# Is Fi useless?



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Fi in recent years, since 2008 stock market crash, has become pretty damned profitable? Or something that looks like Fi anyway. Going on about the rightness or fairness of things has become peer pressured into PR.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

Okey so Fi give you a sense of self. Since Fi is a function focus on how you feel about something and an instropective function, this function lead you to understand better yourself in order to grow up and become a better version. It's see how things affect you, understand it and help you to overcome. It give you a sense of ideal self that you want to reach. In other term, it's give you a higher consciousness of a meaningful life. 
Now this is just for oneself, for people now. It's utility is to show the example to other people to reach their own potential, to show the beauty of life through anthenticity and art. 


Without Fi no personal change, no instropection about yourself, no preference. You like a robot with no morality, static, who have no flavour, and above all no personal compass to judge things on a valuable level. 

I stop here, but I can write a book on why Fi is useful.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

No.

As an aside, as written, the functions in the OP are very misleading.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Well, first of all, it is important to distinguish between feelings and emotion.

Emotion is more or less reactionary, while feelings are moldable or adaptable or volitional 

Secondly, feelings are connected to an object, while emotions are easily transferred (imagine the movie character that is angry with his wife or child or coworker, but who kicks the dog).

Thirdly, feelings are connected with our identity. This goes back to the first two points. Feelings become a part of the whole, so to speak. And everybody has this aspect to themselves. We may not be aware of it, but it is true. For instance, we all consider some things to be good or bad or nice or not nice: things we should do or things we ought not do. We got those from somewhere--even if we deny their source, we still have them. We all have "lines in the sand" that we won't cross. I have yet to meet someone for whom there is not such a line. Ironically, there are people who think that "anything goes", but the truth is, that this creates its own boundaries, whereby anything that doesn't agree with that is considered to be "bad." And so there is their boundary. And therein lies the connection with identity. 

Fourthly, emotions are fleeting and fickle, while feelings are more or less constant. Not that they don't change over time, but because they are volitional, and attached to an object, and a part of our identity, they take much longer to change, while emotions are quite quickly experienced and forgotten.

The main difference between introverted and extraverted feeling is both the source of these feelings, and their "expression" or maybe I should say, the orientation of the judgment feelings. Extraverted feeling is applied outwardly, and is focused outwardly. It tends to judge others, or depend on others for its evaluation or compliance. This tends to make others responsible for the feeler's feelings. Of course, this is not entirely true, but since the extraverted feeling person is focused on the object, it may be entirely possible that the feeler thinks or perceives that their judgments are entirely others-dependant. 

But more importantly, to an extraverted feeling type, feelings, and, IMO, emotions are considered to be a valid means of communication. In other words, emotions exist to communicate feelings. I say (as an introverted feeling type) that they are both the vehicle and the payload for communication. However, from my perspective, my feelings are my feelings. My emotions are my emotions. Your feelings are yours, as are your emotions. While I may express my emotions or my feelings, I do not consider them to be something to judge me by and especially, I do not consider them to be a valid means of control or influence. In fact, my outward communication of emotions may or may not be conscious. I have no intention of using my emotions to influence your thinking or behavior. And I do not wish others to do so to me. Feel free to express yourself, but do not expect me to react in any positive or affirming way to your expressions. In this way, Fi tends to seem like Te, but that's another issue.

The orientation of feeling inwardly means that feeling judgments are applied and focused inwardly--toward the _subject_ or _self_. I personally do not see them as necessarily being the same thing. This is because, if you will notice, one of the characteristics of introverted feeling is a strong sense that all people are individuals--unique, and not to be forced/coerced or manipulated into doing or acting. This means that an introverted feeling individual is not merely concerned with self (as so many people on this thread have insinuated), but is concerned with the individual vs the group. It is aware of, attuned to, and resistant to external pressures on anyone to conform--even if the individual being compelled may be someone with whom the Fi individual would normally disagree with. Fi also seems, as a consequence, to orientate itself towards children and animal/pets which tend to be more helpless and in need of someone to protect them from the abuse of their uniqueness or helplessness. 

I could summarize my thoughts this way. Think of Fi as the canary in the mine. If you have upset an Fi type, that it is worth your taking a step backwards, and examining your actions more closely. Chances are, at some point, you have overstepped a boundary--encroached into territory you don't belong. As a rule, strong IFP types are very long-suffering and understanding, so if they get tetchy, then either they have been forced for way to long to repress their feelings, and conform, and hence, are too easily set off, or someone has overstepped a boundary--and not necessarily with the IFP. We aren't exactly very precise when it comes to expressing our feelings, as the extraverted judging function we must deal with is our inferior thinking. It's not the best tool for the job in the best of times, and when it's our inferior.

IFPs do better expressing themselves through their perceiving function, which means our irrational function. This is more a creative tool, and is best as a means of venting/escape/self-expression that stands on its own, without being directly "judged." Any expression, in the end, is at best an approximation of what the IFP is truly thinking or feeling, and at worst, it is like using a chain saw for brain surgery. So it is best to look at these expressions more impressionistically--as a whole, and not analytically--specifically--tearing apart every word and syllable or stroke or note. Like George Lucas recently said about his movies, think of them like tone poems.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

The following is my opinion and understanding of Fi. But it's definitely a little more than some of the other half arsed attempts at understanding the function.

Surely you people don't think that it's the only purpose of Fi - to make the user good at writing poetry? Cuz if you do, well that's quite sad...

As it seems to me, the function system has been attempted to have a pretty nice algorithm of attitudes and "operations". Perceiving has one function, judging another, introverted has one attitude, extroverted another, put them together and you have a pretty predictable direction of how the world is made sense of in certain combos/cases. So why the hell is it still going around that Fi is somehow different from the rest of the judging algorithm and is the selfish, super subjective one concerned with understanding only the self? According to the algorithm it would have the same feeling data layer of Fe and the same detail oriented/break apart analysis attitude of Ti. 

When you talk about the stoic nature of Fi, you talk about someone who doesn't use their buddy extraverted perceiving function to it's full potential or only uses it to daydream or be self-absorbed. That's not all what theoretically the function can make the user capable of and useful for.

Saying it's stoic makes no sense. When does it become stoic? Is the Fi born with their set of morals? Is it set in stone along with graduating from highschool? Maybe i never received a note from the government stating my curiosity should now stop and my moral structure will be documented in stone writings and put into governments archive for my personal protection.

Fi users can question collectively accepted moral judgments or standards. It can question it case by case, their Pe being curious enough to bring in new information to analyse and understand whats going on. And then Fi will break it down to detail. 
It has a hard time accepting the information that is presented by anyone if it cannot see how the judgment was arrived to. It needs the detailed road, the detailed rationale of it to accept it. Why it can be stoic - because the Fi user knows the rationale to their opinions and can trust it. 
Those who never question even their own morality are possibly too lazy or have lost their curiosity in this regard or identify with their beliefs too much that it feels like loosing themselves when questioning themselves. It could be freaky.... Or whatever. It's not what the function is but just one way of using it - set in stone personal, moral principle.

Saying it's "at least they are good at poetry; it's really just personal feelings; good at subjective emotions" is a lazy man's opinion. You should continue asking - why is it good at poetry? How? What does it mean?

And Fi can be a lot more than that. It's multidimensional, just like all the other functions. Surprise, surprise.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Emologic said:


> _*But what the hell is Fi?*_
> From what I've conclused so far, it's similar to motivation, a self-drive, self-support. Te users use their Fi to motivate themself to achieve their ambitions. But what's with Fi-doms? IxFPs aren't seen as ambitions and motivated people. Fi-doms are seen as humble, altruistic people, who seem to be able to enjoy life without having many needs.
> 
> I just realized how much I learnt about this function just writing about this, but what logical use does Fi have by itself? How does it benefit others, and how does Fi help anyone solve a problem or figure something new out?
> ...


No.

Fi is well explained by Pod'Lair:
Power of Xai

It is often claimed that Fe is about harmony, but we could perfectly see how thinking about "the people" can actually lead to disharmony. So, to be healthy, Fe has to listen to feedback of Fi when doing "the people" stuff.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Emologic said:


> _*But what the hell is Fi?*_
> From what I've conclused so far, it's similar to motivation, a self-drive, self-support. Te users use their Fi to motivate themself to achieve their ambitions. But what's with Fi-doms? IxFPs aren't seen as ambitions and motivated people. *Fi-doms are seen as humble, altruistic people, who seem to be able to enjoy life without having many needs.*
> 
> I just realized how much I learnt about this function just writing about this, but what logical use does Fi have by itself? How does it benefit others, and how does Fi help anyone solve a problem or figure something new out?


Fi sifts through all the priorities and obligations and hones it all down to what is truly important, reminding people of where the real value and joy in life is to be found. It reminds people to notice and enjoy beauty, which can help renew people with a sense of joy and peace. 

Fi's insight into the workings of the internal self can be quite valuable for personal emotional/psychological/relational growth, not just to the individual with Fi, but to other people as well. Remember that Fi is working with information from Ne or Se, so it's not totally blind to what's going on outside itself with other people. Fi's recognition of it's own individuality helps it to be aware of and accepting of Different ways of thinking and feeling within other individuals, allowing it to provide understanding and insight about others who are not the same as themselves. Fi's ability to 'see' the inner 'essence' of another person prompts compassion and gives the Fi user a very personal touch when encouraging, comforting, or inspiring someone. Fi's deep understanding of emotions can also 'touch' others indirectly when they 'connect' with Fi inspired art and personal expressions. 

I think Fi's value of individuality doesn't end with itself, but values the individuality of everyone, often prompting someone to act as the champion of minorities, of people who are overlooked or don't fit, of alternative movements, different ideas, and new styles of art, etc. I think Ti does some of this too of course, but both types of Ji have their own approach which are useful for different people and situations. I believe Fi values diversity and helps prevent homogenization. While Unity and Harmony are good, and may also be valued by Fi folk, they can also become static and oppressive. Variety is the spice of life as they say, and while I'm sure there would still be variety without the FPs in the world... I suspect there would be less of it. 

I think one of the important roles of Fi is standing up to group values when they start running awry, especially when it comes to remembering the needs and interests of 'the few'. While Fi dom/aux people aren't the only ones who can do this, Fi seems most likely to question values that are culturally/religiously taken for granted, to motivate someone to instigate a change of values, and take to the brave step of being the first to stand alone against the crowd (Ti probably does this more with concepts and systems, Fi more with morals, matters of compassion, and style).

*To the above question about solving problems: *
Determining your true priorities, and gaining understanding of your internal emotional/mental landscape helps to give a person direction, helps give them insight into what the most sensible course of action will be for them as an individual with the overall results in mind, not just the current specific situation. Gaining insight and appreciation for how other individuals feel and value and think about things can help tremendously with relationships. And it's amazingly empowering to have your individuality appreciated.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

FreeBeer said:


> @Emologic Imo Fi is *Intrapersonal Intelligence: *Sensitivity to one’s own feelings, goals, and anxieties, and the capacity to plan and act in light of one’s own traits. Intrapersonal intelligence is not particular to specific careers; rather, it is a goal for every individual in a complex modern society, where one has to make consequential decisions for oneself. (Sometimes called self intelligence.)
> 
> As far as I could tell from big business tycoons and entrepreneurs alike  you need a lot of this, aka "know thyself". Ppl with Fi preference are constantly in the process of getting to know themselves and how they relate to everything around.
> 
> ...


So OP thinks Morality is useless and stupid?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Well here is my view of Fi. I think Fi is more abstracted than Fe, and more closely resembles "values" in a philosophical sense: for example, the idea of human rights or natural rights. The stuff that is written in democratized nation's constitutions. Fi doesn't like seeing these rights violated and can become passionate towards making sure they are not. While these rights are generalized to everyone, they are violated more on an individual basis, at least in day to day life.. an Fi user will see someone's freedom of expression being violated, and will defend that principle/individual. 

At least, I think that's how it works. I think Ti works similarly, it just breaks down and builds up these values -- more systematizing, with help from Fe. My friend, an INTP, and myself, INTJ - we have very similar ethics and strong reactions to things we see as unethical. Though being NT's we largely are frustrated more by the "inconsistency", i.e., biases, double standards.


----------



## JacksonHeights (Nov 6, 2015)

Actually some of you are underrating Fi. Fi users can be stunningly manipulative, on level with ESFJs and ENFJs. ESFPs in particular, I actually think they are be the most manipulative type from personal experience. IxFPs can also be extremely passive aggressive at times. ENFPs are not as good at emotional manipulation because our Ne is so open-minded and optimistic, but we're excellent liars. So don't sleep on us


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Aelthwyn said:


> While Unity and Harmony are good, and may also be valued by Fi folk, they can also become static and oppressive.


Oppression is pretty much anti-thesis of Harmony. That's why Fi has more to do with harmony than Fe.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

JacksonHeights said:


> but we're excellent liars. So don't sleep on us


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> Oppression is pretty much anti-thesis of Harmony. That's why Fi has more to do with harmony than Fe.


*Fi is interested in Harmony as well; not necessarily more than Fe, just different.*

*Fi *is concerned with harmony _within itself_.
*Fe *is concerned with harmony _with others_.

That's why *Fe *is still considered the Harmony function. It's self-sacrificial, concerned with 'the greater good' rather than the self. *Fi *is authentic and genuine, and more concerned with being true to itself. 

When *Fi* is concerned with outer harmony, it's because outer chaos is causing inner turmoil.
When *Fe* is concerned with outer harmony, it's because outer chaos is disrupting others' peace.


@Aelthwyn It's not oppressive. *Fe *users just need to set boundaries as part of their growth, that's all.



*Edit:* @ferroequinologist @ninjahitsawall
The above does not imply that Fi is selfish, but rather that it is introverted (meaning that its focus is primarily directed inwardly, on things _inside _the psyche rather than things and people external to the psyche).
@Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar


> As an introverted function, *Fi *is characteristically _intensive _rather than extensive. Rather than surveying and distributing feelings across a breadth of individuals (as *Fe* does), *Fi *focuses largely on one's own feelings and sentiments.
> 
> *Fi *is also less concerned with cultivating group morale or consensus of feeling than *Fe *is.
> 
> ...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Emologic said:


> *Is it useless?*


Is a moral compass useless?


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@Emologic You realize you use Fi, right? You're not devoid of it just because it's a shadow function.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> @Aelthwyn It's not oppressive. *Fe *users just need to set boundaries as part of their growth, that's all.


Yes, Fe users need to set boundaries, when they don't others may experience it's misapplication as oppressive. Pushing everyone to 'be good' by agreeing and using emotional manipulation to force compliance, or at least the appearance of agreement, for the supposed 'greater good' is oppressive. But that is certainly not to imply that Fe always, or even usually, plays out that way. 

As a note I am troubled by the frequent mention that Fi people only care about the harmony/happiness of others in a self-serving way, to make themselves internally at peace. I get the perspective, but I think it often comes off sounding wrong. Fi can truly value the emotional well-being of others apart from how that may affect themselves, but yes it's actions to maintain the happiness or harmony between people around them is driven by their personal value of that. I just protest to it being painted as if they wouldn't care at all unless you were directly affecting them, which is likely not necessarily the intention when people describe it... like I said it just comes off with the wrong implication. The more general principle of happiness and cooperation for any people anywhere seems to appeal to the INFPs I know anyways, they can certainly care about the problems of people whose lives are not immediately connected to their own.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Aelthwyn said:


> Yes, Fe users need to set boundaries, when they don't others may experience it's misapplication as oppressive.


But is it really Fe that's oppressive? I know what you're saying, I guess to me that just sounds like a victim mentality and I automatically oppose that mindset. It makes it sound as if we're a victim to our mental wiring, and that's...no.

Rather than seeing it as an oppressive function, my perspective on it is that _we _need to grow because _we _must develop it. It's just a matter of phrasing / mindset / perspective...that's the bit I have a problem with. Any strength taken too far becomes a weakness, I just think we're the ones responsible and attribute it to our own shortcoming rather than our function's nature. In my eyes, _it _can't oppress us because rather than it being too strong, we're being too weak. Nobody is in control of our own mind besides us. It's not some outside source, it's not some mental disorder like Bipolar or Schizophrenia...it's our psyche. Our own psyche cannot oppress us. We just have to change our thoughts, actions, habits, etc. _We _control _it_, not the other way around.

Other than that wording that's got my teeth grinding, we've pretty much on the same page since the beginning.



> As a note I am troubled by the frequent mention that Fi people only care about the harmony/happiness of others in a self-serving way, to make themselves internally at peace. I get the perspective, but I think it often comes off sounding wrong. Fi can truly value the emotional well-being of others apart from how that may affect themselves, but yes it's actions to maintain the happiness or harmony between people around them is driven by their personal value of that. I just protest to it being painted as if they wouldn't care at all unless you were directly affecting them, which is likely not necessarily the intention when people describe it... like I said it just comes off with the wrong implication. The more general principle of happiness and cooperation for any people anywhere seems to appeal to the INFPs I know anyways, they can certainly care about the problems of people whose lives are not immediately connected to their own.


It's not implying that Fi users are selfish, nor that they are only concerned with themselves; just that the nature of the Fi function is introverted rather than extroverted.
Fi isn't selfish, it's just more endearing, personal, and intimate. Fe is more concerned with controlling the external atmosphere while Fi is concerned with controlling the internal world. It's similar to Te being centered around outward control and Ti around inward control...but to say Fi users are selfish would be as much of a stereotype as it is to say that Te doms are control freaks. I'd never imply that, and that's not what Jungian Theory is for. I see it as a tool for understanding (ourselves / others) and growing more compatible with (ourselves / others). None of us are wired wrong, we're all just wired differently. Those differences all have their areas they excel in just as they all have room for excelling further.
We all use all functions anyways though.

(I almost typed this in the last post, I guess I should have. I was just afraid of it being too obvious and sounding condescending, and I was trying to be pithy. Sometimes I don't know what's common knowledge and what's not, so people think I'm talking down to them.)


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Lunacik said:


> When *Fe* is concerned with outer harmony, it's because outer chaos is disrupting others' peace.


That sounds like picking up signals from Fi users. That is concern for harmony that ultimately comes from Fi.

There are plenty other aspects of Fe that are related to group life but can bring disharmony within group.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> Rather than seeing it as an oppressive function, my perspective on it is that _we _need to grow because _we _must develop it. It's just a matter of phrasing / mindset / perspective...that's the bit I have a problem with.


yeah I think mainly we are not wording things well for eachother. I think functions manifest or are played out in good and bad ways depending on a person's maturity/personal-development - what they do with their mental toolkit basically. I don't mean 'it's the oppressive function' like the whole 'Fi is the selfish function' thing. I agree Fe as a concept by itself isn't 'oppressive,' it's people who can be oppressive, my point is that a perspective that places high value on orchestrating an environment that operates on a particular mutual set of values or practices _can_ be badly applied by someone resulting in actions that stifle or devalue differences which don't fit nicely into their vision of how things ought to be. Just to add an Fi example, a perspective that places high value on expressing one's individuality _can_ be badly applied by someone resulting in actions that fail to consider the disruptive effect they may have on the bigger picture / other people.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

(Deleted) Nevermind.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Lunacik said:


> *Fi is interested in Harmony as well; not necessarily more than Fe, just different.*
> 
> *Fi *is concerned with harmony _within itself_.
> *Fe *is concerned with harmony _with others_.
> ...


Fi to me is like that feeling of "I wouldn't be able to/can't live with myself knowing I did/did not do ______". Probably why I am cynical about morality and feel like when people brag about being so enightened to have done the "right thing" or whatever, I'll think "oh please, you just did that to feel better about yourself". :tongue: Though I know INTP's (well, at least one) that is like this too, so it can't be exclusive to Fi?


----------



## Santa Gloss (Feb 23, 2015)

Lunacik said:


> *Fi is interested in Harmony as well; not necessarily more than Fe, just different.*
> 
> *Fi *is concerned with harmony _within itself_.
> *Fe *is concerned with harmony _with others_.
> ...


This is brilliantly distilled. I see this play out regularly in Fi and Fe people. Sometimes Fe and Fi arrive at the same destination but through different routes. Eg: above case of concern about outer harmony.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Lunacik said:


> When *Fi* is concerned with outer harmony, it's because outer chaos is causing inner turmoil.
> When *Fe* is concerned with outer harmony, it's because outer chaos is disrupting others' peace.


I would just like to point out that Fi isn't concerned solely with its own inner peace, but with others' as well--at least in my experience. Yes, there are Fi types that can be extremely self-serving, and closed off to empathy for others, but Fi tends to feel whenever there is inner turmoil in others, and that is the sort of thing that causes one to, for instance, jump to the defense of someone being bullied, or picked on. Fi tends to defend the individual against the group, whether that individual is self or another.

And yeah, Fe seems more concerned about outer chaos/order, regardless of the inner turmoil it may create in others. In fact, it often, in young people/children, is the source for group shaming, etc. which is what attracts the attention of Fi types, which look at the inner pain being caused by the group. 

If I had to choose sides, I'd choose the Fi side--but then again... 

And yes, I'm looking at what could be called worst-case scenarios. But since we are talking about Fi being useless, I think this is the sort of scenario where Fi comes into play, and is not useless. It's the balance. Fe would wish to force compliance in order to maintain outer order, to the detriment of inner order/peace. Were it allowed to act unabated, the emotional consequences to the victims would be enormous.* Hence the balance. 


*As a disclaimer, I grew up the object of abuse, due to facial scars. Imagine a little kid being ganged up on by other kids and being called "scarface" and "frankenstein" and excluded from games, etc. because of scars that he had no control over. I have always been sensitive to others who were singled out and abused in similar ways, and tend to not let it go without attempting to stop it. But the emotional scars, while I have grown up and moved on past those days, still tend to reveal themselves in unexpected ways even now, forty years later. As kids, we think we are just teasing and picking on people, but we don't know the damage we are doing to others, when we gang up and laugh at their suffering.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Without Fi you there would still be slaves, women oppression etc.

While Fe is all up in your face pressuring you to do what you "should" do, Fi is more open for individual decisions. 

In psychiatry for instance, Fe is good and supportive, but can have trouble relating. Fi as it can relate better to individual feelings, would dig deeper into the individuals feelings.

I don't know how you could reach the conclusion that Fi is useless. Could you imagine a world without it? Where would good art come from?


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

I always find it funny when people get a shit-ton of dissenting opinions and don't address any of them


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Kerik_S said:


> I always find it funny when people get a shit-ton of dissenting opinions and don't address any of them


On the other hand, why should they have to? They wanted to spark debate, and that's what they got. Either that, or to things to think through--get input. I don't see why they are obligated to reply, so long as their curiosity was settled, or answer given. 

Something that always irritates me on forums/mail lists is flooding the things with posts that say nothing more substantial than "thanks". I'm just fine with people not replying.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I would just like to point out that Fi isn't concerned solely with its own inner peace, but with others' as well--at least in my experience. Yes, there are Fi types that can be extremely self-serving, and closed off to empathy for others, but Fi tends to feel whenever there is inner turmoil in others, and that is the sort of thing that causes one to, for instance, jump to the defense of someone being bullied, or picked on. Fi tends to defend the individual against the group, whether that individual is self or another.
> 
> And yeah, Fe seems more concerned about outer chaos/order, regardless of the inner turmoil it may create in others. In fact, it often, in young people/children, is the source for group shaming, etc. which is what attracts the attention of Fi types, which look at the inner pain being caused by the group.
> 
> ...


...this is so...
I don't even know where to begin. I'm just going to save myself the frustration and walk away.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Lunacik said:


> ...this is so...
> I don't even know where to begin. I'm just going to save myself the frustration and walk away.


Then why even post this lame comment? Either post or don't post. but don't play passive-aggressive games. That's just childish.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

(Deleted by User)


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Then why even post this lame comment? Either post or don't post. but don't play passive-aggressive games. That's just childish.


Nobody was being passive-aggressive LOL

so touchy and defensive...


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@Emologic Btw...subjectively speaking, I will say that Fi Doms are more challenging for me than any other type...so while it sounds discriminatory and immature when you ask that question, I can sympathize with where you are _really_ coming from with this and what you are _really_ saying in the underlying dynamics...but there is usefulness in it too.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

ferroequinologist said:


> On the other hand, why should they have to? They wanted to spark debate, and that's what they got. Either that, or to things to think through--get input. I don't see why they are obligated to reply, so long as their curiosity was settled, or answer given.
> 
> Something that always irritates me on forums/mail lists is flooding the things with posts that say nothing more substantial than "thanks". I'm just fine with people not replying.


Regardless of whether or not he's obligated, his choice not to shows me he's not interested in learning.

He spoke with conviction, and now he backed off.

I never implied obligation. A choice is a choice, and any choice indicates an attitude.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Fi to me is like that feeling of "I wouldn't be able to/can't live with myself knowing I did/did not do ______". Probably why I am cynical about morality and feel like when people brag about being so enightened to have done the "right thing" or whatever, I'll think "oh please, you just did that to feel better about yourself". :tongue: Though I know INTP's (well, at least one) that is like this too, so it can't be exclusive to Fi?


That's describing selfishness, not Fi. I think I should go back and clarify my other post..


----------



## BlueWings (Jan 27, 2015)

Functions doesn't determine what one is capable of, it just roughly points at the underlying motivation of the individual. I think the real problem here is that people need to get rid of the concept of stereotyping and the misconception that functions determines ones abilities. I've seen a lot of that on this website; people seem to not fully understand the concept of function theory. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I try to keep a clear understanding of the functions that doesn't involve the way too common misunderstandings many people have. 

No function is more of less "useful" than another, that isn't how it works. The Cognitive Functions tell you about what part of reality a person mostly focuses on, it is a perspective. The dominant function is like the starting point for one's development, and the others are there to balance out a persons relationship to reality as they mature.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

siljeth said:


> Functions doesn't determine what one is capable of, it just roughly points at the underlying motivation of the individual. I think the real problem here is that people need to get rid of the concept of stereotyping and the misconception that functions determines ones abilities. I've seen a lot of that on this website; people seem to not fully understand the concept of function theory. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I try to keep a clear understanding of the functions that doesn't involve the way too common misunderstandings many people have.
> 
> No function is more of less "useful" than another, that isn't how it works. The Cognitive Functions tell you about what part of reality a person mostly focuses on, it is a perspective. The dominant function is like the starting point for one's development, and the others are there to balance out a persons relationship to reality as they mature.


Exactly...and a lot of times that stereotyping comes from poor understanding or just immaturity on one or both sides. Sometimes compatibility just takes more work.

Personally, I'm using MBTI to gain insight, understanding, and compatibility, and therefore as a result to shed away my own misanthropy...it's just a synonym for misery.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Fi-doms seem to be the most nostalgic. Idk how it works for ISFP, but I am an INFP, and I know that my Fi is what adds all of the flavor to my Si.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Lunacik said:


> *Edit:* @_ferroequinologist_ @_ninjahitsawall_
> The above does not imply that Fi is selfish, but rather that it is introverted (meaning that its focus is primarily directed inwardly, on things _inside _the psyche rather than things and people external to the psyche).
> @_Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar_


Since you mentioned me, I figure I ought to tell you I never thought you thought Fi is selfish. I'm not exactly sure where you got that from... I thought the opposite, in fact.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I don't know why I haven't posted this earlier, but this description is about as good as any I've seen on introverted feeling. It's Lenore Thomson's, and it's found here in the subforum. It addresses lots of what's been discussed here. It's long, but if one is interested...

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...thomsons-introverted-feeling.html#post3317480


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Since you mentioned me, I figure I ought to tell you I never thought you thought Fi is selfish. I'm not exactly sure where you got that from... I thought the opposite, in fact.


I never said you did...it was very obvious you weren't saying Fi is selfish...I was elaborating and clarifying...



> I would just like to point out that Fi isn't concerned solely with its own inner peace, but with others' as well--at least in my experience. Yes, there are Fi types that can be extremely self-serving, and closed off to empathy for others


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Female INFJ said:


> How does Fi relate to lust and desire for the self alone? Curious bc I've seen an intricate pattern in someone where all things he rationalizes to suit his box of thinking or whatever he feels and i've seen lust mixed in too. Sorry I'm not doubting any usefulness here in individuals but i'm curious to see how all of this results in anything but selfishness for some people. Not being difficult just curious. I'm trying to find a reason to keep this person in my life bc he is opening up and sending me messages. But my other girl friends called him a creep and he is constantly being selfish and insists that i exist in his own world of thinking to be friends with me. And I'm like hey if you don't open yourself to sharing some importance in my life thinking too then why would I 100% stick around to read his writing and listen to all this private mumbo jumbo. Its like do people like this realize all all people have inner stuff going on? not just them. I'm curious about the feeler thing because I know only rare set of people can be within themselves and not selfish. I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'm just questioning. Well I want to I guess hear more about Fi usefulness like Op too


You see selfish motives in Fi because the perspective is outside of your awareness and you project your own unconscious negative motives onto it. Fi is a blind spot for you and because of this, you can't comprehend it's different (but equally valid) reasoning and therefore judge it negatively. From your limited perspective, you see no reasonable explanation and conclude it must be selfish. If you want to really understand Fi (or any other unfamiliar function) keep in mind that your perspective doesn't see everything as it is. It only sees one part of the whole picture and just _thinks_ it sees it all.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> It's not so much about what a type can or can't do, but what they typically do (hence "type").
> 
> Ideas and images are two different things, though I am unable to explain that difference. If you're interested, you can find the definitions here for idea and image. "Primordial images" are synonymous with archetypes, which is often associated with Ni, but in reality is related to all the introverted functions really.


I've been trying to fixate what you and Jung meant by this.
As an introvert it makes total sense that my inner world is basically oriented towards primordial images.
I have this "sense" of what is right, if you can call it that.
Almost like a template of my Fi, where in a totally irrational vacuum I rationally decide what has worth or not.
Of course that was decided years ago, but I still visit that image for inspiration so to speak.
It is like I'm guarding this unspoken idea of worth.
Then I have to translate it into objects, first Se and then more painfully Te.
It is never a 100% satisfying result, it is like the objective world becomes a cheap mockery of my inner image.
I guess that is what Jung meant by creating beauty in the objects,
one tries to replicate the inner image outside and the more closely it match the more beautiful it becomes.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Haha, no, Fi is not entirely useless.  

Fi is useful in interpreting a life that is personally important and meaningful. It's so internal and individual. I doubt it's often recognized from the outside - maybe mostly only in dramatic outbursts - and even when it is recognizable, because it's so tailored to each individual person, I think it's often strange to others. I'm sure it can easily seem pointless. 

That said, Fi can resonate and connect. Part of Fi usage is deep delving into emotional states, and so Fi dom/aux are particularly adept at empathizing and understanding nuance of feeling. And expressing it, too, as in writing or art/style. There is a sort of idealistic universality to Fi, as there is with Ti - just as Ti is good at seeing the inherent systemic flaws and perfections, so too can Fi pick up on inherent universal values, like love, affection, health, personal freedom, and so on. Dom/aux seek these in their own life, but I think by virtue of not being particularly J or T gifted, often are better at creating positive influence for others than for themselves... 



karmachameleon said:


> In socionics Fi makes much more sense


Yes, this is true. (With the caveat that Socionics is all about intertype reactions, and so does not focus much on some of the qualities native to individuals outside an interactive context.)



sociotype.com said:


> Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. [...]
> 
> Fi as Leading Function
> 
> The individual sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it. His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth. Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

hornet said:


> Well just as you manage to deal with Se as a Ni dom,
> by spotting and picking up a pen in front of you, most Te doms manage to deal with Fi.
> It is only in very neurotic cases that a Te dom don't manage this.
> Would be similar to an INTJ hiding in a vision refusing to deal with the real world on any level.
> Only the tables have turned and it is the inner world that is avoided as much as possible.


Sometimes anything more than picking up a pen.. forget it. Talk about useless. :laughing:



hornet said:


> It is never a 100% satisfying result, it is like the objective world becomes a cheap mockery of my inner image.
> I guess that is what Jung meant by creating beauty in the objects,
> one tries to replicate the inner image outside and the more closely it match the more beautiful it becomes.


I've thought about this basically like physics. Potential is always > actual. Input > Output. Whatever is in your head, you're not going to get the full deal in the real world. I think that's why introverts prefer to be introverts. Not sure if extroverts struggle with this because their 'input' is more directly inspired by the real world.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I've thought about this basically like physics. Potential is always > actual. Input > Output. Whatever is in your head, you're not going to get the full deal in the real world. I think that's why introverts prefer to be introverts. Not sure if extroverts struggle with this because their 'input' is more directly inspired by the real world.


I'd imagine that the extrovert looks at the externals as the input, and ruminate about how the inner never match the outer.
To me it seems that the introvert looks at the inner world as the original version,
while the extrovert looks at the outer world as the original version.
Both devaluate the other because it changes what they value into something that seems alien.
Doubly so for the shadow functions, that not only diminish the result, but also turn everything on it's head.


----------



## Crescent (Apr 30, 2013)

Kerik_S said:


> From that philosophical standpoint: Nothing is selfless.
> 
> Selflessness does not exist. Everything we do is "self'd" (infused somehow with our ego or any part of our psyche), and is thus not selfless.
> 
> Altruism exists because people can act for others in a way that diminishes some of their self-interest. But it will always be feeding at least one self-interest of some sort: Ego, Id, Super-ego, (super-id if you subscribe to that model).


It's interesting, I think about these things alot. I agree that in most cases all moral or generous actions do probably give the doer some sort of self-gratification. 

But you would have to consider whether the action was done with the intention of self-gratification, or whether self-gratification just came afterwards as a result but wasn't at all aimed for. If the former was the case, then you might still be able to call it selfless. 

Secondly, even if it _was_ done with the intention of self-gratification, was that the sole intention behind it, or was it at least partly intended sincerely for the person it was done to? If the former was the case, then it was completely selfish and not at all what it seemed. But if it was the latter case then it was partly sincere. The degree of sincerity or selfishness in it depends on what degree of each of those were present during the time it was done.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Crescent said:


> It's interesting, I think about these things alot. I agree that in most cases all moral or generous actions do probably give the doer some sort of self-gratification.
> 
> But you would have to consider whether the action was done with the intention of self-gratification, or whether self-gratification just came afterwards as a result but wasn't at all aimed for. If the former was the case, then you might still be able to call it selfless.
> 
> Secondly, even if it _was_ done with the intention of self-gratification, was that the sole intention behind it, or was it at least partly intended sincerely for the person it was done to? If the former was the case, then it was completely selfish and not at all what it seemed. But if it was the latter case then it was partly sincere. The degree of sincerity or selfishness in it depends on what degree of each of those were present during the time it was done.


I find it interesting that some people think any amount of self-concern is somehow grounds to question the "sincerity".

People can exercise both self-concern and other-concern in the same action.

Placing "sincerity" against "selfishness" as if one cancels the other out is probably the cause of a lot of the grief people give themselves over being concerned with themselves.

There's nothing wrong with selfishness


----------



## Crescent (Apr 30, 2013)

Kerik_S said:


> I find it interesting that some people think any amount of self-concern is somehow grounds to question the "sincerity".
> 
> People can exercise both self-concern and other-concern in the same action.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree that there's nothing wrong as long as there is some degree of other-concern mixed in with self-concern in the action. I wouldn't call it 100% sincere (we can agree to disagree here), but I don't think there's anything wrong with it nonetheless. If we told people to not do any good unless it was 100% sincere, then the world would be much worse than it is.

What I have a problem with is doing moral actions solely for gratifying the self, without any true concern for the recipient mixed in. I am not sure if you could call it ethically wrong, but it is sort of misleading. But I guess that the world is better because of it too, anyway.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Crescent said:


> What I have a problem with is doing moral actions solely for gratifying the self, without any true concern for the recipient mixed in. I am not sure if you could call it ethically wrong, but it is sort of misleading. But I guess that the world is better because of it too, anyway.


It is misleading, and it pisses me off that they're getting "credit" they don't deserve on top of the self-gratification. When people knowingly take credit for altruism that never existed in the first place, it's so shady.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kerik_S said:


> It is misleading, and it pisses me off that they're getting "credit" they don't deserve on top of the self-gratification. When people knowingly take credit for altruism that never existed in the first place, it's so shady.


Altruism is a great defence mechanism in that it aleviates negative feelings.
One doesn't really factor in if one is sincere when one is in reaction to other negative feelings.
Just happy that one got the gratification of feeling "good", for once.
Besides if one is group oriented it might even bolster an image with others that one is someone who cares.
It is practically money lying on the ground.
Might as well pick it up and spend it no matter ones motives. }:-D

I think you are expecting too much of people, they are probably in a shit life feeling like shit most of the time.
Who can blame such people for grabbing what little happiness they can find?
Even if it is only motivated by trying to illuminate their own shitty lives a tiny bit.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Fi is not selfish...and I can't imagine any of the cognitive functions being useless. I think Fi is useful for measuring the closeness in relationships, being sensitive towards other people, judging other people based on instinct and how they make you feel, and working to make bonds between people closer. If someone didn't have any Fi how would they emphasize, develop independent values, or manage their personal feelings? 

Fe is important for knowing how to behave appropriately, express feeling and adhere to shared values. You need Fi to measure, navigate your inner values and connect with other people on a deeper level.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

All of the functions have value, and in a generalized sense no function is better or worse than the other functions.


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> You see selfish motives in Fi because the perspective is outside of your awareness and you project your own unconscious negative motives onto it. Fi is a blind spot for you and because of this, you can't comprehend it's different (but equally valid) reasoning and therefore judge it negatively. From your limited perspective, you see no reasonable explanation and conclude it must be selfish. If you want to really understand Fi (or any other unfamiliar function) keep in mind that your perspective doesn't see everything as it is. It only sees one part of the whole picture and just _thinks_ it sees it all.


It's easy to make assumptions: I see selfish behaviors not mind reading into seeing "motives". I don't lack comprehension or ability to see things as they are. Why are there always "reminders" of what anothers ability to see anything is. I'm no mind reader but when ANY person acts they make decisions. Example this person "says" they are a friend and when I told him a Narcissist friend of ours mistreated me his response was "she's hot" he is oblivious to anything he says and is unapologetic and only in his own head and pleasure. Also I have a cousin who has a lot to say in text messages about condolences when a family member died and she couldn't even send a card or show up in person, or send money. A reasonable normal person may say, hmmm, a grandmother who is an elder may respond to someone holding their hand when they are dying, instead of sending pretty words, and a picture of a rose from their garden. I suppose everyone here who "gets it" about these examples needs to be a mind reader to determine regardless if this person is in their own head or not. Their behavior is SELFISH. I don't see how this relates to me projecting, or being "unable" to read the mind of people who have "super powers". I don't really find many people who are above being human. But there are many people who think they are "special" bc of their processes. Ok have a process, but to be completely not mindful of others is a choice. To judge or project is a waste of time. These people have made their choices. I'm not talking about assessing a motive or reading minds. The motive becomes apparent sometimes when a person acts. It's not the process that is bad. I'm just reflecting on what the OP wrote and I'm wondering what happens to persons who have this internal process and who don't take another step when interacting with others.


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

@jennalee
Thanks for the explanation. Where does the experience of "feeling" an experience personally inside end. And taking interest in how another persons feelings begin? I know odd question you don't need to respond if you don't have the answer. But I'm trying to help my friend think of others and its hard. He won't consider anything or anyone unless it relates to his "feeling" or "experience" or his "interpretation" of life or whatever. He lacks context. But he did observe me very carefully. It was uncomfortable to me, but I appreciate that he told me that I'm beautiful and that I care for others really well. I didn't expect that. But I'm not about compliments it didn't make me want to be his friend more bc of these words. But I know I make a lot of demands on my friends I expect my friends to not only excel at whatever they are doing personally but if I see them in pain or desiring more out of life I want to help them get to what they want but its hard to have a conversation with someone who judges everything that comes out of my mouth based on some inner checklist it is tiring. Day by day I guess. I should have ditched him but I emailed him this morning. He ignored me while we were being "friends" a lot always reminding me of his boundaries and preferences, then when I leave the job we were working at behind he's been emailing me. I'm like for someone who didn't care to show me fair friendship why make the effort to continue. But I know there Is just some lost in translation stuff somewhere


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

@Kerik_S
Thanks for saying this clearly. What is the solution. Ditch a person like this or try to exist in their reality even though it is infuriating. Dumb question.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Female INFJ said:


> It's easy to make assumptions: I see selfish behaviors not mind reading into seeing "motives". I don't lack comprehension or ability to see things as they are. Why are there always "reminders" of what anothers ability to see anything is. I'm no mind reader but when ANY person acts they make decisions. Example this person "says" they are a friend and when I told him a Narcissist friend of ours mistreated me his response was "she's hot" he is oblivious to anything he says and is unapologetic and only in his own head and pleasure. Also I have a cousin who has a lot to say in text messages about condolences when a family member died and she couldn't even send a card or show up in person, or send money. A reasonable normal person may say, hmmm, a grandmother who is an elder may respond to someone holding their hand when they are dying, instead of sending pretty words, and a picture of a rose from their garden. I suppose everyone here who "gets it" about these examples needs to be a mind reader to determine regardless if this person is in their own head or not. Their behavior is SELFISH. I don't see how this relates to me projecting, or being "unable" to read the mind of people who have "super powers". I don't really find many people who are above being human. But there are many people who think they are "special" bc of their processes. Ok have a process, but to be completely not mindful of others is a choice. To judge or project is a waste of time. These people have made their choices. I'm not talking about assessing a motive or reading minds. The motive becomes apparent sometimes when a person acts. It's not the process that is bad. I'm just reflecting on what the OP wrote and I'm wondering what happens to persons who have this internal process and who don't take another step when interacting with others.


Firstly, nobody sees reality as it is. Functions are perspectives with their own bias'. Each function places importance on certain factors and disregards whatever it deems irrelevant. This is what creates personality types. This is my point. 

Different people will place importance on different factors. We can't focus on all of them. Someone placing importance on different factors than you are, doesn't necessarily make them selfish. 

For example, I once knew of a woman whose baby was stillborn. I hadn't spoken to her ever, so I didn't go to her offering condolences. I felt it wasn't my place to approach her because I'd never approached her before, about anything. Others saw this as inconsiderate and uncaring, I saw it as being considerate and respectful. She was going through an awful time, I had nothing substantial and worthwhile to offer her. I didn't know what she was going through. I decided that strangers approaching her at such a personally traumatic time, can't be very helpful or comforting. 

Later, I discovered that I did the right the thing. She stopped inside because the approaches from people she didn't know became quite upsetting for her. So while others initially viewed my behavior as inconsiderate, it was actually very considerate. I was focusing on what I thought she really needed at this time, not social expectations under the circumstances. I was being neither selfish or uncaring despite how it appeared to others. 

I can think of other examples, where I've refused to go along with group. Like for instance when I already know that a member of the group has a real issue with doing whatever the group wanted to do. They'd already confided in me before and didn't want the group to know about their issue. So I stubbornly refused, forcing the group to partake in a different activity. I'm sure I appeared completely selfish and inconsiderate, but their inconvenience was only minor in comparison to the discomfort the individual with the issue would have experienced. 
People who know me well won't initially question any apparent selfish or inconsiderate behavior on my part. They trust I have good reason, even if they can't see it at the time. Which indicates to me that my actions are perceived as selfish when I'm misunderstood by those who don't know me well enough, not because I'm a selfish person. 

Infjs perceiving Fi doms as selfish is apparently quite common (judging by the posts on this forum) yet the majority of Fi doms see themselves in general as being far from selfish. Either all these infjs are deluded or all these Fi doms are deluded or alternatively there's something going on between the two perspectives that's creating these inconsistencies. I think the latter is the most reasonable explanation.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

I feel pretty useless most of the time.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

SweetPickles said:


> I feel pretty useless most of the time.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Emologic said:


> *Si* can be used to remember facts and recall past events in vivid detail, to imagine yourself in situations as if you're experiencing them physically, such as imagining taste, pain, or sex, and to create an own Mind Palace to think inside of.
> 
> I don't quite understand *Ni*, but I kind of know that people with Ni tend to have insights and visions of things, and use it to predict things and people so that they can use Ni to form plans independently.
> 
> ...


If the question is, "What are CF values?", here are some concise answers:

Fi is used to maintain life. It informs what is important to us.
Fe is used to get along with other life forms. It supports.

Se observes the environment as it immediately is.
Si observes the environment compared to what it has been.

Ne looks for environmental patterns.
Ni looks for personal patterns.

Te is used to order external environments.
Ti is used to order personal environments.

Four of these CFs are conscious serially; the other four remain unconscious as long as the top four maintain priority. How does this work? That remains to be seen.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Female INFJ said:


> @jennalee
> Thanks for the explanation. Where does the experience of "feeling" an experience personally inside end. And taking interest in how another persons feelings begin?


Your first question is difficult to answer, because I am not actually sure. It's an interesting one though. I'm not sure if I interpreted the second correctly but I will try to answer; I think I would take more interest in how someone else feels if I respected/admired them more than average. If I didn't like them then I will be less empathetic towards them. But I think some people seem less aware of other peoples feelings than others. Your relationship with this person sounds complicated, like maybe a misunderstanding. I would suggest you spend time with people who make you happy, who has a better understanding of you as well as themselves. Anyway I hope you friendship works out okay. It is interesting to see an FJs perspective on Fi.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

> That depends on how you define selfishness.


Selfishness is one of the few things that has a universal definition.



> If deriving self-gratification means being selfish, then I think you'd have to say all moral actions are selfish to a degree.


I disagree because it's possible to do things with 0 care for self-gratification, etc. That's what happens when you genuinely _care_.
For example, I'd much rather have a car than pat myself on the back...yet I sacrificed my car to keep someone out of jail when they didn't deserve to go. For years after, I walked everywhere I went etc. because I couldn't afford another car, and I never had regrets. That was not for myself. There was 0 self-gratification in that. (On an unrelated note, they did drive me when they could. I realize not saying this makes it sound like they weren't there for me and it was one sided. However, I didn't ask for this and I expected nothing in return. I'm not one of those that keeps tabs on favors or something, nor do I accept anything from those who do. It's strings attached, selfish form of giving; giving to get, not giving in a pure spirit.)



> Even in cases where a person behaves morally not because they really want to, but tell themselves to do it anyway so that they can say they're a good person, that's a selfish decision to gratify their ego.


Correct. It's for the wrong reasons...which also means it's temporary. The mask will eventually disintegrate.



> It is also possible to be "self-sacrificing"...but can someone really be self-sacrificing without it being something they _wanted_ to do in the first place?


While I did want him to be safely out of jail...I had no personal gain or interest. I didn't want to keep him out for my own sake, I wanted to keep him out for his own sake because I had empathy.

I get very protective over those I care for that way, to a fault. It has gotten me walked on, etc. although this particular example was not one of those people. How could I have been doing those things to build myself up when all it did was tear me down?
Just as one example.



> Because of this, I don't think that's the best definition. Then you can't really distinguish between, say, people who manipulate others, and those who help others all the time because it's fulfilling (i.e., they feel good about making others feel good and continue to do it..otherwise why would they do it? Publicity?).


If it's with themselves in mind, then correct. Both are selfish acts.

Selflessness is defined by whether love extends beyond ourselves. If we do it for our own fulfillment, we don't do it out of love for others...we do it out of love for feeling good about ourselves. It's selfish to do so because it's orientated around ourselves and our needs.



> Which is why in my initial post I was describing how Fi does not have the same tendency as Fe to try to avoid causing conflict and hurt feelings, even though in the long-term, this avoidance can be a more selfish decision whereas addressing it could help the other person. So in cases like that Fe users can be just as selfish.


Anyone can be selfish.
Also, you just validated what I was saying in the other post which was that you were describing selfishness rather than Fi. Now you're also _calling_ it selfishness.

According to my current understanding:
I think we have a misunderstanding or miscommunication here as to what's really meant when I say, "self-sacrificing."
Think of the opposite of being true to yourself at all costs. That is what I was saying. Fe conforms to others' values, etc. more.
*
[highlight]In the end, balance is healthiest; Fi growth is to be a little more flexible, and Fe growth is to not be so flexible and set boundaries. Too far on either end of the spectrum is incredibly unhealthy.*[/highlight]


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Lunacik said:


> According to my current understanding:
> I think we have a misunderstanding or miscommunication here as to what's really meant when I say, "self-sacrificing."
> Think of the opposite of being true to yourself at all costs. That is what I was saying. Fe conforms to others' values, etc. more.


And these values have to come from somewhere. That's where Fi becomes useful.

Though it can somehow get grotesque. Like when that Fi belongs to ENTJ Ayn Rand. Randroids are often INFJs.


----------



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

It seems people dominated by introverted functions namely Ti, Ni, Fi and Si lives in a purely relativistic reality - it holds true to oneself. 
Those dominated by extraverted functions like Te, Ne, Fe and Se, on the other hand, extract a concordant constant from that same relativistic reality but it should hold true for everybody else, as in a common factor and they do so every once in a while to accommodate with the changing needs of the environment. 
Like other introverted functions do, Fi gives fresh input/perspective every once in while and if that is the case Fi is not useless.


----------



## Crescent (Apr 30, 2013)

Lunacik said:


> I disagree because it's possible to do things with 0 care for self-gratification, etc. That's what happens when you genuinely _care_.



Agreed. It is completely possible to do things with 0 care for self-gratification. Though the fact is that much of the time people do good for mixed reasons (genuine care mixed together with self-gratification) or even sometimes solely for self-gratification, there are still many times when people do things solely for the recipient. 

However, I don't think it matters much from a practical, non-theoretical standpoint if people do good with mixed intentions. I think that when we're doing good we become so absorbed in the person we're doing good to that we forget the part of us that may be doing it for self-gratification. That part becomes so vague and obscure that it ceases to have any real importance from a normal perspective. I think what *does*matter is doing things *just* for the sake of self-gratification.


----------



## CatsBecauseYeah (Jan 23, 2016)

Exactly; Fi is especially good in an artistic or psychological setting, where it can communicate through Se or Ne an individual's personal experiences which, in the hands of someone with talent, can really become a valuable piece of art.


----------



## Ntuitive (Jan 6, 2012)

Fi is not useless. It gets used, and it also gets used by other people. The entire entertainment industry, and fashion, and books, and design, etc. exist because of it. Billions of dollars are being made each day because of the ideas and creations of Fi users. 



Fi is definitely useful, and so are all the other functions.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Crescent said:


> Agreed. It is completely possible to do things with 0 care for self-gratification. Though the fact is that much of the time people do good for mixed reasons (genuine care mixed together with self-gratification) or even sometimes solely for self-gratification, there are still many times when people do things solely for the recipient.
> 
> However, I don't think it matters much from a practical, non-theoretical standpoint if people do good with mixed intentions. I think that when we're doing good we become so absorbed in the person we're doing good to that we forget the part of us that may be doing it for self-gratification. That part becomes so vague and obscure that it ceases to have any real importance from a normal perspective. I think what *does*matter is doing things *just* for the sake of self-gratification.


Have to be careful with that. Can still lead to ego and self-importance. There's no harm in feeling good about doing something for someone, but it's a fine line to walk.

Personally, I'd rather not let my thoughts come back to me on it at all, unless it's in the sense of acknowledging progress in personal growth aka examining my successes so that I don't feel like I can never do anything right.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Ghostsoul said:


> I'm pretty sure OP just posted this in hope of starting a flame war.


If I did, could you stop it?
Life... dreams... hope... Where do they come from? And where do they go...? Such meaningless things... I'll destroy them all!


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> @_Emologic_
> 
> If you're going to ignore 4 pages of posts, don't bother responding to one post.
> 
> Evasive


Well how the hell did this get 12, oh wait, 13 now, pages?

BTW, you have a logic mistake: If I was a troll, like you said, a guy that simply wants a reaction, I wouldn't ignore posts, "evade" them, if you insist. I never expected this to get so many replies. FYI it's a week ago since I last visited this forum again. The first 2 pages I read were implying there were books and videos to "explain" the Enneagram.
If they think it's right, they should think for themselves. Also, they act like I don't understand the Enneagram. I do understand it, I disproved it, for lack of consistency.

Any more questions?


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Emologic said:


> Well how the hell did this get 12, oh wait, 13 now, pages?
> 
> BTW, you have a logic mistake: If I was a troll, like you said, a guy that simply wants a reaction, I wouldn't ignore posts, "evade" them, if you insist. I never expected this to get so many replies. FYI it's a week ago since I last visited this forum again. The first 2 pages I read were implying there were books and videos to "explain" the Enneagram.
> If they think it's right, they should think for themselves. Also, they act like I don't understand the Enneagram. I do understand it, I disproved it, for lack of consistency.
> ...


No. You could have spent the time you wasted refuting my post by responding to all the people who refuted your opening post.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

Does Fi Have a use...

what is use? function?

In that case, the function of Fi is: constructing a nuanced inner world to differentiate between levels of meaning, this being conducive to richer and more meaningful communication, selection, expression, art and design. 

If by "useless" you *actually *meant without _practical _function, then the answer might be yes, Fi probably has less practical function than other functions, overall. Directly, anyway. But it still has a variety of potential catalyzing and supportive features:
*
Fi stimulates economic growth:*
One must realize that our existence in the modern world is held together by an economy. This economy is made up of goods, services, employees, owners, distribution channels, fungibles and the technology that underlies all of this. Now, if we were only motivated towards the most bare essentials of goods and services, our economy would be an extremely dwarfed version of itself. The difference between the size of our current economy and a bare essential economy is desire characterized by preference.

*Fi is a shortcut towards decoding other people motivations:*
Fe is great at interpreting and negotiating explicitly defined social rules and behaviors. Ni is great at assuming hypothetical view points. But Fi, since it has such an intimate understanding of ones own agenda, can look for signs that someones mindset can relate to their own. This act can facilitate _properly _projecting ones own set of subjective emotional factors into another persons situation in order to understand how that other person is truly feeling and therefore how they will most likely react or behave. Fi is a hidden function, and like any hidden function, if used properly it can harvest potentially valuable information that is not readily obtainable through formula. 
*
If Ti creates efficiency with internal logical frameworks, Fi creates efficiency with internal understanding of the self:
*Some people might pride themselves on how their particular approach to life is important, valuable, productive, good... but ultimately, what drives people? You certainly don't willfully do things that feel bad, and if you do, it's usually because of a sense of guilt or obligation that promises to reward you _later on _with feelings of satisfaction and well being. So, ultimately, all people are driven to feel good. Fi is the the key towards fully understanding how to feel good, what makes one feel good, and what "good" means to you. Fi users have a jump start on the self-understanding that even the most financially successful people flock to self-help seminars and retreats in order to desperately obtain.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Female INFJ said:


> I'm no mind reader but when ANY person acts they make decisions. Example this person "says" they are a friend and when I told him a Narcissist friend of ours mistreated me his response was "she's hot" he is oblivious to anything he says and is unapologetic and only in his own head and pleasure. Also I have a cousin who has a lot to say in text messages about condolences when a family member died and she couldn't even send a card or show up in person, or send money. A reasonable normal person may say, hmmm, a grandmother who is an elder may respond to someone holding their hand when they are dying, instead of sending pretty words, and a picture of a rose from their garden. I suppose everyone here who "gets it" about these examples needs to be a mind reader to determine regardless if this person is in their own head or not. Their behavior is SELFISH.


I think @Neverontime did a wonderful job of explaining in examples, but I think sometimes Fi can be compassionate but read as selfish to Fe. Fi seems to generally operate on the principle that if you feel like sharing, you will share, and if you don't, then you won't, while Fe often seems like it operates on the principle that one should ask others to share and one should be asked to share in return. So I think a lot of times Fi users will give others space and time, because that is what they would want for themselves - or at least it really wouldn't bother them. 

For example, while I'm touched by sweet gestures like Christmas cards, I also don't mind not getting them, because I assume the person is feeling well-intentioned towards me unless they say otherwise, and I don't mind not feeling obligated to return the gesture! Maybe your cousin felt like the words and images were more meaningful and important than a card, money, or their presence - or maybe she wasn't sure how much her presence was desired, and felt that a card or money would be seem trite. I know I would feel strange inserting myself into someone else's major life situation unless I knew they explicitly voiced wanting me there. Not that texts are necessarily a good answer - but I don't think it's necessarily clear that she wasn't being compassionate. She just might not be acting on that in the same way that you do. Extraverted Feelers, after all, are very good at extraverting, while for us Introverted Feelers it takes a few more steps for us to figure out how to appropriately convert our feelings into something other people will appreciate. 

Obviously some Fi users are just selfish, and behave selfishly, but often I think there is just a different process behind Fi decision-making. 



BigApplePi said:


> If the question is, "What are CF values?", here are some concise answers:
> 
> Fi is used to maintain life. It informs what is important to us.
> Fe is used to get along with other life forms. It supports.
> ...


Excellent, excellent summary of the cognitive functions.


----------



## Kitsune Love (Jul 8, 2014)

YAY OPINION TIME!

Real talk though. Introverted Feeling is NOT useless.
I repeat...

*INTROVERTED FEELING IS NOT USELESS.*

We can all sit down by the campfire and tell stories of all the flaws of a dominant and tertiary Fi user all day (let's face it, people don't talk too much shit about ExFP's or at least I haven't seen so) but look at what Fi actually is.

Thinking and Feeling are both judging functions, we use these functions to make important decisions. Many people see Fi as altruistic but then turn around and call it worthless or useless and to do so is illogical. 

Let's look at Fe: They make decisions based on what is best for people as a group. Let's say I have 2 groups of friends, Group A may benefit from situation x more than situation y but Group B may find situation y better in the long run so I would try to encourage them to move towards situation y and I would try to steer Group A towards situation x.

Let's look at Fi: They make decisions based on what may be best for either themselves or their friends as individuals. "Suzy is stuck in this stupid love triangle but while Kevin is more attractive physically, Luke is more supportive so she would learn more about herself and he'd encourage her to be where she wants to be... I'm going to advise Suzy to choose Luke because it's better for her."

I get that society is screaming in our face that morals are stupid and that we shouldn't have them but I think a _healthy_ Fi user with refined opinions, ideals and morals are what the world needs.


----------



## Waveshine (Mar 18, 2011)

although fi may be selfish when the user is immature, it is not useless at all. like other functions, fi has great potential to contribute to the world, provided that it is well-developed and healthy. without fi users, we wouldn't have lgbt rights, animal cruelty protests, homeless shelters, etc.


----------



## Walden (Jan 15, 2016)

Emologic said:


> *Si* can be used to remember facts and recall past events in vivid detail, to imagine yourself in situations as if you're experiencing them physically, such as imagining taste, pain, or sex, and to create an own Mind Palace to think inside of.
> 
> I don't quite understand *Ni*, but I kind of know that people with Ni tend to have insights and visions of things, and use it to predict things and people so that they can use Ni to form plans independently.
> 
> ...


Hey man, loved your break-down. 

My best friend is an ISFP. She reports her Fi experience along the lines of : "I've always known, for as far back as I can remember, exactly who I was, what I wanted, and where I wanted to be. I have a really strong sense of self and I never doubt my beliefs or what I stand for". 

Seems like a pretty decent super power to me :happy:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

SystemEater said:


> *Fi is a shortcut towards decoding other people motivations:*
> Fe is great at interpreting and negotiating explicitly defined social rules and behaviors. Ni is great at assuming hypothetical viewpoints. But Fi, since it has such an intimate understanding of ones own agenda, can look for signs that someone's mindset can relate to their own. This act can facilitate _properly _projecting ones own set of subjective emotional factors into another person's situation in order to understand how that other person is truly feeling and therefore how they will most likely react or behave. Fi is a hidden function, and like any hidden function, if used properly it can harvest potentially valuable information that is not readily obtainable through formula.


Fairly good points you make, except you have this point backwards. By that, I mean that Fi doesn't look for something similar to it, but separates from what is _different_. In other words, it doesn't seek to relate with the object, but seeks to find differences, and to remove itself from or create distance to those differences. The end result is that Fi can be finely attuned to whatever differences there are, and also well aware of where and when there are similarities. These are not accidents of projection, this is because Fi types are more likely to suffer from introjection than projection. Projection is an extraverting phenomenon, and tends to belong more to extraverts and extraverted judging functions. Whereas introjection is the taking on the attitudes/feelings of others. Projection is something an Fi dominant may do when under the influence of the shadow, but otherwise, not. 

One other minor point. If Ti is about efficiency, I don't know that I could say the same about Fi. It's more about intensity. In some ways, my feelings are about the hard way, the long road, the road not taken, sort of thing (sorry, misapplication of the poem, but you get my point). Clarity might be another word I'd use. I think that's one area where both Ti and Fi are in full agreement--just in different spheres. ;-) Argh, though now I think of it, maybe Fi is more about purity (or sincerity) than clarity... Ah. Who am I fooling. It's difficult (impossible) to pin these things down to single words. ;-)

I've got an article on Fi here. Let me find it, and I'll share some points from it that may give a fuller understanding of how Fi operates--albeit indirectly--in the outer world. 



> In well-developed Fi types, the values and feeling-images processed by their Feeling tend to become superior to the personal ego with its mundane strivings and self-absorption. The personal ego becomes subordinated, an attendant and humble servant of the values and ideas championed by differentiated Fi, and such Fi types can therefore be some of the most selfless and self-sacrificing people around: …highly differentiated Fi types can selflessly give their all in the service of their ideals, thinking nothing of personal gains and acting entirely as an agent of those eternal feeling-images that they have felt, and which the rest of us can only palely refer to as their “personal values.”





> But without the “cultural genius” of Fi, the uncompromising purity and the wholly own-experienced passions of Fi types, our civilization would be a soulless place where every cultural artifact was shaped according to compromise and fed off the collectivity of generally accepted standards. A civilization that consisted of all Fe and no Fi would have lost its connection to the personal quality of Feeling that the Fi types so impeccably embody. Such a culture might satisfy aesthetic expectations, but it would not speak to the heart: It would please, but not transform. Appeal, but not engross. In sum, it would lack artistic daring, since it would be devoid of internal Feeling judgments.


::and finally::




> But obviously, we need both civilization (Fe) and culture (Fi): Without Fe, we cannot create a functioning civilization that canonizes and reveres its artists, and where ordinary people flock to museums and theaters. And without Fi, we cannot create a culture that bears the marks of that artistic uniqueness and individuality. We invariably need them both.


The above is from CelebrityTypes.com's article Jung in Plain Language: Fi. Unfortunately, it's behind the paywall so I don't know why I'm posting the link, but here it is for those who can read it: Jung in Plain Language, Part 2: Fi | CelebrityTypes


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> No. You could have spent the time you wasted refuting my post by responding to all the people who refuted your opening post.


14 pages. Doing that would be torture.


----------



## G0lde (Jan 20, 2016)

People with Fi dominants or auxiliaries tend to be alot more caught up in ethics and personal values. They don't guide themselves by the arbitrary "rules" of a given society or by some empirical logic, they guide themselves by what they believe to be right. Fi is not useless, it's perhaps one of the _most important_ introverted functions. It's how one develops and follows their moral code.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

It seems you're responding to my statements to better align with a general definition of Fi, but the statements are actually a way of addressing how someone _with_ Fi could give it a _practical utility. _So, your contentions are all fine textbook examples of what Fi tends to be, I'm looking at what someone _with_ Fi could twist it around to accomplish within the parameters of its main characteristics. Most of the explanations assume Fi is not being used in a vacuum without the aid of other functions.



ferroequinologist said:


> Fairly good points you make, except you have this point backwards. By that, I mean that Fi doesn't look for something similar to it, but separates from what is _different_. In other words, it doesn't seek to relate with the object, but seeks to find differences, and to remove itself from or create distance to those differences. The end result is that Fi can be finely attuned to whatever differences there are, and also well aware of where and when there are similarities. These are not accidents of projection, this is because Fi types are more likely to suffer from introjection than projection. Projection is an extraverting phenomenon, and tends to belong more to extraverts and extraverted judging functions. Whereas introjection is the taking on the attitudes/feelings of others. Projection is something an Fi dominant may do when under the influence of the shadow, but otherwise, not.


I'm not saying Fi generally seeks to look for similarities. The individualization that Fi creates, which I suggested, is the key to why, at times, it can have a powerful capacity to relate to another person's state of mind. In this case, self-awareness is being leveraged in order to indirectly understand another person whose identity is correlating to their own. Fi is not necessarily responsible for the part of the sequence that identifies the similarity. 

Also, I stated "projections" in this case were executed "properly", intending to mean 'not by accident'.The projection of one's identity in this case is intentional (contrast to the actual psychological phenomenon of "projection") and being done after one, having undergone their own process of self-examination through Fi, uses something other than Fi to spot similarities in someone else. One then can imagine what oneself would do in a similar situation, acting as proxy for the person that has been identified as similar to oneself. 

In all of my examples, the key is, I think, to look at how Fi is acting as the seam in a convoluted interplay regarding many functions. 



> One other minor point. If Ti is about efficiency, I don't know that I could say the same about Fi. It's more about intensity. In some ways, my feelings are about the hard way, the long road, the road not taken, sort of thing (sorry, misapplication of the poem, but you get my point). Clarity might be another word I'd use. I think that's one area where both Ti and Fi are in full agreement--just in different spheres. ;-) Argh, though now I think of it, maybe Fi is more about purity (or sincerity) than clarity... Ah. Who am I fooling. It's difficult (impossible) to pin these things down to single words. ;-)


I agree that 'efficiency' is an odd way to pair Fi And Ti. I agree that clarity and purity both work as better conjoiners of Fi and Ti. My focus on "efficiency" was to emphasize a point about how when you know yourself, you have a more efficient way of dealing with yourself. This isn't to suggest that in order to accomplish this "efficiency" one doesn't take the long road or the road less traveled. In a sense, it necessitates it. Both Ti and Fi can be seen as slow and laborious, overly meticulous in fact, compared to extraverted judgment. My argument is that, the end result is a map that is much more highly refined and less wasteful. The innovative construction of personal efficiency via experimentation.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Emologic said:


> 14 pages. Doing that would be torture.


Then just go with the newest post...?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

hornet said:


> I'd imagine that the extrovert looks at the externals as the input, and ruminate about how the inner never match the outer.
> To me it seems that the introvert looks at the inner world as the original version,
> while the extrovert looks at the outer world as the original version.
> Both devaluate the other because it changes what they value into something that seems alien.
> Doubly so for the shadow functions, that not only diminish the result, but also turn everything on it's head.


Yeah. It's confusing.  I think of the external world as physical input, and the inner world as energy input (which goes into something external - output). They aren't necessarily linked though. I think this must be different that an extroverted view because it is hard to reconcile it with extroversion.


----------



## zarcos (Nov 27, 2015)

Being an ENTP, these are the issues that I've noticed relating to Fi being my weakest and least conscious function at position 7:

I can't tell how I'm feeling at any given time without logical analysis (Ti), comparing myself to others (Fe) and cross-referencing previous emotional situations (Ne-Si)

I have no internal moral compass, despite wanting to do the right thing

Other people's emotions absorbed from Fe will overpower and mask the weak ones I feel on my own.

I have little to no sense of self outside my interests and preferences

I have a hard time connecting with people unless I find them unique (Ne), complex (Ti) or interested in similar things (Fe-Si)

I have a hard time realizing just how important certain concepts or people are to me


There's probably more but yeah....Fi is important.


----------



## misfortuneteller (Apr 4, 2015)

as a Fi dom I agree that it's useless and I am stuck with it and Ne isn't seen as useful in this world full of sensors so i'm royally screwed.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

misfortuneteller said:


> as a Fi dom I agree that it's useless and I am stuck with it and Ne isn't seen as useful in this world full of sensors so i'm royally screwed.


Look at your beautiful, evocative avatar and tell me that Fi is useless when it comes to capturing and communicating a sentiment. 

I think there are few things as important in this world as being able to communicate meaning and significance like that! True that it's not typically immediately rewarded with external gains, like money, status, or power, but why would it be? It's operating on a completely different level. The whole point is that it's _not_ about those external measures.

As for Ne - Ne (as well as Ni) can run ahead of Se and Si in some situations! It's a "leaping" function, able to skip through stages of processing by recognizing patterns and predicting conclusions. My ESFJ mom says she has always been impressed/admiring/jealous of that ability in my INTP dad (though by the same turn, he is impressed by her ability to fluidly run two households' finances). I would dig through your FB or whatever social media site you peruse if you are feeling alone and useless as an N! Last time I tried to guess my friend count was coming up pretty 50/50 S-N, with lots of productive and functional Ns. It seems online that a lot of iNtuitives seek to retreat away from the "Sensor world", but my personal impression is that there are really about as many iNtuitives around as there are Sensors - though certainly some people wind up amidst "pockets" of the opposite type. 

I just say this because when I first came to the MBTI, I thought I was a lone N, but the more I studied, the more I saw Ns popping up everywhere, and I guess I realized that I had sort of projected a lot of isolation feelings into the S/N issue that really didn't originate from that. I was genuinely concerned that my relationship with an ISFJ might fail because of S/N differences - which ended up sort of masking much deeper and more complex interrelating issues. If anything functional is ever a problem, it's Fi/Ti and Te/Fe, lol 

Regardless, try not to sell yourself short on your functions. They're useful - but not if you judge them on scales they don't operate on. What's that quote?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

In our society it is devalued and seen as useless, yes.

That has a _lot_ more to do with what modern society needs to keep itself going - and much, much less to do with the actual value of Fi...


----------



## Evese (Feb 12, 2016)

Fi tends to be very inspiring, just need some interpretation and alignment with reality.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

nevermore said:


> In our society it is devalued and seen as useless, yes.
> 
> That has a _lot_ more to do with what modern society needs to keep itself going - and much, much less to do with the actual value of Fi...


Modern society is degenerate and amoral. It needs to be shown its place.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Lunacik said:


> *Fi is interested in Harmony as well; not necessarily more than Fe, just different.*
> 
> *Fi *is concerned with harmony _within itself_.
> *Fe *is concerned with harmony _with others_.
> ...


This is really good. Id probably swap 'harmony' for 'organization' as in keeping the external or internal framework organized. 

Je - External organization
Ji - Internal organization


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Doing things that aren't Fi approved is what is useless, son.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Yes, it happens a lot. Especially in Fi threads.
> Intp makes negative post about Fi- infj is in agreement with negative opinion of Fi and cannot help but express it - infp defends Fi - infjs and infps start mudslinging because they have this innate ability to get on each others tits - intp thinks they're super clever for doing the same thing that's been done over and over again already - infjs & infps know what op is doing but contribute anyway because of their innate ability to get on each others tits.
> 
> :happy:


This is exactly what happens. Down to a T. 

:rolling:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

lol wtf even is this thread?

introverted functions are internal processing functions; they're not really meant to be extroverted. I use Fi to reach conclusions, to explore ethics and morality, and to learn more about subjective experience as a human. This can be beneficial in helping others process their feelings (counseling, mental health); stirring up change in the status quo; writing & arts, etc... most people have mentioned them by now.

But really, I think one of the most important thing Fi does for other types is that it is incredibly inspirational. It's authentic. It doesn't ask permission; it just *is*. It won't bend for others because it can only be oriented towards truth and for fi to not be authentic, it would have to be an entirely different function. Like Ni, Fi is also very good at picking up subtleties of the environment and can seem mystical and mysterious at times.


----------



## BlueWings (Jan 27, 2015)

Yes thanks for pointing it out; Fi is hard to understand from an outside perspective and your definition of "usefulness" is completely subjective and based on where you're coming from which is essentially what the functions embody. So basically, your ability to see the value of a functions perspective is dependent on your ability to understand that perspective, and you deeming of Fi as useless proves your inability to understand it.


----------



## Angelo (Aug 17, 2016)

karmachameleon said:


> In socionics Fi makes much more sense


thanks for the in–depth explanation...


----------



## AshOrLey (May 28, 2016)

If I want to do something motivated by a value because of my Fi, there is NO stopping me. My motivation will be through the roof, out of this planet. We don't just get motivated by anything. But when we do, the determination level to get there is insane.

These dreams become a reality.


----------



## how beautiful (Jul 12, 2016)

AshOrLey said:


> If I want to do something motivated by a value because of my Fi, there is NO stopping me. My motivation will be through the roof, out of this planet. We don't just get motivated by anything. But when we do, the determination level to get there is insane.


That's why it's so important for Fi:s to find the right values to base your life to.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm just speculating, but does "feeling/morality" itself originate from Fi? Since Fe is the collective feeling but Fe users don't create "feeling/morality" on their own, they absorb and mirror it from other sources. So it make sense to me that an when powerful Fi is finally expressed to an Fe user and they agree with it, Fe takes it into their own heart and spreads it even further. And then other Fe also spread it and soon they collectively believe the same thing, but don't understand where it came from and WHY it is worth following.. Because they understood the message, but never experienced the journey of discovery that the Fi user went through.


----------



## Caden920 (Feb 27, 2017)

Fiisn't useless, it just doesn't tend to manifest itself in a tangible way to those besides the user. It is used to orient ones thoughts and beliefs, and could be described as a filter through which all information passes through. It doesn't give insight or cause someone to react, but rather has indirect control over all actions.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Endologic said:


> *Si* can be used to remember facts and recall past events in vivid detail, to imagine yourself in situations as if you're experiencing them physically, such as imagining taste, pain, or sex, and to create an own Mind Palace to think inside of.
> 
> I don't quite understand *Ni*, but I kind of know that people with Ni tend to have insights and visions of things, and use it to predict things and people so that they can use Ni to form plans independently.
> 
> ...


The greatest works of art and literature were made by Fi. Heck, I bet 80% of writers / artist are Fi dom or aux. To write a complex piece of literature or a fine art requires a lot more than just creativity or a piece of imagination. It requires understanding of life, of complexities between people, of human nature, of themselves. For example Game of Thrones isn't just a fairytale story, neither is Lord of the Rings, it has a huge amount of complexities in it. Although this is just 1 of the many qualities of Fi, just on this alone draw the conclusions. Is Fi useless ?

Fi is important to find the right values to base your life to.

Fi creates morality, Fe just absorbs it and agrees / disagress with it.

As a Fi user most of the time I hear from other people that others are sources for moral guideness, that maybe if we say 'yes' but others say 'no' then no is the morally right answer. This is blue screen for me. As a Fi user is ABSOLEUTLY BARBARIC! to let someone else do the moral thinking for me. Even if I was the only person on the planet who said 'yes' while everyone else said 'no' I'll still stick to my guns as long as I truly believe in what I truly believe while other people's own moral sets would have no influence on me. I think it was Fi users that started the idea "hey, blacks should be equal!" from then on Fe just agreed or disagreed with it. As Fe looks outside (extroverts) for morality while Fi looks inside (introverts) for morality.


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

Fi doms are the ethicists of Jungian typology imo. If anything the world needs more ethicists.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

umop 3pisdn said:


> Fi doms are the ethicists of Jungian typology imo. If anything the world needs more ethicists.


Less*


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

Our society is based on a Te-Fi contrast. There is the idea of efficiency (main culture) and the idea of authenticity (alternative culture). So Fi is basically one of the two ways through which society tells us to live.

Relevance of the subject, freedom of choice etc etc are related to Fi.


----------

