# Fi and Fe users - What's your opinion on this?



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Hmm, it's quite surface and biased, but it holds some truth..

Not the best explanation though :dry:



mistakenforstranger said:


> I could see Enneagram being a factor, also. Garfield being a 4, Mulligan a 9.


Garfield a 4? Well.. huh. Why would that be? I type him at 6, with a strong lack of anything that even remotely smells like a type 4 influence.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

I've always thought that video was interesting but rather biased (anti-Fi) and unsubstantiated. 

Why would you put your shoes on the couch? Why not take them off? I never put my shoes on furniture. 

Both I and the INFP in my life look away a lot when we're speaking (Ne, presumably) -- when she's ignited and passionate about something, she is staring somewhere PAST me, lost in her emotions / passions / ideas. The ISFJ friend we both have, on the other hand, maintains eye contact -- smiles to establish emotional contact / assurances. It's so much more effortless for her to harmonize with people, I sometimes am envious. I smile sometimes too, and try to mirror people's behaviors and the way they sit to put them at ease -- but it feels awkward and inauthentic at me. I feel a little self-conscious doing it, like they'll KNOW it's not my natural instinct or that I'm faking. 

Carey is an FJ, but I've never seen anything resembling Ni in any of her interviews. Not sure about Garfield. IXFP, certainly, but ... why Ne?


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> Carey is an FJ, but I've never seen anything resembling Ni in any of her interviews.


She's not any FJ. She's an ENFP. That's why no Ni.



angelcat said:


> Not sure about Garfield. IXFP, certainly, but ... why Ne?


INFJ. No Ne.

Their analysis is completely baseless because they can't read types and can't read which functions are used in given moments and they behave like functions exist in isolation.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> She's not any FJ. She's an ENFP. That's why no Ni.


Um. Where's the Ne in her interviews? Can you link me to one where she shows it?

Out of the dozen or so interviews I've seen of her, I don't see it. She doesn't engage all that much. She doesn't make jokes. She doesn't appear to have broad connections going on. She sits there, gives a few anecdotes about filming and her co-stars, and is just generally... pleasant. 

Don't know Garfield well enough to comment on his type, though if pushed based off the few things I've seen, I would have said ISFP. 



> Their analysis is completely baseless because they can't read types and can't read which functions are used in given moments and they behave like functions exist in isolation.


Some of their information is good, but some of their typings make me scratch my head.

The historical ones, many of them, seem accurate, but the modern celebrity types seem weird.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> Um. Where's the Ne in her interviews? Can you link me to one where she shows it?
> 
> Out of the dozen or so interviews I've seen of her, I don't see it. She doesn't engage all that much. She doesn't make jokes. She doesn't appear to have broad connections going on. She sits there, gives a few anecdotes about filming and her co-stars, and is just generally... pleasant.


She's running on Si/Fi/Te, suppressing her Ne for some reason. Happens sometimes. It's sub-optimal, though because it goes against her cognitive configuration.

She's pleasant because she's resonating with Fi a lot and hosts are telling jokes and stuff. Suppressing her dominant function makes her lose initiative. Actual ISFJ like Megyn Kelly would easily out-talk her.

One problem with guessing cognitive configuration by behaviour is that just because someone uses functions a lot or not much, it doesn't make them a certain type.

At some point I somehow got a habit of using very structured and fact-based arguments. Even to the point where I often run conversations on Si/Te/Fi which tires me a lot because I use the inferior and tertiary function a lot. Also, it slows me down.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

The easier answer is she's ISFJ.

If you never, ever see any high Ne in interviews -- it's not that she's suppressing it, it's that _it is not there_.

I don't know that Carey ruminates on emotional expressionism to the point of constantly trying to dig deeper into abstract emotion, which is Fi, either. If she's making strident, broad emotional judgments -- she's Fe.

I think she IS Fe for that reason, but as stated, I don't see Ni.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> If you never, ever see any high Ne in interviews -- it's not that she's suppressing it, it's that _it is not there_.


Heavy Si use modulates Ne. Note how she's always looks kinda tired and uncomfortable in her interviews. It's because she's in altered state when she uses Si and Te, which she apparently does a lot of time when she's not in some interview that completely gets dominated by an actual Fe user, where she's mostly reacting.



angelcat said:


> I don't know that Carey ruminates on emotional expressionism to the point of constantly trying to dig deeper into abstract emotion, which is Fi, either. If she's making strident, broad emotional judgments -- she's Fe.


What does it even mean?

She's doing a lot of unaware emoting in her interviews, which is a sign of Fi use.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> Heavy Si use modulates Ne.


... to the point of non-existence? And why would she use Si so heavily in interviews, when if she had Ne, she'd know it would make for a much more entertaining interview? If she's a real ENFP, can't she pull out her inner Neil Gaiman?



> Note how she's always looks kinda tired and uncomfortable in her interviews. It's because she's in altered state when she uses Si and Te, which she apparently does a lot of time when she's not in some interview that completely gets dominated by an actual Fe user, where she's mostly reacting.


Or she's an introvert and awkward with interviews. 



> What does it even mean?


Go watch an interview with Lorde, for example. Fi. Resists other people telling her what she means, but cannot articulate her own meaning all that well, so she shifts into lower Te to smack people with. Engaging, lively, entertaining, sure, but you ask her opinion on some broad topic and like a Fi, she's going to ruminate and squirm and hedge, because making broad sweeping generalizing moralizing statements makes Fi uncomfortable. 

Fi is abstract emotions, always searching for deeper emotional resonance and truth, not issuing broad reassuring statements. It's disconnected from other people, to some extent -- it gets what is going on, but is distant from it, not merging with it to create a lively emotional state in which everyone in the room is in harmony -- arguably, what Carey did with Garfield in that interview._ Is it okay if I sit like this? Oh, look, Andrew is copying me now. Cool. No, honey, going on for 10 minutes while the interviewer looked bored was fine. REALLY. If you're passionate about something, you should talk about it_. 



> She's doing a lot of unaware emoting in her interviews, which is a sign of Fi use.


Unaware emoting being Fi? Wut?


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> ... to the point of non-existence? And why would she use Si so heavily in interviews, when if she had Ne, she'd know it would make for a much more entertaining interview?


Being brought up in a rigid conservative environment, for example? Trauma? Interests that involve heavy use of precise facts? Plenty of possible reasons.



angelcat said:


> If she's a real ENFP, can't she pull out her inner Neil Gaiman?


Because Neil Gaiman is a INFJ. Try Chloe Grace Moretz or Emilia Clarke or Maisie Williams?



angelcat said:


> Or she's an introvert and awkward with interviews.


The Fe user in question will usually be an INFJ, so "introversion" has nothing to do with it.



angelcat said:


> Go watch an interview with Lorde, for example. Fi. Resists other people telling her what she means, but cannot articulate her own meaning all that well, so she shifts into lower Te to smack people with. Engaging, lively, entertaining, sure, but you ask her opinion on some broad topic and like a Fi, she's going to ruminate and squirm and hedge, because making broad sweeping generalizing moralizing statements makes Fi uncomfortable.


Lorde is an ENTP.



angelcat said:


> Fi is abstract emotions, always searching for deeper emotional resonance and truth, not issuing broad reassuring statements. It's disconnected from other people, to some extent -- it gets what is going on, but is distant from it, not merging with it to create a lively emotional state in which everyone in the room is in harmony -- arguably, what Carey did with Garfield in that interview.


You talk in weird way. What are "abstract emotions"?



angelcat said:


> No, honey, going on for 10 minutes while the interviewer looked bored was fine. REALLY. If you're passionate about something, you should talk about it[/I].


He's not going on for 10 minutes. And he was talking in engaging, charismatic way, like INFJs often do so it was interesting to listen. By the way, note that he talks about children realizing their potential maximizing utility for The People (child becoming a ballerina according to her talents making lots of people happy - again they fail at interpreting situations and stuff people say).

She wasn't bored, she was neutralizing her expression because she was doing actively listening using Te. Hence she delivered her interpretation of what he said.

You're just assuming that she was bored and everything she said was fake without any reason to assume so. And that's why the whole guessology is pointless.

Also, I don't know where you see her creating a lively emotional state in the room. She's not doing anything besides reacting.



angelcat said:


> Unaware emoting being Fi? Wut?


That's how one gets to see Fi in action. It's unaware because it's poignant (joyous, earnest, mournful), not charismatic (bold, benevolent, baleful) like Fe.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> You talk in weird way. What are "abstract emotions"?


That's not weird. That's the basics of Jungian typology. Fi is abstract feeling.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

> You talk in weird way. What are "abstract emotions"?


Fi.

Fi is abstract emotions.

Personal. Impressionistic. Ruminating. Unpredictable. Abstract.

I was seeking something to help illustrate my point, and found this, which is interesting to me and... may be useful? Or not. I don't know.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> I don't agree with any of your typings.


These aren't my typings. I'm procrastinating learning learning physiological cues for last 3 months.



angelcat said:


> He's Ne/Si. It's obvious in his interviews (no intensity, meandering answers, nonspecific generalizing ideas), more obvious in his books. He and Terry Pratchett loved bouncing ideas off each other. Both Ne's.


Bouncing ideas also occurs between inspiration pairs - like INFJ and ENFP.

Just saw his lecture. He has aware emotiong and looks like he's stuck in some kind of a vision.
In interviews he seems to be using a lot of Ti and Ni, almost constantly bouncing between Ti and Ni.



angelcat said:


> Try John Lennon for ENFP.


INFJ.



angelcat said:


> Why?
> 
> Does she act like... Jeff Goldbum in interviews? THAT is Ne/Fe. God, I love him in interviews. So oddball / wacky / hilarious.


A bit similar. He's an INTP, though, so there's a difference. She's more with eyes.



angelcat said:


> Fi.
> 
> Fi is abstract emotions.
> 
> Personal. Impressionistic. Ruminating. Unpredictable. Abstract.


Oh, Jung. I knew I smelled Ti in it  . Jungs theory is outdated (ascribing Fi to women among other things, IIRC) and suffers from foundational bias.

Rumination doesn't have to involve Fi. From my experience, it's mainly Te + Si. An Articulation-Recall loop.

Anyway, the problem with typing people by things they say, is that it ignores whole layers of stuff on top of cognitive configuration - culture, life experiences, memes, emulating admired people of other types, etc.
People can literally repeat stuff they heard and liked.
Additionally, answers for ethical questions can come from established world-view, not from active using of feeling function in the moment.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

Things they say.
How they say it.
How they respond.
What catches them off guard.
What makes them uncomfortable.
What they prefer talking about.

Clues to cognition.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

CTenvoy said:


> People with a sense of humor: Testimonials - CelebrityTypes.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee what an interesting name you have...

:wink:


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@angelcat You seem confused so I feel the need to dive in, just my two cents, @Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar is a Pod'Lair fan, well let's say I am not. Hence the weird language. I also find @Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar's typings incredibly wrong and his reasons not justified or clarified. 

No offense folks, I tried to turn a blind eye but this is getting painful to watch. By all means, please continue.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

nichya said:


> Pod'Lair












*looks it up*

Well. That was... diverting.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> Things they say.
> How they say it.
> How they respond.
> What catches them off guard.
> ...


Sure, except, apparently, it's not even possible to arrive to one interpretation of what is happening in a single video.
Then the whole interpretation of what is happening in the video has to be confronted with a theory that was created without a way of objectively measuring of what is going and which functions are used at a given moment.



nichya said:


> @angelcat You seem confused so I feel the need to dive in, just my two cents, @Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar is a Pod'Lair fan, well let's say I am not.


What did they read you as :laughing:?



nichya said:


> I also find @Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar's typings incredibly wrong and his reasons not justified or clarified.


I haven't actually read these people - I just check their types in the _Rosetta Stone of the Human Soul_.

I just look at videos and cross-reference physiological cues and situation and what they say and their mojo to see what is happening.

For example, here:
https://youtu.be/6JR3_OtpJe8?t=3m12s
I see his eyes disengaging to the left - doing Nai drift a lot. Which means when he's talking about education, he's using Nai, not Xai which would be eyes disengaging to the right.

In his vision, all children are allowed to develop their talents and then use their talents for benefit of The People (Nai + Xyy). (physically talented girl becoming a ballerina and providing Happiness to The People by doing ballet performance)
The reality doesn't conform to the vision, which pisses him off (that's why the distinct signal of Nai is Dissatisfaction).

The problem with that video is that:
1. The author has problems interpreting social situations.
2. The author doesn't even bother to understand what is being said.
3. The author assigns his pre-conception of what people do - he doesn't even consider that Carey may be socially awkward, that Carey may be interested in what Andrew is saying, that Andrew may be considerate, etc.

I doubt anyone would even think that he's talking to long if he wouldn't considerately check if it's a problem for Carey.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I actually have always liked this video. Like anything, I think it must be taken with a grain of salt, and it does seem to portray Fe in a slightly more positive light. On the other hand, I think it's a good primer, and isn't unreasonable. 

I think it's also worth noting that Mulligan seems to have Soc-higher and Garfield is probably Soc-last, at least by my immediate guess. I think that also confounds and adds to the seeming Fi/Fe differences. Garfield does a lot of things that I would like to do but would stop myself from doing in front of others or in a recorded performance because of Soc awareness; Mulligan is much more constantly other-aware.

As for Pod'Lair... interesting. It seems like the MBTI in very complicated, esoteric-seeming format.


----------



## blue70rose (Apr 22, 2016)

The video seems a bit oversimplified, but I think it's good, especially to help get people acquainted with the concepts of introverted vs extroverted functions.

Even though the Fi user was portrayed a little less positively, just seeing these things pointed out in other people reminds me to not feel ashamed like there's something wrong with me for being Fi instead of Fe. We can all use all eight functions, our type just determines which come naturally vs which require concerted effort.

Oh, and the next time I suspect an Fe user is trying to tell me a white lie to make me feel better, I know now to *very kindly* let them know that I'd like the truth (unless we're on camera or some other formal situation).


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

The dude seems to be really quirky.


----------

