# Something I Don't Understand About Fi Doms & Authenticity



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

justMatt said:


> I think that it is inauthentic for this person to, in one circumstance, wholeheartedly disagree with what the person is doing and denounce it, yet be completely cool and nonchalant about it to their face, and totally go along with it.



You think being cool and nonchalant about differing opinions is inauthentic? Must people always express their beliefs with the same intensity level? 

The way you are describing it is kind of vague. It seems like she simply disagrees with an idea and also happens to hang out with the people she disagrees with without being uncivil or confrontational about the disagreement. 

I can't tell what "totally go along with it" means. If she's saying "x is wrong" in one situation and saying "x is right" in another situation, sure, that's inauthentic. But saying "x is wrong" in one situation and keeping quiet about x in another situation is not inauthentic.


----------



## Jagbas (Jul 8, 2015)

I think that trying to become someone (a better self or whatever) is surely possible. 
Although, I can try to change myself and make some small adjustments and go a long way, but deep inside i'll be the same person. I will always be authentic and true to myself even during the journey and at the end of my journey. Not because i will make myself do it, but because it's just innate. It's intrisic. I don't think i could ever be something different than myself. When i seem like it, it's either because i'm forcing it or because i'm in a loop/grip etc...
You can change and still be yourself in the end.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> You think being cool and nonchalant about differing opinions is inauthentic? Must people always express their beliefs with the same intensity level?
> 
> The way you are describing it is kind of vague. It seems like she simply disagrees with an idea and also happens to hang out with the people she disagrees with without being uncivil or confrontational about the disagreement.
> 
> I can't tell what "totally go along with it" means. If she's saying "x is wrong" in one situation and saying "x is right" in another situation, sure, that's inauthentic. But saying "x is wrong" in one situation and keeping quiet about x in another situation is not inauthentic.


Authenticity is a bit iffy word for these situations tbh... it is not about that... could be a case where people ought to "practise what they preach" but imo @justMatt expects ideals/values to be reflected in the person's actions... consistency of principles in a way?

Though I think Fi especially would be civil about these things and gives room for people to have their own personal values... it is Fe that imposes values on others (and would cause controversy in a quest for objective values), Fi less so because it assumes everyone has their own ideals.


----------



## Cobble (Dec 6, 2016)

Very good and instructing thread, 
Simply posting here to save it in my subscription list,
And to thank everyone for their inputs. I'm learning a lot from all of you here.

(I'm under the same "I don't understand Fi stance" as the OP, so I'm not giving any input !)


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Had some thoughts on universality of values.

I think the natural way for Fe to find universal values is to share and express, generate and reform values out in the open. It goes about seeking what people generally value, and treats those as universal. Quite obvious, as you'd expect. Impartial too in a way because it happens in a way of "discovering" these values from the world...

The greatness of Fi is less in its individuality or authenticity (we all have those... more or less) and more in that it can distance itself from the immediate situation/ feeling environment. Being detached, even disinterested in it. That doesn't mean impartiality! But it means that value is independent of all external "disturbance", free, pure and universally applicable in the sense that it transcends the situation ("the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword" is utterly honourable and just rule when an honourable man is the judge... even if in practise this could lead into completely arbitrary subject-reliant judgements and judge/jury/excecutioner -situations). The "ideal" is valued and applied.. always approached, instead of the "actual". And Fi would be faithful to it... because otherwise, what is the point of knowing it?


----------



## justMatt (May 4, 2017)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> I can't tell what "totally go along with it" means. If she's saying "x is wrong" in one situation and saying "x is right" in another situation, sure, that's inauthentic. But saying "x is wrong" in one situation and keeping quiet about x in another situation is not inauthentic.


Yes, exactly


----------



## justMatt (May 4, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Authenticity is a bit iffy word for these situations tbh... it is not about that... could be a case where people ought to "practise what they preach" but imo @justMatt expects ideals/values to be reflected in the person's actions... consistency of principles in a way?
> 
> Though I think Fi especially would be civil about these things and gives room for people to have their own personal values... it is Fe that imposes values on others (and would cause controversy in a quest for objective values), Fi less so because it assumes everyone has their own ideals.


Authenticity is a bit iffy, as it leans torwards other implications. But thank you for putting it into better words for me! 

_*Consistency of principles*_

I, an FI, am certainly ok with people having different ideals, however I expect consistency of ideals/principles. Fe will tend to modify their ideals or principles to fit a group in some situations, and it is then where you could see an implied inconsistency


----------



## justMatt (May 4, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Authenticity is a bit iffy word for these situations tbh... it is not about that... could be a case where people ought to "practise what they preach" but imo @justMatt expects ideals/values to be reflected in the person's actions... consistency of principles in a way?
> 
> Though I think Fi especially would be civil about these things and gives room for people to have their own personal values... it is Fe that imposes values on others (and would cause controversy in a quest for objective values), Fi less so because it assumes everyone has their own ideals.


If i could thank you 100 times, I totally would. Like, you read my mind. I _do_ expect ideals/values to be reflected in a persons actions! And if I see inconsistency, I see traits of in authenticity (although it is a very fine line, I understand) And yes, as an Fi I am extremely civil about having different ideals than my own, and I encourage independent thinking! But if i see someone who isnt "practicing what they preach," I start to question their motives, and if they are an Fe I may draw to the conclusion that they may be trying to manipulate someone by playing off their values...in an extreme case. I would definitely question their character in all cases


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

I agree with @DOGSOUP and @justMatt it's interesting to see @Benty Fagatronicus viewpoint though. Like dogsoup said Fi assumes everyone has their own ideals, and everyone has their own inner authenticity, so when Fe modifies it's values to the group or represses it's views to keep harmony, it looks like it's repressing it's authentic self to appease the masses. This is what Fi considers fake, who you are is not lined with with what you do. That's the inconsistency. Saying gay is wrong then hanging out with gay people isn't completely inauthentic, but for an Fi user they would be disturbed deep down feeling like they are violating something they truly stand for. To use a less controversial example, if you are a staunch animal rights activist vegan, and you go on field trip to a hot dog factory and see how it's made, if you start asking the workers about their job and being all friendly while they are telling you how the kill the very animals you fight for, if you're talking to them like you are ok with it, to an Fi user it's literally like you dropped your whole identity JUST to get along with this....stranger. Fi would be cringing thinking "F*ck that guy, I don't know him, and he kills animals I don't agree with a damn thing he says, fuck his logic"(even though inferior Te would be saying, he has a point, but I don't care) and Fi will not try to be friends with this person or appease to them in any kind of way, Fi-doms might just keep harmony long enough to get out of that situation without conflict, respecting this persons way of life but definitely not agreeing with it and therefore not wanting to be around it since that person's presence is not consistent with Fi users values. And as someone mentioned Fi doms do not find the need to defend themselves because of it's subjectivity, as far as they are concerned, their values don't need to be proven to YOU because internally it is real for THEM. There isn't always a clear logical explanation on the surface for an Fi doms inner values, so when challenged objectively it can struggle to clarify itself in that way, and the struggle exists because the Fi values still exist inside them (and can't be denied by the Fi user) whether or not they can be defended or explained, so when someone says the value is flawed, Fi recognizes that this value is very important to them FIRST then questions later why is it so important often struggling to find an objective justification, so Fi-doms don't want to be bothered by the explanation, but simply want others to be aware of it's importance to them. Example: (Touchy topic up ahead) Me and my ex argued over the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case. After doing some research I ventured a guess that Zimmerman didn't do it out of a hate crime, he was in the right. My Ex said no way, I asked her why, she said because she just feels like Zimmerman is a bad person, now you can't base an argument off of that, none of that has any objective value, and I could say it's BS, but to her it's not BS since she feels it internally, and that is where she placed the value, that she felt that way, not whether the observation proved otherwise. 

Short little example from my own life:

Before all this skinny jeans crap was cool, there were alot of kid wearing big baggy pants for the ghetto look, those kids used to make fun of kids that wore skinny jeans, now those same kids who wore the baggy pants and bullied skinny jeans kids now think skinny jeans are cool, of course I looked at all them and thought, fake af.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Lord Pixel said:


> when Fe modifies it's values to the group or represses it's views to keep harmony, it looks like it's repressing it's authentic self to appease the masses.


I cannot not comment on the harmony part because far too often I see people suggest that harmony is the main purpose of Fe or something. And it just grates me lol sorry. Fe-dom would never repress feeling (the thing we do repress is thinking if it goes against feeling), and harmony would be promoted _only_ if it has value. The way Fe then goes about it is to treat harmony as an object(ive) that everyone should engage in maintaining. If harmony doesn't seem fitting then it is ignored, often completely. 

Thinking Fe as "modifying" the value is a good idea tho. I wonder if that could be expanded on. Maybe that is really that part that seems dishonest about it? It is kind of manipulation to be fair.

Another thing I was curious: does Fi ever adapt to fill social roles? And not sure if it has been discussed, but do Fi types really think individuals can remain unaffected by social pressure and group feeling, even during extreme times (Nazi Germany being the most obvious example)? Or is that even a question of Fe/Fi at all?

Was wondering about this with an ENTP, obviously we couldn't get around it.


----------



## justMatt (May 4, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> I cannot not comment on the harmony part because far too often I see people suggest that harmony is the main purpose of Fe or something. And it just grates me lol sorry. Fe-dom would never repress feeling (the thing we do repress is thinking if it goes against feeling), and harmony would be promoted _only_ if it has value. The way Fe then goes about it is to treat harmony as an object(ive) that everyone should engage in maintaining. If harmony doesn't seem fitting then it is ignored, often completely.
> 
> Thinking Fe as "modifying" the value is a good idea tho. I wonder if that could be expanded on. Maybe that is really that part that seems dishonest about it? It is kind of manipulation to be fair.
> 
> ...


I consider myself very Fi, considering it is my 2nd function in my cognitive stack  so I`ll answer this to the best of my ability...
I have adapted to fill social roles, albeit in very minor ways. Going back to the controversial topic of LGBTQ, I was in choir for most of my time in high school. We had a couple of of people that fit into that group, and I got along with them fine. However, when one of them approached me and asked me what I thought of the LGBTQ movement, I told them my religious/personal stance, and they proceeded to not include me in anything from that point on. I had slightly altered my values to allow me to be cordial to them, but when it came down to them asking me I was unwavering. 
This is just an example, so don`t @ me with arguments for/against LGBTQ


----------



## deadgirlrunning (Feb 14, 2011)

> Another thing I was curious: does Fi ever adapt to fill social roles? And not sure if it has been discussed, but do Fi types really think individuals can remain unaffected by social pressure and group feeling, even during extreme times (Nazi Germany being the most obvious example)? Or is that even a question of Fe/Fi at all?
> 
> Was wondering about this with an ENTP, obviously we couldn't get around it.


I think Fi can adapt to fill social roles, although they will always value their inner values over group ones, which could lead to serious internal/potential external conflict.

However, during very difficult times I suspect that Fi would adapt for survival purposes or be completely overtaken by an auxillary/shadow function. I don't think it is really a question of Fe/Fi, especially when it comes to something as extreme as the Holocaust. It seems that pretty much everyone, particularly Fe doms, are shocked by the cruelty and conformity to social norms that occurred during that time.


----------



## justMatt (May 4, 2017)

deadgirlrunning said:


> I think Fi can adapt to fill social roles, although they will always value their inner values over group ones, which could lead to serious internal/potential external conflict.
> 
> However, during very difficult times I suspect that Fi would adapt for survival purposes or be completely overtaken by an auxillary/shadow function. I don't think it is really a question of Fe/Fi, especially when it comes to something as extreme as the Holocaust. It seems that pretty much everyone, particularly Fe doms, are shocked by the cruelty and conformity to social norms that occurred during that time.


Yeah I agree! I can think of alot of cases where my values caused internal or external conflict because of the group dynamic/mindset. Most cases, for me, ended up turning into an external conflict i.e. denouncing said group or parting ways


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> I cannot not comment on the harmony part because far too often I see people suggest that harmony is the main purpose of Fe or something. And it just grates me lol sorry. Fe-dom would never repress feeling (the thing we do repress is thinking if it goes against feeling), and harmony would be promoted _only_ if it has value. The way Fe then goes about it is to treat harmony as an object(ive) that everyone should engage in maintaining. If harmony doesn't seem fitting then it is ignored, often completely.
> 
> Thinking Fe as "modifying" the value is a good idea tho. I wonder if that could be expanded on. Maybe that is really that part that seems dishonest about it? It is kind of manipulation to be fair.
> 
> ...


Well, I have no purely objective evidence for this, I have subjective examples FWIW. I know, when I go into a room and sense the need for a certain personality to exist i.e.( room filled with quiet people, or room filled with loud people), I tend to fill the missing role. Is that Fi? Not sure but I tend to have a range of characters depending on how I feel around certain people (If I'm at ease around someone I act one way, if I'm intimidated I act another, and these two characters can be quiet different and people have claimed me to either be introvert or extrovert at times). As I'm typing this that also sounds fake, but non of these characters violate my core values, but this also does complicate the search for "identity" as that changes around different groups, acting more extroverted or introverted. I also don't think Fi is immune to social pressure or group feeling completely, social pressure and group feeling can also affect Fi, but you might notice that the affect is delayed, the social pressure is internally processed and made to align with Fi values. So in Nazi Germany I'd imagine an Fi-dom on both sides, whether one was convinced by Hitler wholeheartedly or convinced by his victims wholeheartedly, the convincing would be the social pressure appealing to the inner values of the Fi-doms. One might be appealed to through "purity" and the other through "freedom" both gained from an outside source.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

MusiCago said:


> This is sort of a contradiction.. If an Fi dom is valuing who they want to be and not who they truly are, then the person they want to be _becomes_ who they truly are, in their own mind. Identity is all in the ego of the mind, and perceived self =/= true self, therefore it is impossible to become your true self unless you reach a higher level of consciousness.


I disagree because some people do not actually encompass what they want to be thru action always. Where their actions and reactions do not line up with how they identify what they hold in value. Eh hypocrisy is a thing for example. Haven't you seen people project values and an identity and not live up to what they promote? I have anyways. 

For sake of topic I do not believe that for example Fi or Fe alone can be relied upon to determine who for example has identity crisis. I have seen Fi and Fe users having identity crisis which to me is just juggling between embracing your identity for what it is vs playing a role or ideal.

Some people have very lost Fi and will mimick Fe. 

Fi does not mean the people do not fall into conformity ever either. Sometimes their Fi values is conformity in conventional ways as well as counter culture. They are just lead by these values does not mean these values are above conformity 'group think'. 

An example would be someone with very expansive Fe in a group of Fi people who all hold the same value or propaganda. That is an instance where an Fe user could be arguing either from merit or devils advocate with a group of Fi users (which I would think most people have seen before).

Those trying to suggest it simply means not group think are wrong. Depends where the Fi lines up with the group and how it relates it.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

deadgirlrunning said:


> I think Fi can adapt to fill social roles, although they will always value their inner values over group ones, which could lead to serious internal/potential external conflict.


Yeah I believe strong Fi have some more flexibility in this regard than say a TJ with no Fe what so ever - there will just be more rumination over it.


> However, during very difficult times I suspect that Fi would adapt for survival purposes or be completely overtaken by an auxillary/shadow function. I don't think it is really a question of Fe/Fi, especially when it comes to something as extreme as the Holocaust. It seems that pretty much everyone, particularly Fe doms, are shocked by the cruelty and conformity to social norms that occurred during that time.


Of course, and partially because Fe dominant is kinda "above" the norms and in addition would see the ethical problems in how the influence/role of the individual was diminished in society to promote a hostile ideology and extremism.

We also thought that obviously there were resistance groups on the other hand, using group feeling against nazism. But that does move away from individual psychology more into social one, which would play out differently.



Lord Pixel said:


> So in Nazi Germany I'd imagine an Fi-dom on both sides, whether one was convinced by Hitler wholeheartedly or convinced by his victims wholeheartedly, the convincing would be the social pressure appealing to the inner values of the Fi-doms. One might be appealed to through "purity" and the other through "freedom" both gained from an outside source.


Good point, we didn't really come to think of this. But it would stil have to be initiated by the Fi, because outright external appeal seems ruin their ideal.



Sensational said:


> Depends where the Fi lines up with the group and how it relates it.


Yeah good reminder too. Fi isn't about bring contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.


----------

