brain stuff qualifies. You want a step-by-step analysis of that specific chunk spoon-fed to you? Fine, you asked for it. 



Turi said:


> “Cognitive empathy is the ability to know what other people are feeling, and emotional empathy is the kind where you feel what they’re feeling.” - James Fallon, Neuroscientist at University of California.


Firstly, "University of California" is not a school. He's from the University of California, *Irvine.* You could have at least gotten the school right. 



Turi said:


> So psychopaths know what you're feeling (cognitive empathy) but don't feel it themselves - lines up with pretty much everything I've said about Fi so far.


Twist: You are basing the idea that cognitive empathy only pertains to Fi without citing a source that also PROVES the connection of cognitive empathy TO Fi, but specifically to your own definition of Fi, which is not the same definition that has been used in neurology based cognitive function studies so far.

Also, you are contradicting the evidence you presented earlier which explicitly and repeatedly states that psychopaths LACK EMPATHY. They aren't capable of empathizing. How can psychopaths have cognitive empathy if they don't have empathy? You're making this easy so far.



> But a new Harvard-led study out in the journal Neuron highlights a less obvious aspect of the typical psychopath: poor decision-making.
> 
> Psychopaths' brains seem to be wired so that they are poor at taking into account how bad they'll feel in the future about what makes them feel good in the present, the study finds. And it suggests that perhaps, at the heart of the psychopath problem, is a brain that's poor at generating simulations — whether of other people's feelings or of the future.
> 
> ...


Twist: You are connecting the content as explaining "impulsivity" when it's only focusing on poor-decision making. "A brain that's poor at generating simulations" is not necessarily equal to being impulsive.

Additionally, the APA article I listed earlier states that impulsivity is not always a necessary qualifier when diagnosing a psychopath, so that plays little importance here anyway.



Turi said:


> So this is more 'proof' if you will that their natures tends to favour extroverted sensation, and an inferior intuition (unable to generate mental simulations of how things will play out).


Assuming that we're playing by the rules that their cognitive functional processes function normally, the same as a non-psychopathic person, that is. Which is impossible given the neural processing differences laid out here. Tune in for more on this later!



> We asked people to choose between a sooner but smaller and a larger but later reward. And from their behavior we can estimate how steeply the value of delayed reward decays as you go forward in the future.
> 
> We gave a group of incarcerated offenders this kind of inter-temporal choice task and we scanned them. What this allowed us to do was to understand how their brains represent rewards at different phases in time.
> 
> ...


Twist: Okay, here you are making the assumption...

a. That Se is the only function capable of being present focused. That's what you mean by:



Turi said:


> "Now!" (Se).


right?

b. That Fi knows what it wants in the moment, despite the fact that it is an introverted function. Where does Jung state this aspect of Fi? Fi may know what it _feels_ in the moment, but what it wants? No. Not the same thing. 

c. That deficits in a decision-making process could not rely on an extroverted judging function, one that would more reliably be concerned with _acting_ through a decision right away. Introverted judging functions may immediately try to make sense of something in order to make a decision, but those who have it higher in their stack are reliably bad at forming a decision in the first place, and sometimes acting on it.

Psychopaths are considered to have poor decision making skills within this article because they are not thinking of the implications of their decisions. A decision is still being made none-the-less, in a way that *could arguably* disregard perceiving information, even info that Se itself obtains. I'm not saying this last point is any more or less true than what you're saying, but I'm merely pointing out there are _multiple ways of explaining this tendency with the cognitive functions_, not the singular way you are doing so through Se.


You also make no mention of the context here being a reward system (as the article does), nor of psychopaths being reward driven (as the article pinpoints), and do not mention what the reward in this context was. It was a marshmallow. These guys are in prison. So many other factors could have resulted in their decision to choose to eat the marshmallow now rather than later, resulting in that finding. Scientists are in a rush to prove things for more cred, and articles like these completely ignore the limitations of their findings to get clicks and make money. This article doesn't even mention what type of "brain scan" they conducted, which is pretty important. But I digress. I guess this is what you think "straw-man-ing" is right?

Also, now Fi is a value-based function!? Earlier you said it wasn't. Is it or isn't it, yo?



Turi said:


> I suggest Fi and not Fe, or F in general - as it's pretty clear psychopaths aren't including others in their decisions in any way shape or form and this (arguably) is something that's completely missing - extroversion in their deciders.


Truthfully, idk what you are saying here. This is just a jumbled fragment. But hey, here's that assumption that Fi can't think of others again, one of your biggest twists of Jung's words specifically, something that you have yet to prove with any actual evidence, besides anecdotal conjecture and repeating yourself a thousand times.



> Then, we used a technique called functional connectivity, which is useful because we know that the brain is all about networks — individual brain regions don't act in isolation — and the brain is full of exquisitely intricate regulatory mechanisms. We thought maybe one of those regulatory mechanisms might be broken.
> 
> And sure enough, when we looked at connectivity in these individuals, we found a weaker connection between the striatum — the part of the brain that we found was overreactive during that inter-temporal choice task — and a part of the brain called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is really important for mental time travel, for looking at how we're going to feel about something in the future and making decisions based on that. It's a core component of what it means to make goal-directed, future-oriented decisions.
> 
> ...


Making that same association of Fi knowing what it likes or wants. I mean, come on, the article itself made a better argument for Fi here than you did!

Twist: This one is your biggest one, and it's one I stated earlier in my Abominable post. When connecting these neural patterns to cognitive functions, you are relating this as if psychopaths would follow the same patterns as a normal, functional person, with normal affect, with the capacity to implement genuine empathy, etc. Psychopaths aren't that, so why are you even bothering to construct a theory with the assumption that they are? You make no attempt to explicitly state they aren't functioning normally in this post of yours ESPECIALLY.

Here, I highlighted all the times they make it clear that what psychopaths are doing is NOT normal. So how can you apply a theory that assumes neurological normality to someone who is neurologically abnormal? The premise itself is entirely wrong here.



Turi said:


> My own theory re: psychopaths and functions, is that the ESFP personality type is a best fit for them, in accordance with 'functions' - I've outlined my belief at an extraordinary disconnect between their lead Se, and inferior Ni - and I believe they are driven by their own, personal, subjective-value based decision making process - they are all about their own likes and dislikes - to top this off, this one actually believes himself to be rational:
> 
> 
> 
> > “Psychopaths do think they’re more rational than other people, that this isn’t a deficit,” says Hare. “I met one offender who was certainly a psychopath who said ‘My problem is that according to psychiatrists I think more with my head than my heart. What am I supposed to do about that? Am I supposed to get all teary-eyed?’”


How does thinking with one's head lend itself to Se? Or Fi? Assuming he is an ESFP. Going by stereotypes of Se working completely on it's own, Se doesn't think as much as it just "does".



Turi said:


> A lot of people mistakenly believe only T is rational, I mean Keirsey literally called the NTs 'rationals' but Feeling is rational, equally as rational as Thinking, in Jungian terms - the above quote helps weave things together - (this particular) psychopath believe he thinks with his head more than his heart - we saw earlier that psychopaths 'think' with essentially some sort of impaired, short-term Se-Fi process - *to me,* this sounds like he's recognizing, somewhere in his subconsciousness, that he's 'thinking' via some form of subjective-value process that only has it's interest peaked in certain situations whereby _he is put in similar positions_.


Twist: You are ascribing your own account to his experience here, especially with the whole "similar positions" thing. If he were to do this "similar position thing", than that's contradicting what is stated in the article about psychopaths lacking the ability to generate simulations.



Turi said:


> He is recognizing that he doesn't always feel that way. That it's situational. He's not always bound by those feelings.


Again, ascribing your own subjective account to what he said. He is only recognizing that his response is not one "from the heart" via his psychiatrist, and is questioning what is it he "should" be doing. None of what you stated here can be logically deduced from what he actually said.



Turi said:


> This plays so well into the idea I've laid out in this thread of Fi possessing a 'holier than thou' attitude - like most things aren't worthy of their subjective valuation so they dismiss it.


Twist: Where is the evidence for this? It surely is not in ANYTHING laid out in this article, not that that would matter anyway, given that this article has literally no direct connection to the functions. Fi having a holier than thou attitude, especially for that reason, is, again, conjecture. Who, in the authority of the MBTI world, has said this?

Also, to state that "things *aren't* *worthy* of their subjective valuation" is even possible of Fi just showcases how little you understand it. 

***

There. Happy? 

It's implied in your posts about this theory of yours that you think it's revolutionary to connect traits of psychopathy to ESxPs, but isn't this already one of the most blatant and misguided stereotypes of SPs? Novices to the cognitive functions would probably reach this same conclusion through a first glance. Either way, it doesn't make it correct.


----------



## nicoloco90 (May 3, 2010)

Catwalk said:


> This how my (Fi) register(s) humanity ::
> 
> Stay out of my swamp unless you have something intriguing to say/offer. I stay out of yours. In my personal space (which is whatever piece of ground I happen to walk on)... _Myself. My rules. My shit. My space._ Respect, earns respect in return. Do not kick the little people on the way out - or I will be forced to dismantle your limbs. Have a great day.
> 
> (Overdramatized, but_ correct in essence_), indeed.


This is very typical INTJ bombarie though. I never know for sure whether they say these things for the sake of making big statements / big impressions in order to seem tough and in control, or just because they're actually scared and unsure .... almost as if they know that it is their big achilles' heel that nobody is supposed to know about. It is that thick wall of defence. In the end I think INTJs themselves wished it were / could be different, if only the majority of humanoids in this world wouldn't stomp on it and/or exploit it.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Turi said:


> My theory is that psychopaths likely favor Se, to an incredible degree, so much so they embody an inferior intuition and this is reflected in the 'evidence' I provided.
> 
> In seeing where empathy is generally lacking (psychopaths), I identified (imo) that empathy is likely due to our introverted perceiving functions ***if we are to force this shit into personality theory for the sake of theorizing like I already said*** - so it then makes sense that Fi, alongside the other J functions, would be in my opinion, not related to empathy.
> 
> I also believe I identified which J function, if any, is likely the generic psychopaths preferred function - and that was Fi. A shitty, undifferentiated one, but Fi nonetheless.


Whatever happened to all introverted functions are "selfish"? Now that doesn't apply to *introverted* *perceivers*, because psychopaths don't have empathy (Okay, I think we can all agree on that, and is backed by psychology), since psychopaths are ESxPs (in your *opinion*, not based on *anything suggested by scientific studies*, as you continue to state, _except your ability to connect things tangentially to one another_), therefore because ESxPs are inferior Ni, an introverted perceiving function, then that means ("logically", of course h it is the type of function most associated with empathy. That's your position, right? I thought you had a valid point before, but you're_ really_ reaching at this point. I don't even know why people are arguing with you about it, since this is so absurd.

If there was an *actual* *study *done by researchers that showed ESxPs are most likely to be psychopaths, or the type most lacking in empathy, then you might have a point (though, I doubt such a study exists, or would ever be undertaken), but just taking a list of traits of psychopathy and connecting them to a MBTI type/Jungian function *does not prove anything*, or say anything about which function is related to empathy, and yes, is rather insulting and typist to suggest it. Any type can be psychopathic (as @*fresh* also gave examples before of *actual known* psychopaths who are not ESxPs, which completely contradicts your "theory") and lacking in empathy! Stop trying to connect the two to prove your "theory" on the most baseless of assumptions, and then claiming it's based in "science". :laughing:

I did feel you were a Ti-user...



> When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content,* External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. *Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. *Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfill, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity. *
> 
> 
> But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. *For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life.* What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?
> ...


You're pretty *textbook* Jungian Ti here, bud. He would be so proud you're proof of his theory!



Turi said:


> That's the way! Shoot down those opinions that aren't aligned with your own!


Are you sure you're not describing yourself here?


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> an idiot told you something idiotic and you generalize to the function
> I've met plenty of people Fi and non Fi who behave like this, because they don't think their opinions for more than 5 minutes


You're paying attention to the wrong thing. That was not the point.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> I think it was a good perspective on feeling types in general. Fi is described as evaluating ethical and moral qualities of others, so those examples seemed relevant to the function imo. However @Xcopy I think you give too much credit towards Fi types, because Fe types can have strong moral principles too.


I did? I don't remember saying Fe users didn't. It just wasn't what the conversation was about, which was why I stopped talking about Fe to stay on topic.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

fresh said:


> So now it's a deal where you feel you can pick and choose what you want me to respond to?


No, you made a wild accusation, got called out, and couldn't (still can't) support it - you for whatever reason, went on some rampage against me, using some post that wasn't the one in question - I don't see a need to engage in the malicious games you're attempting to tempt me with.



> Twist: You are basing the idea that cognitive empathy only pertains to Fi without citing a source that also PROVES the connection of cognitive empathy TO Fi, but specifically to your own definition of Fi, which is not the same definition that has been used in neurology based cognitive function studies so far.
> 
> Also, you are contradicting the evidence you presented earlier which explicitly and repeatedly states that psychopaths LACK EMPATHY. They aren't capable of empathizing. How can psychopaths have cognitive empathy if they don't have empathy? You're making this easy so far.


_This _is what 'twisting' looks like.
Nowhere, did I state that cognitive empathy pertains only to Fi - I merely suggested that what I posted, supported my previous posts with regards to Fi.

No such definitive claim was made. No such 'twist' occurred, outside of your own in order to up your post count here.



> Twist: You are connecting the content as explaining "impulsivity" when it's only focusing on poor-decision making. "A brain that's poor at generating simulations" is not necessarily equal to being impulsive.
> 
> Additionally, the APA article I listed earlier states that impulsivity is not always a necessary qualifier when diagnosing a psychopath, so that plays little importance here anyway.


Again, this is more twisting - you are intentionally twisting my words, in order to support your own theory here.
I did not connect the content as 'explaining' impulsivity - shit, I'll just quote myself:



> Poor decision making, due to not being able to project how that decision will play out into the future, iow - this is supporting that impulsive nature I brought up in the other post.


I theorized that poor decision making, due to not being able to project how those decisions play out into the future supports the impulsive nature I brought up in a previous post - I'm unsure what there is to disagree with here?
If somebody is a poor decision maker, and can't project how those decisions play out into the future - are they more likely to be a long-term decision maker, or are they more likely to be an impulsive short-term decision maker?

The connection I made - which isn't the one you suggested (I presented the content _itself _as supporting impulsivity) - isn't a reach, and I made a clear distinction between what the article said, and what I theorized, by using a hyphen to separate the two, to separate what the article said, and my own (logical) association.


I don't see a need to respond to the rest of this post, as it's clear you have a vendetta and are twisting what I say, to support your own theory that I twisted scientific studies to support mine.

I'm confident this is how it appears on the wider social spectrum and am confident I have expressed my thoughts with regards to the way you are altering my words to fit your theory - therefore, I am happy to disengage with you here.


----------



## fresh (Jul 3, 2011)

Turi said:


> No, you made a wild accusation, got called out, and couldn't (still can't) support it - you for whatever reason, went on some rampage against me, using some post that wasn't the one in question - I don't see a need to engage in the malicious games you're attempting to tempt me with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:laughing::laughing::laughing:


So long @*Turi*. Have fun with all your "theoretical" creations!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Everyone gives up :/


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

*Temp closed for review*


----------

