# Fi Values



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But that actually is black and white. There is nothing wrong with that btw. Fi doms use their ideas/feelings to wade through the world. They are the tip of the spear, the canary in the coalmine. I don't. I let the environment paint a picture, and I decide what is wrong with it. I don't have any colors myself, I am not an artist. I am not interested in being part of the painting, or that my view is being heard. I just want the best overall painting that can be made. And some feelings have to be dimmed in order for that to work. The painting is more important than the will of colors. There is an objective, "ideal" painting, that can be created. But you must mix the colors and forms properly. You can't let them be all equal. Some must give.
> 
> Fe is more pragmatic, and therefore less ideological and rigid. But again, pragmatic is not necessarily better.


You missed my point and I think that is a very good example of the misunderstanding between Fe and Fi. The analysing of values for Fi is versatile and the implementation is or seems rigid(to an Fe user, to an Fi user), I would wager this is related to the Te/Fi dynamic also. Im not quite sure of the relevance of the rest of what you said though tbh except in the way that you are exhibiting yourself as a perceiving dom. This does make sense, at least in the relationship between dominant rationals and dominant percievers, can you see me checking out all the angles? :kitteh: 
Sorry, I don't wish to have a drawn out discussion, I just wanted to add my £2 to the discussion.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Boheme said:


> Oh, that's a good point about not extraverting the Fi values. I don't really feel the need to impose them on anyone because I do value individuality a great deal.


I value individuality also...but I also value harmony and I want to preserve the things I love. It's kind of confusing how to make those two consistent with each other! *laughing*


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

mushr00m said:


> You missed my point and I think that is a very good example of the misunderstanding between Fe and Fi. The analysing of values for Fi is versatile and the implementation is or seems rigid(to an Fe user, to an Fi user), I would wager this is related to the Te/Fi dynamic also. Im not quite sure of the relevance of the rest of what you said though tbh except in the way that you are exhibiting yourself as a perceiving dom. This does make sense, at least in the relationship between dominant rationals and dominant percievers, can you see me checking out all the angles? :kitteh:
> Sorry, I don't wish to have a drawn out discussion, I just wanted to add my £2 to the discussion.


Oh I know. You went through a deep, nuanced process to come to your feeling values. I am totally aware of that. I don't think that part of it is black and white. I think the application of it is, or at least can appear to be. As you said. I know you put a lot of work into your worldviews. 

What I'm saying is that I need the environment to generate or "awaken" my values. Maybe even tell me what my values are. Yours are more preformed, more proactive.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

mushr00m said:


> It's not that way I promise, at least in the way of your portrayal of it.  It only seems black and white to you because it remains firm. But it's analytical nature is very layered, encompassing and yet independent of external values. It may take external values and analyse those for consistency by looking at all angles. I think when an Fe user explains Fi, it would make sense to view it as rigid but resolute (which is a strength by the way) because that's how subjective functions are viewed by objective function users. E.g to be resolute in animal rights activism is more important to an Fi user than just saying animal cruelty is wrong and not living in accordance. As Melted Sorbet mentioned too, the Fi users values may revolve around acceptance and tolerance and will try to live and think in accordance with this, this is where the firm/resolute exists.


"Independent of external values."

I think there's the perfect description of Fi, as I understand it. I don't think Fi is necessarily black or white, either, but was trying to understand how it may be viewed. To me Fi is a value system that doesn't rely on other value systems to make choices. In my experience, Fi users are more self-protective in that their subjective value system is less likely to be swayed by external stimuli, despite the cost. Fe, on the other hand, is more likely to go with an option that is damaging to itself if it feels the positive outcome for other's outweighs the negative ramifications for itself. 
I should have used a better definition than black and white. I view black and white thinking negatively, but I respect the adherence to values that is Fi.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

meltedsorbet said:


> I guess Fi could be seen that way...but I don't see it as "how my actions affect me." Maybe because my feelings are introverted, just as my sensing is introverted, I see reality as more of a reflection of my feelings. I tend to think of how someone's actions affect "what I love and value." And what I love and value is a reflection of my subjective feeling...turned objective again. (I think!) *laughing*
> 
> It's not as external as Fe...it's not "my family and my friends." It's feeling concepts that are reflected in external things...which could include life on earth, evolution, hope etc. It's not taking care of the immediate feelings and comfort of those around me, which is always a struggle...but about monitoring and taking care of how my actions align with my own values and how they will affect that which I perceive...including others.
> 
> ...


Ah, very good  That's a very interesting description of Fi, and does help me understand it better.


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

Boheme said:


> I'm having trouble understanding how the values of an introverted feeler are felt to that person. I'd love to hear personal stories about how you think Fi shapes your values. Apparently this is the core of the type and I'm supposed to be dominant Fi, but whenever I think of values I think of value judgments. I feel like people shouldn't get too sure about things because something will always come along that will challenge that, and that you should be open to interpret each situation as it comes. So I'm also having trouble understanding how Fi can be a judging function when subjective experience is so fluid and the empathy of Fi allows us to understand how others are thinking, so there's a freedom and openness to that rather than a desire to close things off into some sort of value box. I hope I'm making my question clear! I've read a lot about it but the notion of values is never really defined for this function.


I am a Fi dominant and to me, what defines the most this function is the continuous impetus to harmonize internal objects (emotions, feelings, ego, superego, etc.) with each other. Personal values are used as guidelines to perform that fundamental task. Eventually, it shows up externally, as I would not feel good if what I said and did were not consistent with my values. I always check the consistency between my life and my values so that I feel internal peace.

I just watched a movie where the guy, a wealthy lawyer, ran over a pedestrian at dead of night and as there was no witness, he chose to make a phone call from a public pay-phone and leave the place before the police come. There is no chance I could do something like that, even if my career was involved, as my values are more important than the material realm for me. As an INFP 4, it is vital for me to be true to myself.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

How I feel values?

...

I prioritize values. I feel emotions. I do heaps of other stuff too.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Sure, I do this too. It's not like it always has to be black and white to me. My values are more fickle but I do have a set of values I want to follow because if I don't it doesn't feel right and that's about there is to it.


I think your Fi is more black and white, because its not in the ego block. My Fi is very fluid and I think in shades of grey more often then not. I don't require a system of values because I can very easily give value to anything I encounter as it is the primary way of making sense of the world around me. 

I always said its like being in the center of a hurricane and always knowing exactly where I stand in relation to the chaos around me.



candiemerald said:


> @FreeBeer interesting. Fe isn't my primary function, but as I understand it: Fe is taking on or mirroring the feelings of others. Therefore, in an attempt to understand another's point of view, I would actually take in that point of view. Once I get inside the other point of view, as it were, I can then process it to see if it makes sense to me. If it does, I will accept it. If it doesn't, I will reject it, while continuing to respect the difference in our views. It's almost as if you take on the other person's persona, in order to understand them and thus understand their reality. As I understand it, Fi won't take on other viewpoints temporarily, like Fe, but will view the world only through the original viewpoint of self.
> Does that make any sense, or am I babbling?


It does make sense. As far as I understood people with Fe respond to other people and the emotional atmosphere. I as a Fi user relate to others subjectively and perceive the emotional atmosphere but I make no attempt to respond through feeling expression. I mainly respond through doing something, like finding a solution. A Fe user will attempt to affect change in the outside feeling environment, such as comforting other people, lightening the mood, changing the mood for the better, raising moral, injecting feelings into others, warping their current feeling state of mind. They concern themselves with others, and adopt external values due to this, but its not like they submit to any external value. A Fe user who values freedom will attempt to change an oppressive environment then to submit to it. I internalize while you externalize.

*Like a camera lens the focus is on different things. A Fe user perceives other people's feeling states and a Fi user perceives the self's feeling state, but having strong and valued Fe means one also has strong and undervalued Fi.*

This is why when one takes that function test, and one is a feeler, the scores for both Fi and Fe will be high.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> I think your Fi is more black and white, because its not in the ego block. My Fi is very fluid and I think in shades of grey more often then not. I don't require a system of values because I can very easily give value to anything I encounter as it is the primary way of making sense of the world around me.
> 
> I always said its like being in the center of a hurricane and always knowing exactly where I stand in relation to the chaos around me.


To be honest, it's debatable in a deeper Jungian sense whether I am Fi or Te auxiliary as there is a good argument for that I would be more NiFi or in a sense, an INFJ, than I am an INTJ depending on how one interprets the system. I think this is why Jung thought the auxiliary would eventually take the same orientation of the dominant in that the dominant colors the appearance of the auxiliary to such a degree that even what we think of today as an introverted auxiliary may look extroverted if it's paired with another extroverted dominant. 

I do have values, but I can always reassess and weigh them depending on the situation. Black and whiteness only really occurs when I feel that my values are violated depending on what I think is the right thing etc. That's when I become really rigid about it. It's just turns into this whole "just no" internally and a feeling that I must hold onto that position because I just have to, pretty much. If I don't it just doesn't feel right to me and that feeling is just terrible so I try to avoid it. I can overlook it sometimes but it's really difficult. It's not necessarily the same as guilt, but just this feeling of feeling really bad over the situation, that it just doesn't feel right. Wow, the English language is really inadequate for expressing these things. 

With that said yes, you are right that a non-egoic Fi type would have more of a black and white view when their Fi/values are being triggered, but the same can happen to an Fi dominant. I was for example discussing with my INFP friend how I think it's important to be open and accepting towards immigrants, and she was very stubborn taking on a slightly xenophobic position in not wanting to accept this position and eventually it just got to a point where she disagreed just because it felt wrong. She just didn't like the idea. She is someone whom I would consider a true dominant Fi type by the way. Fits Jung's Fi portrait extremely well. 

Fi rigidity appears because it is important to the ego to assess personal value unrelated to the values of others. This is why I think both Myers and Augusta thought introversion must be paired with extroversion because if she had expressed her Ne better in this situation, she would most definitely have been more receptive to my position or perhaps at least considered the validity of it more.

The real difference between inferior and dominant Fi is how people react when their values are being challenged. Inferior Fi types are more likely to throw a bit of a fit and get upset when their values are being triggered/challenged. I've seen this in an ENTJ who refused to see the point of euthanizing children who are born with severe handicaps and/or illnesses and would thus not be capable of living for very long anyway and one can thus argue that their quality of life is so poor that they would suffer less if they were euthanized. He got quite visibly upset after a while which is otherwise uncharacteristic of him because while he can be friendly he's not necessarily emotionally expressive. He was also more emotional than my INFP friend who just rigidly held onto her evaluation but didn't express anything more than that. She was just a silent stone wall. I suppose she could have argued her values more profusely in which case she would be more like when Daenerys was denied entrance into Quarth in Game of Thrones, but again the difference here is that an Fi dominant who does this would start relying on Te. It must be so and so because structurally it is the only thing that makes sense i.e. how Daenerys started referring to that where she came from guests were treated with respect. Te dominant types do the opposite and appeal to Fi in that it must be such and such because it is the only thing that is the right thing. It just must be so because that is what is being valued.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> To be honest, it's debatable in a deeper Jungian sense whether I am Fi or Te auxiliary as there is a good argument for that I would be more NiFi or in a sense, an INFJ, than I am an INTJ depending on how one interprets the system. I think this is why Jung thought the auxiliary would eventually take the same orientation of the dominant in that the dominant colors the appearance of the auxiliary to such a degree that even what we think of today as an introverted auxiliary may look extroverted if it's paired with another extroverted dominant.
> 
> I do have values, but I can always reassess and weigh them depending on the situation. Black and whiteness only really occurs when I feel that my values are violated depending on what I think is the right thing etc. That's when I become really rigid about it. It's just turns into this whole "just no" internally and a feeling that I must hold onto that position because I just have to, pretty much. If I don't it just doesn't feel right to me and that feeling is just terrible so I try to avoid it. I can overlook it sometimes but it's really difficult. It's not necessarily the same as guilt, but just this feeling of feeling really bad over the situation, that it just doesn't feel right. Wow, the English language is really inadequate for expressing these things.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I guess me being Ne dominant makes my Fi more fluid then a Fi dom's would be. In the case of "euthanizing children" for example I have no problem with it :\ in fact I'd endorse it given the logic behind it...to me it just makes sense, plus if I'd put myself in their shoes..I wouldn't want to live like that so yeah. I'd be mainly concerned with the quality of life and what would be the most logically fair thing to do.

Stuff like "We can't do it because it's unethical!" doesn't even register as it makes absolutely no sense given the circumstances other then a ego defense, which I'd see as a weak & selfish attempt at internal self preservation as such a statement would show utter disregard for the suffering of others.

I definitely wouldn't emote much apart from clearly stating my opinion and the reasons behind it.


----------



## Wayside (Nov 29, 2012)

I relate to what a lot of the other Fi users have said. I think I am repeating some things here, but it was helpful for my own understanding to spell it out and it might be informative for others.


Fi has a holistic focus and the need for harmony/consistency really drives this function. Just as an example, if I believe it's wrong to gossip about people but find myself wanting to vent my frustrations about someone and portray them in a bad light, this created conflict in me and I need to reestablish harmony between what I value and my being. I am continuously running all my experiences through this filter. It's very much an internal process that's coordinated by all the aspects of my inner life (mind, heart, body). It can be quite demanding in this sense and it's why I need to stop being receptive to new input and be alone sometimes.


Another aspect of Fi that I think is misunderstood is the idea that it is self-absorbed. In my experience Fi asks me to understand and adhere to principles relating to what it means to be human. It's really asking me to look far beyond my personal experience. What's important is what my personal experience says about fundamental aspects of the larger human experience. I don't know if other Fi doms would agree, but I feel like my personal experience is subjugated to that larger purpose. I think this is what lends us a self-effacing quality and sometimes a tendency for martyrdom. I think this is something that we can be admired for, but in my opinion it's something to be cautious of. I am trying now to deal with aspects of my experience that I did not take seriously because it didn't inform that larger purpose.


As far as what kinds of values Fi engenders, it's really difficult to get specific. Its values are so much bigger or more fundamental than what can be captured in words. And it's not even like I have a good sense of what are the values I've come to hold. They are just there as a part of me and also conversing with my experience (informing what I do and changing when some relevant new piece of info comes along). It's when I come across something that violates those values, as others have mentioned, that I can better see what those values are and am better able to articulate them. But still I often fail to get at the essence of the value. I can't circumscribe it completely.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Boheme said:


> I feel like people shouldn't get too sure about things because something will always come along that will challenge that, and that you should be open to interpret each situation as it comes.


For me it's like you can't think too much about a "future challenge" that may or may not come, and you don't know what that is, so why not just jump in? And I think every situation is open to interpretation because the future is unknown and you wouldn't exactly know how you would interpret it before things come to you.



> So I'm also having trouble understanding how Fi can be a judging function when subjective experience is so fluid and the empathy of Fi allows us to understand how others are thinking, *so there's a freedom and openness to that rather than a desire to close things off into some sort of value box.*


Interesting. I never thought about that. Paradox. I think you can keep reasoning it at a theoretical level. I think every single value judgement you make can't really be predicted before a situation comes. You can imagine a situation and ask an Fi-user what he thinks, but yet there is a situation upon which a value judgement is made. Thing feel pretty flexible to me, actually. But I can react very strongly when the situation involves moral issues that I feel deeply or have a deep connection with. So yes there are times when I "close things off into some sort of value box," and it's when I get stubborn, even surprisingly stubborn, and people call me that without knowing why because I usually don't explain why because it's extremely personally and I am very shy about that.

When I get "stubborn" I am so emotionally involved I don't care about anything else or about being flexible or not. The weird thing is that most of the time it's hard for me to define my values (so I am quite lazy at talking about them and there is really not a point in doing that), but in certain situations I can feel very strongly and know clearly about what my values and feelings are and why, but still have a hard time verbalize it.

I guess what is "subjective" and "open" is are the actual content of our value judgement while the inflexible and "closing things off" part is like the structure and frame of the our internal world of values.


----------



## SoulRefugee (Jan 27, 2014)

How would Fi and Fe manifest when coming to very disastrous situations? 

Because even though I regard myself as a thinker, when someone who is innocent is being physically harmed I go total apeshit in my mind wanting to knock the assailant out. All my other values are a shade of gray, they can change depending on the situation. Just my own value of the innocent not being physically harmed, I'm not the type to be that sympathetic to anyone unless I see violence. Surprise a lot of people that way because most of my peers think of me as cold blooded. I could easily see myself as a vigilante in an alternate universe, because the restrictive structure of military or law enforcement would not fit me(I'd be the dirty cop).

Would this be more along the line of Fi or Fe? Would Ti+Fe combination play a part in this?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I think I'm most likely some sort of Fi type. There are things that are important to me personally (as in things I need in order to be happy), but I'm not really aware of having any ethical values. However, I seem to automatically respect people's rights and needs. So I guess I must have values, I just don't consciously define or think about them. I guess I don't really see the point in defining my values because I don't need to consciously reference a list of values to determine whether something is right or wrong. I just seem to automatically know.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

SoulRefugee said:


> How would Fi and Fe manifest when coming to very disastrous situations?
> 
> Because even though I regard myself as a thinker, when someone who is innocent is being physically harmed I go total apeshit in my mind wanting to knock the assailant out. All my other values are a shade of gray, they can change depending on the situation. Just my own value of the innocent not being physically harmed, I'm not the type to be that sympathetic to anyone unless I see violence. Surprise a lot of people that way because most of my peers think of me as cold blooded. I could easily see myself as a vigilante in an alternate universe, because the restrictive structure of military or law enforcement would not fit me(I'd be the dirty cop).
> 
> Would this be more along the line of Fi or Fe? Would Ti+Fe combination play a part in this?


Hmm, that's a personal value, so I'm not sure it relates predominantly to either Fi or Fe. I'm a Fe user, and I react in a very similar way to situations where an innocent is being abused. I can see a Fi-dominant person reacting the same way too, however.


----------



## SoulRefugee (Jan 27, 2014)

candiemerald said:


> Hmm, that's a personal value, so I'm not sure it relates predominantly to either Fi or Fe. I'm a Fe user, and I react in a very similar way to situations where an innocent is being abused. I can see a Fi-dominant person reacting the same way too, however.


Maybe its just being a normal human lol, cause I'm sure the majority of people wouldn't allow that to happen. I'm positive that I'm not an Fi dominant though.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

SoulRefugee said:


> Maybe its just being a normal human lol, cause I'm sure the majority of people wouldn't allow that to happen. I'm positive that I'm not an Fi dominant though.


Yeah, exactly. We can't assign all personal value systems to Fi. Personal value systems are a trait shared by humanity in general, as you say.


----------



## Boots (Nov 26, 2010)

> Because even though I regard myself as a thinker, when someone who is innocent is being physically harmed I go total apeshit in my mind wanting to knock the assailant out. All my other values are a shade of gray, they can change depending on the situation. Just my own value of the innocent not being physically harmed, I'm not the type to be that sympathetic to anyone unless I see violence. Surprise a lot of people that way because most of my peers think of me as cold blooded. I could easily see myself as a vigilante in an alternate universe, because the restrictive structure of military or law enforcement would not fit me(I'd be the dirty cop).


Soulrefugee has described an immediate situation (that seems extraverted IMHO - this is a thing, happening in the world in front of you that requires immediate action). What if you beat the assailant to a pulp, the innocent is rescued, all is good. Then you found out that the assailant was a young man of an oppressed minority who had grown up in a lifetime of abuse, and that the situation and circumstances around the assault were not as simple as they first appeared. Even if you would make the _exact same decision to act_ given those circumstances again - how would this knowledge make you feel? Would you feel guilt? Would you feel conflict? Would you simply justify your actions internally? Would you ask someone else if they thought your actions were just or rely on what the legal system decided? And were your actions simply to stop the violence toward the 'innocent' or to also deal punishment to the 'guilty' party? Or would you even spend time thinking about it at all? I love the _idea_ of the vigilante... but I could never be one, because every 'bad guy' has their own story and to me shooting the 'bad guy' isn't solving the problem... the societal or personal situations that led to them becoming a 'bad guy' are what really need to be addressed. (Gee, did I just reveal some of my internal values there?)

I guess what I'm saying (to relate back to the OP) is that actions and immediate decisions spring from your internal values, but don't always reflect them in a direct way... after an action occurs, whether that action was seen as appropriate by others or not, I think an Fi user will take it in and process it further and make decisions and adjust their inner framework.

I have struggled to understand Fi for years - I thought I was an Fe user for a long time because I am highly empathic and strongly conflict averse. I was also taught about the importance of manners and not to be self-centered. I think that I also hold flexibility and the assessment of context as one of my values - all of which has led me at times to act very Fe. I can go through much of life not feeling (or acting) black-and-white about many things, in fact decidedly grey instead. BUT if you push one of my buttons... start talking about institutionalized handling of humans or animals as objects (factory farming, megaprisons) for example and I will both get uncharacteristically emotional and I will shut up. The emotion may or may not be visible - as Ephemereality said "She was just a silent stone wall." In fact the more deep my value the more I will put on my 'everything's just fine' face until I can get out of the situation and the less likely I'll be to engage in discussion with you unless I perceive that you will listen and discuss the topic on a very deep level. If you're going to throw random facts or incomplete logic to shoot down my views, well, I've been down that road before and I'm not opening something this important to that kind of abuse. (My husband will probably hear all about it when I get home though... ).

The idea of Fi being self-centered interests me. I feel self-centered a lot. I was told as a child that I was self-centered and strove to not be like that. However I am highly empathic and I spend a significant amount of time pondering poverty, equality, etc in the world and I can get very overwhelmed if I think about it too much - which always seemed a paradox for such a 'selfish' person. I think it maybe is right there in the name INTROVERTED Feeling: I need to take everything inside - what people around me are doing, problems, ethics, ideas... I take them in, process them, then do something about it. I often phrase things as 'I think... I would do... I used to think... I feel that....If it were me I'd have done it because X.. I...I...I' it can sound really self-centered, but I just don't feel that I can comment on how someone else felt or why they acted, I can only pull their actions into myself and then speculate on my interpretation of it. Empathy is maybe the same thing - to process what someone else is going through (and understanding what others are going through is high on my list of values) I have to imagine being them - that's self-centered too... I'm pulling them into myself for assessment. So I wonder if some of this 'self-centeredness' is really just introverting Feeling. Maybe some self-absorption (or withdraw into oneself) is Introverted thinking. Are you putting yourself into the situation (extraverting) or pulling the situation into yourself (introverting).

This probably makes little sense... but even if I can't put it into words well, I do feel that I have a much greater understanding of Fi than a few years ago - and I wish I could just mind-meld and share that with others. 

This video (and part 2) I found very interesting about Fi:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Ok let me give a real life example. 

When I do volunteer work on the wetlands, and people trespass, it bugs me. I am always concerned first and foremost with the principle of people violating environmental law, and about the ethical value itself: it's a goddamn ecological preserve. That means go to the park a mere half mile away unless it's a designated tour day.

I have noticed some Fe types whom I volunteered with are more concerned about not offending the trespassers, or will say oh let's bend the principle since that dog is so cute she has there. It baffles me to no end. 

I am sure to them I seem some rigid rule following IxTJ. But you see, unlike Si/Te reasoning which might behave in the same manner "because rules is rules and rules keep order" I behave this way because to me the principle is first and foremost the thing, that is, preservation of the environment for ourselves and future generations (which probably puts Ni into my mix as well).

Note, too, that my principle prompts me to do the environmental volunteer work in the first place. Other people may volunteer first and foremost to "help people" or "do something useful" or whatever. I have nothing against those people and their various values or motives, but violating environmental law, especially by entitled narcissistic middle class white people who think that the world is their sandbox, is one of my personal hot buttons.

Fortunately the people running the program of course are there for similar reasons, and some Te types there, especially one or two old ladies, are even more proactive in chastising trespassers.

As long as they've been ignorant of the law, am understanding and informative and civil, but not to people who flagrantly trespass.

On other things, I may totally ignore people and mind my own business in life. That's another important aspect of Fi. If it doesn't violate our particular principles, you probably won't hear a peep of judgment, we won't even be interested in what you do with your self.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

meltedsorbet said:


> I do not think Fi always appears to be rigid...IXFPs can be very flexible and non-judgmental. My ESFJ co-worker has described me as "go-with-the-flow." I tend to avoid snap judgements about most things and am on the fence about various issues.
> 
> But there are some issues that I could never possibly "in the middle" about...those are the issues that are core to my beliefs, and they form my perception of reality and purpose. I don't go around extraverting these values most of the time, and I can pretend not to have them in social situations (though I'm not a good actor). I can also put my values aside to try to understand people who have conflicting ones...and use our commonality to build rapport and trust which allows us to work together for a common purpose (ideally) which moves towards my values. I have many acquaintances that feel accepted by me who have completely different values than me (at least superficially).
> 
> ...


I honestly think the only way I understand Fe is through Te. Like I have to list "reasons" why a person would be a Southern Republican so it's not just looking like a form of idiocy to me, like it did when I was eighteen. I had to logically evaluate Southern history and definitions of Democrat in the South during the early 20th century and blah blah. I had to understand rationally how a person could develop such an ignorant and self defeating world view without being a gullible child or a bigoted jerk. I could not simply "take on their perspective as valid."

I use manners in order to either achieve rational ends or because I don't see the point in needlessly hurting some one.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

Chained Divinity said:


> Hm. Well then, this is odd. :laughing:
> 
> I've been told in the past I might be an Fi-dom, and I can sort of see it, so I'm going a bit by how I've thought in the past (although I might be/have originally tested as Ti-dom instead, so...). And I do put a great deal of emphasis on being willing to do myself what I demand in others, which sort of necessitates the whole "if it were me..." line of thought. Plus I'm into serious RPGs, where you have to get into another's head as part of building/acting as a character. XD
> 
> That _could_ easily be Ti, on my part, in turn, though. Consistency's sort of that function's thing, along with understanding precisely how things work.


I see. Interesting. I find this is also how I act, trying to see things from the other point of view, and getting into other people's heads. I thought that was my Fe acting, but perhaps it's my Ti.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

@ferroequinologist Wow. You clarify a lot for me. You really know your stuff.



ferroequinologist said:


> *To attempt to summarize: Fi is about the subject, how it's impacted or impressed upon. Fe is about the object, how to express or impress upon the object. Fi says that all it knows is the subject, and how it would feel. While Fe says that what matters is the object, and how to express to the object.
> *


Ah, that does make sense. Perfect.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

candiemerald said:


> @_ferroequinologist_ Wow. You clarify a lot for me. You really know your stuff.


Not really. I just remember reading Jung describing these things this way... It reminded me of what "subjective" and "objective" are supposed to mean. ;-)


Ah, that does make sense. Perfect.[/QUOTE]

Glad he was able to help. ;-)


----------

