# Thoughts on Fe (breadth) vs Fi (depth)



## Pensive Fine (Oct 4, 2018)

Fe as an 'objective function' generally cares more about breadth while Fi as a 'subjective function' generally cares more about depth. Could someone please expand further on this and share you thoughts in how you personally interpret this based on your understanding of the functions. For Fe-users, do you feel like you have an urge to impact the emotional atmosphere in the room in some way (generally to a positive outcome) and being focused on the room's atmosphere rather than how you are feeling? As a Fi-dom I don't have a complete understanding of Fe's breadth>depth so I would appreciate it if someone could give their thoughts on this. It would be nice if there could be some examples, with either from your personal experiences, an imagined scenario or from fiction.


----------



## Suntide (Dec 22, 2018)

Pensive Fine said:


> For Fe-users, do you feel like you have an urge to impact the emotional atmosphere in the room in some way (generally to a positive outcome) and being focused on the room's atmosphere rather than how you are feeling?


I kind of already said this in your other thread that I just responded to but... YES haha very much so. I feel personally responsible for keeping everything light and harmonious. To me, it's always been more important that the external emotional realm be harmonious than whatever's brewing inside me. My internal emotional realm can't be at peace unless the external one is first.


----------



## meandshoe (Apr 6, 2019)

I noticed I like to keep the atmosphere harmonious, I don't like others being affected by my own negative emotions. Even if I don't like someone, it's important to be polite and civil. I hate arguing with people in person.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

My experience with the objectivity of Fe would be different as someone who has a subjection function, Ti, as their dominant. Therefore, I think I put more of a focus on depth than breadth. My main focus whenever I am around others is to analyze what's going on, but through my own internal logic. I don't have an urge to "impact the emotional atmosphere in the room in some way," I let things be, and do my own thing. My Fe is pretty simplistic and I just try to understand the feelings of others as they are, though it does not come naturally to me.


----------



## APBReloaded (Mar 8, 2019)

I'm not 100% sure of the notion of this thread, but I wanted to express my personal thoughts anyway. I feel that I appreciate depth in getting to know people way more than breadth. Knowing a lot of people on a surface level would actually probably be pretty draining to me, it's so many details to try to remember.

For me, it's much more intense and beneficial to have those few people who I draw in really close. That gets my emotions going, it gets me involved in other peoples' lives the way I prefer to be.

So I suppose this means I strongly prefer Fi over Fe. I may talk sometimes like I want to help millions of people, but really, at this current mental and spiritual strength level, I only have what it takes to help a few. Perhaps as I regain my energies and motivations, I'll be able to help even more people. Only time will tell.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

I have no idea if this is relevant in any way, nor if it's specific to Fe or both Feeling functions, but I'll just share one lil example from personal experience. When I went to visit my extended family some time ago, I felt obliged to bring EVERYONE a little gift, not just the people I like best, or like at all for that matter. I was resolved to "do it like a Fi-user" this time and only gift those I care about, but ended up giving souvenirs to the relatives I disliked as well. Why?? I felt I HAD to treat them ALL equally (not in the _quality _of the presents though lol just the fact that no one felt left out completely).


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

Breadth vs depth, breadth reacts faster than depth though it will seem more shallow than depth. Fe doms love everyone to an acquaintance level. Fi will take longer to warm up to someone, but will form deeper friendships. Fe can read the room quickly. Fi sometimes doesnt realize they offended someone, until too late. Fi is SLOW. They need time to process their feelings over something. But once they do, they dont budge their opinion, even in the face of logic. Fe is quick to process, quick to accept other POVs. This applies to all the other I E functions, too. Ne is faster than Ni (Ni takes ages to process their insights, slower than Ne to read a situation, but once an insight is processed, they take it out repeatedly like a piece of gold, and wont change their opinion much like dom Fi), Se is faster than Si (even in their physical movements), Te is faster than Ti (they form judgements brutally fast, can cut you down in an instant before you know what hit you. Leave you bleeding and move on).


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

I don't think breadth vs depth is a very good way of understanding this, it's just E (interest in external object) v I (interest in subject) of your Feeling (_value _in the sense of acceptance or rejection ie "like" or "dislike").

Feeling itself is subjective, even if the person is an E, what is called "Fe" by the MBTI community is a person focusing their subjective Feeling outwards, to the outer world. What is called "Fi" by the MBTI community is just a person focusing their subjective Feeling inwards, to their own self. Perceiving "Fe" as an "objective" function is a mistake, because Feeling is subjective, either way.

I don't think breadth/depth have much to do with anything, only on a stereotypical or superficial level. 

How can Feeling (like/dislike) be objective, anyway, when you think about it? Objective Feeling is an oxymoron.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Pensive Fine said:


> For Fe-users, do you feel like you have an urge to impact the emotional atmosphere in the room in some way (generally to a positive outcome) and being focused on the room's atmosphere rather than how you are feeling?


The atmosphere of the room IS how I'm feeling :wink:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I think the subjective vs objective refers to focusing the F value on the object (objective) vs focusing on the subject (subjective). But I think that these words are used a bit differently than the dictionary definition of objective as being detached to the situation vs subjective being attached to the situation. So I don't think that Jung originally meant what we know today as "objective" vs "subjective". I think he meant it a bit more literally.

At least this is my understanding of Jung.

Since we are talking about cognitive functions, consider another area of cognition to explain it: Attention. 

According to MBTI cannon, Fe's attention is spread while Fi's attention is focused. I suppose that when one looks at it that way, it does appear that Fe is more oriented to breadth while Fi is more oriented to depth. 

Whether or not this is the actual case is yet to be seen, though, at least for me.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Dissymetry said:


> Feeling itself is subjective, even if the person is an E, what is called "Fe" by the MBTI community is a person focusing their subjective Feeling outwards, to the outer world. What is called "Fi" by the MBTI community is just a person focusing their subjective Feeling inwards, to their own self. Perceiving "Fe" as an "objective" function is a mistake, because Feeling is subjective, either way.


You don't have this right. 
Fe is not personal feelings projected outwards, although it can lead to that if the person is in a strongly emotional state. 
Fe is others feelings controlling the Fe users feeling state. It's not self-driven, it's inspired from without.
While of course we DO have our own subjective emotions, they are almost always repressed by our Fe and replaced with / rewritten by the feelings of those around us.




> How can Feeling (like/dislike) be objective, anyway, when you think about it? Objective Feeling is an oxymoron.


If you understand the nature of objectivity then it makes perfect sense. 
There's this common notion that only logic can be objective, but if we examine Ti, it is extremely subjective. All the introverted functions are focused on one's own perspective and conclusions.

But to be objective is to remove ones SELF from the equation... which is exactly what Fe does, in much the same way as Te. It's a disregard of personal perspective in favor of verifiably sound external consensus. Fe users often use the term "reasonable" as part of our system of comparing groups of feeling to other groups of feeling... not everyone can be right in the end, so one side has to be awarded victory based on a comparison from all moral information we have amalgamated to date - not based on how WE feel, but how others have shown us what feeling is.

I hope this makes a little more sense of it.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Sour Roses

I think I get what's being said. It's that a value statement, whether it's coming from a crowd or from an individual cannot in and of itself exist without some sort of subjectivity: a like or a dislike will always be subjective. 

But the actual concept of Fe/Te being object oriented vs Fi/Ti being subject oriented is just what that judging function is being projected onto. 

A similarity to F values being subjective would be that T abstractions are prone to logical fallacy or absurdity. Just because it can be thought doesn't mean it's fact or even true.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

Sour Roses said:


> You don't have this right.
> Fe is not personal feelings projected outwards, although it can lead to that if the person is in a strongly emotional state.
> Fe is others feelings controlling the Fe users feeling state. It's not self-driven, it's inspired from without.
> While of course we DO have our own subjective emotions, they are almost always repressed by our Fe and replaced with / rewritten by the feelings of those around us.


My post was mostly just copying what Jung said, basically verbatim, can you share your source?

You said that "Fe is others feelings controlling the Fe users feeling state" but I don't think Feeling in personality theory is "feelings" as "feelings" are normally understood. You also mention emotions but emotions aren't the rational, decision-making process that is _Feeling_.




> If you understand the nature of objectivity then it makes perfect sense.
> There's this common notion that only logic can be objective, but if we examine Ti, it is extremely subjective. All the introverted functions are focused on one's own perspective and conclusions.
> 
> But to be objective is to remove ones SELF from the equation... which is exactly what Fe does, in much the same way as Te. It's a disregard of personal perspective in favor of verifiably sound external consensus. Fe users often use the term "reasonable" as part of our system of comparing groups of feeling to other groups of feeling... not everyone can be right in the end, so one side has to be awarded victory based on a comparison from all moral information we have amalgamated to date - not based on how WE feel, but how others have shown us what feeling is.
> ...


But "Fe" can't remove itself from the equation on account of "Fe" being Feeling. Feeling is subjective, even when E.

You said: "not everyone can be right in the end, so one side has to be awarded victory based on a comparison from all moral information we have amalgamated to date - not based on how WE feel, but how others have shown us what feeling is." - you aren't recognising here that making a decision based on all "moral information" that you have amalgamated, is still _you _making a decision (based on what _you _personally like/dislike, see: "moral information").


----------



## ReliK (Feb 24, 2019)

This gets tricky, because I personally relate to many descriptions of Fi and Fe, yet believe I am Fi-dom. 

I am highly aware of environments and other peoples feelings. When there is tension between others, I will not interfere, or try to change their feelings, but I will at times go to great efforts to lighten the mood, relax the environment or break silence. I feel my own discomfort acutely, as well as others in the vicinity. My efforts are usually responded to positively, and I find that I set the stage for others to more comfortably shift the environment as well. If I am very happy/excited about something, it is difficult to contain, I prefer to share with others (as long as I believe they'd be interested, and people are fucking nosy, so usually they are.) 

When I come across highly distressed people, I am compelled to respond and soothe, even at the expense of myself at times. It doesn't feel like an expense to myself though, usually it's more of an expense to my obligations, obligations I myself feel restricted by (being late to work, for example) This has gotten better with age, I've hardened up and learned to more accurately assess my risk/consequence, but when I was younger It was almost like a force outside of myself pushing me into action. Something about standing by and watching others in pain, when I can do anything to even remotely alleviate it, felt like my very soul was being seared. No additional processing, moralizing or rationalizing, it is instantly felt and acted upon. The emotionally charged exchanges are immediately judged to be of greater importance than almost anything else that could be going on in that moment. When I have had to leave others in great distress, I am incredibly impacted for days, sometimes even weeks later. This was present in me as young as 5, when I began bringing every, single stray animal home, begging and crying to my parents uncontrollably to keep them.

My attention goes to the individuals though. In a group setting, I am much more concerned that an individual is treated fairly, that their perspective or feelings aren't steam-rolled by the majority. This might be a good distinction between fi and fe - fi directs more attention towards the individual. That doesn't mean the individual is more important than the group, that their feelings or values take priority, but it accepts the premise that one is weaker and more vulnerable than the many, so that special attention must be made to ensure power balances. It's a blend of authenticity and harmony really, trying to find this balance of allowing the individual to be, as harmoniously as possible with the group. The individual has a right to be left alone, to be unaffected if that's what they really want. I have defended individuals I personally cant stand, and who I do not agree with, simply because I honor their freedom to be, which by extension honors my own. I don't like pack mentality, and see ganging up on others or over-powering the weak as inherently immoral and cowardice, whether it be overt or covert. 

So I feel greatly for others, and do not recognize an unaffectedness or apathy at all, in my self. At the same time, if it comes down to it, I will not sacrifice my deepest feelings and desires for others, not even those I love the very most. If their happiness rests on the lack of my own, I feel that their happiness has originated improperly, unnaturally, and that it must be worked through... for the benefit of their own self. 

Eh, I'm tired now and have forgotten what else I wanted to say. Hopefully that helps.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Sour Roses said:


> You don't have this right.
> Fe is not personal feelings projected outwards, although it can lead to that if the person is in a strongly emotional state.
> Fe is others feelings controlling the Fe users feeling state. It's not self-driven, it's inspired from without.
> While of course we DO have our own subjective emotions, they are almost always repressed by our Fe and replaced with / rewritten by the feelings of those around us.


This is actually fascinating to me. So, you're saying you don't actually make original value statements? Instead, you let other people tell you what is worth putting your attention to? You let the atmosphere or whatever direct you? I'd just like some more insight into how you experience Fe. I can't help but think - what if the entire atmosphere or the people around you are all infants, for example. I understand that's pushing it quite a bit, but I just realised I've been sitting here contemplating this for at least 15 minutes so I figured asking directly would be the best course of action.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

With tert Fe, I am hit or miss.

Ultimately yes I do prefer when a collective group is satisfied and 'happy'. Yes. Yes I like diplomacy, compromise, and negotiations. I like super HIGH MORALE! 

But I am more so mission and criteria based as well. I.e. does the context/content match up with the end/group mission. What is the contribution, history, investment, objective, of the other players involved to the group/mission ? SO I work off of Fe alot, but not in the same manner as most Fe doms. I will give people a chance and try to understand. But it is extended only so far. Not usually at the cost of the group/mission. I.e. I will toss someone overboard or put them on deck duty if they are trying to sink the ship before it sails. That is definitely motivated with Fe. As obviously I care about the larger picture of the people who are also collectively interested in working with others. And those who contribute or care about the group/mission, are the first kind of people to get more of my empathy/understanding etc. 

I definitely have a tough love attitude. But I do care about people. It can come off crass in delivery though. I want people to succeed. But I want them to play nice, and work hard! Or they can fuck off. Or if its like in a recreational sense I love to provide the ultimate experience but not just left and right to everyone and anyone at any cost. I prefer to extend that to those who require/need, or those who recognize and appreciate. 

I believe respect is earned, its not a right. Huge difference between demanding respect and earning it. Courtesy is something I believe in assuming its extended. Conscientiousness for others I try and respect. Customs or personal beliefs I try to overall just avoid or not offend. But I do not believe people are owed anything. Consideration for others is not the same is thinking I owe someone something or they owe me anything which is not earned. Respect being key. Pretty basic principle here, does this person work to earn what they desire? Does this person treat others like they want to be treated? Does this person have the expertise for which they solicit advice or hold a title? If they meet said qualifications well you do not get gripe from me. But do not assume simply because 'you' are said sub culture, or classification, or association, or say that before the money is put where the mouth is that I care outside common courtesy. 

I am pretty fucken huge on positive and negative reinforcement. Tend to identify if people require validation in verbal accolade or acknowledgment or in reward etc as far as incentive based strategy.

From a manager stand point I am huge on hands on initial teaching and coaching! Big on coaching. I will work with the biggest dumbfuck ever over and over if I see they are trying. And give them legit chances. But the person who does not give a shit, nope. I love setting goals for various production and reward big as I always can in any left over budgets. It always goes to team and success parties or individual awards. SO I definitely care about morale. I tend to score pretty high in it when I have been rated on it. I think last year I scored second in our company management on morale ratings, which was pretty fricken sweet because I scored pretty damn high on quality (like stats on low incident and high volume of bullets to achieve). Anyways yeah I care about people alot. 

Where can I be cruel, I will totally do overkill remedial training to anyone who does not invest with the team. They will wish they just fucken cared the first time. Not talking about someone who legit needs extra help learning. Talking about the little fuckers who say they know it all but then later play the otherside and blame others. (Haha hows the toilet duty going). I also cannot stand like petty tattle tell shit. All that tells me is someone is willing to snitch on their team mate to brown nose or get ahead or outta spite is to watch them close (does not win points with me) and I will call it out in front of the team. Passive aggressive BS that is. Usually eliminates that shit ASAP. I get called a drill sargent for this :laughing: But even there usually the rest of the group does not mind because they are relieved the weak or rude links get exposed. I swear to gawd you would think I would be hated for ever for this but I have had people come back years later and thank me for teaching them work conduct. I have been shocked a few times by it. 

I do consider how do I want to be treated as a subordinate and how should I treat people ultimately but as I said its secondary to the mission/objective. I will tell everyone to shove theire fucken feelings down or issues until we get whatever the hell done and then I wanna hear about it. Tehe sounds very Fe third to me. Fucken Fe all ya want after we get this shit done.

Anyways you are right none of that is inherently 'depth'
I can be quite pensive/intense and off putting in many ways with my Ti however.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Suntide said:


> I kind of already said this in your other thread that I just responded to but... YES haha very much so. I feel personally responsible for keeping everything light and harmonious. To me, it's always been more important that the external emotional realm be harmonious than whatever's brewing inside me. My internal emotional realm can't be at peace unless the external one is first.


I'm wondering if I'm Fi or Fe and how to figure that out. I'm probably a Feeler. I'm very affected by the atmosphere. When there's tension, or if I'm tense, I try to stay quiet until I can think of something to say. I'm generally not very good at conversation or socializing.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

meandshoe said:


> I noticed I like to keep the atmosphere harmonious, I don't like others being affected by my own negative emotions. Even if I don't like someone, it's important to be polite and civil. I hate arguing with people in person.


I try to avoid making waves, too. I'm not very good at being nice when I don't like someone. It tends to show in my behavior. I also don't want to bother anyone with my feelings, even though I tend to get preoccupied with them myself.

I'm trying to figure out if I'm an SFJ or an SFP.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

brightflashes said:


> This is actually fascinating to me. So, you're saying you don't actually make original value statements? Instead, you let other people tell you what is worth putting your attention to? You let the atmosphere or whatever direct you? I'd just like some more insight into how you experience Fe. I can't help but think - what if the entire atmosphere or the people around you are all infants, for example. I understand that's pushing it quite a bit, but I just realised I've been sitting here contemplating this for at least 15 minutes so I figured asking directly would be the best course of action.


Fe is much more complex and nuanced than that, but I understand that for people without conscious Fe and who aren't exposed to healthy Fe in their environment, an overly simplistic and 1D caricature may be all they know about it, how they imagine it to function, etc (reinforced by a never-ending stream of silly stereotypes in MBTI communities).

Of course we "make original value statements", Fe is not what other people say, think, feel, do or believe, but the overall concept of PEOPLE and how they tick/function and how to best move human dynamics to bring out social harmony and make everyone a part of a working whole, like the parts of a clock, each indispensable for the clock as a delicately intricate mechanism (or entity or organism in the case of living beings) to optimally function.

Fe is like a matrix whose "code" you either can read, and thus navigate through smoothly, or NOT (and vice versa, for people like me who can't read the Te "code"). It's literally "hanging in the air", it feels like a layer of reality you are able to perceive and to act upon. It's truths understood to be objective and universal for all, although much fine-tuning and adapting is done when zooming in into particular cases and scenarios (another culture, for example, but also another group, race, place or kind of _person_). The "atmosphere or whatever" can indeed prompt me to do or say something that I feel, on an instinctual, or archetypal level, to be the "appropriate" action to take in this very moment for this and that reason, there is a definite logic behind it (a humanistic logic). See, if Fe didn't exist, humanity would be (at best) in a state of constant chaos, anarchy, opportunism and self-serving ideologies that make not only societal units, but even businesses and institutions impossible. Every function exists for a reason and with a special purpose, we need Te as much as we need Fe, and Ti as much as Fi, Ne as much as... etc.

Hmm, in a room full of infants (the "entire atmosphere" you suggested) my Fe would automatically go into its special protocol of "how one is supposed to deal with infants", I'd assume the most appropriate role in my Fe repertoire for best results. As far as actual behavior goes, I'd refer to Eric Berne's theory of ego states. I would assume the Parent ego state because of the responsibilities I have toward weaker beings (Fe has a code of conduct, keywords honor, duty, responsibility, "right thing to do" etc) and through my Child ego state, I'd adapt to each infant's needs and temperaments to find a common ground (try to get on the same wavelength as each kid and establish a pleasant GROUP wavelength, if possible).

I'm sorry this is rather convoluted and in places a bit too abstract, but the idea is that Fe is a special form of intelligence, just like all the other functions, all with their own kinds of intelligence.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Kizuna

I know perfectly well what Fe is. I was asking @Sour Roses to explain what her definition of Fe was to me. It seemed, rather, that she had a 1 dimensional understanding of it. I was using an absurdist style of writing to highlight possible problems with her definition. 

But since you decided to waste my time by INFJ-splaning this to me, could you maybe answer why Ti 3rd position feels this insufferable need to "teach" people? It's freaking irritating as.


----------



## _He_ (Nov 26, 2014)

In reference to the OP, I'd say that Fe is the quilt as a whole; while Fi is the individual patches that make up the quilt. Fe is the ethical system, Fi is the individual values that make up the ethical system. Fi and Fe, though, are both the same thing: Feeling (F). They both just take a different attitude, or in other words place a different emphasis on either the whole or the particular. Jung's wording was "intensity" vs. "extensity", but that's pretty close to depth vs. breadth. Here's my less popular opinion: what people call a "dichotomy" should really be called a "spectrum" because you can't have an ethical system (Fe) without individual values (Fi). A lone value is a non-entity. By non-entity, I mean it has nothing to compare itself to, so it can't be more or less important than anything else. This way of looking at it isn't canon or popular consensus though, lots of good answers in the posts above if you want that.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> @Kizuna
> 
> I know perfectly well what Fe is. I was asking @Sour Roses to explain what her definition of Fe was to me. It seemed, rather, that she had a 1 dimensional understanding of it. I was using an absurdist style of writing to highlight possible problems with her definition.
> 
> But since you decided to waste my time by INFJ-splaning this to me, could you maybe answer why Ti 3rd position feels this insufferable need to "teach" people? It's freaking irritating as.



I wouldn't call it teaching, from our perspective it's pointing out things other people might have missed. As a fellow Ni-dom you should get this - perception comes first.
Ti is analytical, so it is critical of smaller details that seem to be missed or left out. All the vague wishy washy maybe-we're-on-the-same-page-or-maybe-not stuff is annoying for us.

Thus, what I was saying wasn't meant to be taken as a replacement of overall Fe theory, but as one small element of the whole. A part which isn't often explained, and which I would like to work on crafting a better explanation of.

Now can I ask you to explain something for me? Why do some people participating in threads which are by nature completely focused on sharing perspectives and theories, then get easily bothered about others sharing? When you ask follow-up questions and receive responses, do you really think the only thought that should be in our minds is what you do or don't already know? Or could you just accept that encouraging people to talk further might just result in more of their own thoughts coming out?




> This is actually fascinating to me. So, you're saying you don't actually make original value statements? Instead, you let other people tell you what is worth putting your attention to? You let the atmosphere or whatever direct you? I'd just like some more insight into how you experience Fe. I can't help but think - what if the entire atmosphere or the people around you are all infants, for example. I understand that's pushing it quite a bit, but I just realised I've been sitting here contemplating this for at least 15 minutes so I figured asking directly would be the best course of action.


I apologize for missing this post earlier.

Clarification - I wasn't referring to a moment-by-moment moral value absorption in this way you seem to have taken it.
See this line:
"based on a comparison from all moral information we have amalgamated to date"

"to date" being life-long. 

At the risk of being teachy, but seeing as you DID ask for more insight, I'll tell you anyway...

You could think of Fe as being an art collector, while Fi is an artist.
Whereas of course Fi users craft all their own creations; 
Fe sees works that it appreciates, and acquires them. Hanging the art in their own space, it then becomes part of the identity of that person. Even though they didn't create those individual pieces, they created the combination of pieces that gives the room / person a particular feel. Throughout a lifetime, they continue to expand on their collection, and perhaps move some pieces around. This is our version of having our "own" values - it's a personal collection - and no, it isn't changed moment-by-moment.

Emotions, however, *are* influenced in the moment. As that's the feeling side of Fe which allows for the collection process to begin in the first place. A door, if you will. 
Feeling _with_ someone always carries the potential of buying one of their artworks.

And yes, to whomever challenged this part (I forget who), feeling functions are also responsible for controlling emotion management in the user as well as moral / ethical valuations.
It makes sense that thinker types might have more trouble in seeing this at play, since often their version of controlling emotions is to block them out completely... but the alternative of balancing / correcting them does exist and is more easily used by those who frequently exercise the feeling region of their brains.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Sour Roses said:


> Now can I ask you to explain something for me? Why do some people participating in threads which are by nature completely focused on sharing perspectives and theories, then get easily bothered about others sharing? When you ask follow-up questions and receive responses, do you really think the only thought that should be in our minds is what you do or don't already know? Or could you just accept that encouraging people to talk further might just result in more of their own thoughts coming out?


I'm not easily "bothered" by other people sharing. The person who responded to me wasn't sharing about the OP, they were being condescending and explaining how I don't know what Fe was. I just don't like people wasting my time. I asked you specifically, someone else answered. If that's hard to understand, then I cannot help you.



> At the risk of being teachy, but seeing as you DID ask for more insight, I'll tell you anyway


No need to be passive aggressive - I did ask you specifically.


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Sour Roses said:


> Now can I ask you to explain something for me? Why do some people participating in threads which are by nature completely focused on sharing perspectives and theories, then get easily bothered about others sharing? When you ask follow-up questions and receive responses, do you really think the only thought that should be in our minds is what you do or don't already know? Or could you just accept that encouraging people to talk further might just result in more of their own thoughts coming out?


Why are you being so condescending...? People are so quick to assume "upset" or "bothered" without any good reason, especially when there's obviously just an intellectual misunderstanding.

me: "What you said doesn't make sense to me, can you explain?"
you: "y r u so TrIgGeRrEd ur so MAD I CAN JUST IMAGINE"


----------



## VoicesofSpring (Mar 31, 2019)

Do you enter an orchestra you adhered to, by playing the part the orchestra need you to play and check if necessary that no one perturbs the piece played ? Or do you keep playing your own tune and don't mind what the others play ?

Does it make sense ? Certainly not, so bonne nuit !


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

hornpipe2 said:


> Why are you being so condescending...? People are so quick to assume "upset" or "bothered" without any good reason, especially when there's obviously just an intellectual misunderstanding.
> 
> me: "What you said doesn't make sense to me, can you explain?"
> you: "y r u so TrIgGeRrEd ur so MAD I CAN JUST IMAGINE"


Is someone admitting they were irritated a good reason? Her response to Kizuna clearly shows she was bothered by her response.


Overally this thread has definitely showed me new sides of Fe I did not understand before. I did not know Fe collects values, I thought they just adapted to get along. This collecting of values makes their "adaptation" seem perhaps more sincere than stereotypes make it out to be.


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> Is someone admitting they were irritated a good reason? Her response to Kizuna clearly shows she was bothered by her response.


I think there's a difference between saying that you're "irritated" (or frustrated, bugged, annoyed, etc) and "upset" (in this case: "easily bothered", unable or unwilling to accept alternate viewpoints, and so on). Difference of degree maybe.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

hornpipe2 said:


> I think there's a difference between saying that you're "irritated" (or frustrated, bugged, annoyed, etc) and "upset" (in this case: "easily bothered", unable or unwilling to accept alternate viewpoints, and so on). Difference of degree maybe.


Perhaps this is a good example of Fe vs Fi. Fe will seek to define how other people feel while Fi just states it flat out. Yes? No?


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> Perhaps this is a good example of Fe vs Fi. Fe will seek to define how other people feel while Fi just states it flat out. Yes? No?


:thinking:


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Mind elaborating on what an "objective function" even is. "Objectivity/subjectivity" in regards to functions is incoherent.

--> "Fe/Fi" differences say nothing interesting.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

hornpipe2 said:


> I think there's a difference between saying that you're "irritated" (or frustrated, bugged, annoyed, etc) and "upset" (in this case: "easily bothered", unable or unwilling to accept alternate viewpoints, and so on). Difference of degree maybe.


You're making distinctions between irritated and bothered but not upset and bothered? This makes no sense to me, since you just said bothered in so many different ways. Irritated, frustrated, bugged, annoyed, bothered, just a buncha synonyms.

And the person had reason to "assume" she was bothered. So to say for no good reason is incorrect.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> You're making distinctions between irritated and bothered but not upset and bothered? This makes no sense to me, since you just said bothered in so many different ways. Irritated, frustrated, bugged, annoyed, bothered, just a buncha synonyms.
> 
> And the person had reason to "assume" she was bothered. So to say for no good reason is incorrect.


lol. Look, he might be making distinctions and all, but he lives with me lol. He knows just how "bothered" I was by it. As in, check this out, hornpipe2, isn't this hilarious? type of irritated when I was busy reading it interrupted me sort of bothered. The book wasn't that great. Further, I specifically said that I wasn't that bothered later on. It's not a big deal. 

Look, I was enjoying having a conversation with @Sour Roses. She has been my friend on here for at least a year and I've always liked her perspective. It was - how do I say this without sounding raging mad - strange for me to have someone else answer a question I directed at a specific person.

I'm extremely out of touch with social graces, maybe, or terribly confused about forum etiquitte. When the other person responded, telling me that I had a 1 dimensional perspective of Fe, I didn't appreciate it. That's it. I was speaking to a different forum member and one I thought would understand what I meant. I don't particularly like being told how I feel. 

To be completely frank, I think that is an aspect of *Fi* and I mean that.

To be equally frank about *Fe*, I think that an aspect of Fe tends toward attempting to define the atmosphere of other people in the room to determine fluctuations involving harmony, disharmony, etc ... In other words, I think Fe probably is more likely to tell someone how they're feeling instead. 

I'm flattered that everyone wants to piece together and target exactly what I was feeling, but seriously, irritated isn't that big of a deal to me. Let's get back on topic and talk about Fe vs Fi. It's an interesting conversation to me, at least, and I don't think my feelings are really that important. I've been over this for quite a while. How about we all put down brightflashes' psyche and refocus.


----------



## Zionas (Apr 30, 2019)

I think an example of healthy Fe in my life is my long-time INFJ friend and mentor. He's more expressive than I am, and shows how much he cares. He's really good at listening and providing a sympathetic ear. He has deeply held values and morals like my Fi, but I feel he's better with people (also as a result of life experience) and it's easier for him to understand people without constantly using the self as a reference, making him more sympathetic on a broader level. I don't always get everything about him, sometimes I still feel like he's too accommodating even when I think the individuals in question don't deserve it (because they have wronged me and hurt me in the past, or simply disagree with my beliefs), but overall he's very reliable and faithful and we have done a lot for each other.

However, I can think of at least 10 examples of unhealthy and more conformist manifestations of Fe that have frustrated me without end. They're people who constantly view themselves in relation to how they're perceived by others and by the social norms imposed on them, and they think I'm odd / malfunctioning because I couldn't give less of a damn. I quickly get into stalemates with them, they have no way of gaining the upper hand over me when I'm determined to assert myself while I hate conflict at heart because I'm so sensitive and would rather not fight unless I really had to. Still, I sense glaring weakness in them, and I wish they were safer in their own skin.

I have a hard time being nice for too long when I don't like someone. I may not show it directly unless I'm really upset, but it's not hard to tell from my mannerisms and the way I interact with them. Eventually it gets to a point where I actively avoid them or just fall silent and put up my stone wall. I hate being superficial.


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> You're making distinctions between irritated and bothered but not upset and bothered? This makes no sense to me, since you just said bothered in so many different ways. Irritated, frustrated, bugged, annoyed, bothered, just a buncha synonyms.
> 
> And the person had reason to "assume" she was bothered. So to say for no good reason is incorrect.


Again, from my perspective, the reply was way out of proportion to brightflashes' - it assumed degree of "upset" that wasn't there. That's all I mean.

It would be like if you replied back to this post here and said "okay, now my question for you: why can't you take alternate viewpoints??? like, why are you so bothered by the fact that others might have an alternate interpretation?!? can't you just accept that we disagree?"

My initial point was part of a bigger observation too though - that people in general are quick to assume upset, triggered, butthurt, all kinds of "negative" emotions from the people they interact with online. Like, they just picture the person at the other end bawling and tearing their hair out because of the epic takedown you just posted. (I think it comes from this false idea that if you get Emotional in a debate, You Lose.)


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

hornpipe2 said:


> Again, from my perspective, the reply was way out of proportion to brightflashes' - it assumed degree of "upset" that wasn't there. That's all I mean.


lol. True. She did ask me why I couldn't tolerate or accept different points of views or when people "shared" on an Internet forum. haha. I was all like, don't care if you share, just don't tag me in it! haha. 

Anyway, whatever. It is an interesting assumption, though, that everyone on the Internet is reacting with so much more butthurt than they are. Boyfriend does that, too. He thinks I'm totally upset when I say things to him in chat when I'm just playing around. lol. He's like "damn, son, I'm busy!" When I'm just like "y u no here? U leff me all alone" to be playful. 

Interesting observation. Do you think it has anything to do with Fe vs Fi though?


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> Interesting observation. Do you think it has anything to do with Fe vs Fi though?


Correctly interpreting the situation means you have to understand that people can have individualized and complex emotions, which are not always visible on the surface (or, which you can't project onto them).

Fi might come to this understanding this from the nuance of personal feelings, while Fe might know it from experiencing the many different emotions present in the world around them.

Maybe it has more to do with underdeveloped F in general?


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Zionas said:


> However, I can think of at least 10 examples of unhealthy and more conformist manifestations of Fe that have frustrated me without end. They're people who constantly view themselves in relation to how they're perceived by others and by the social norms imposed on them, and they think I'm odd / malfunctioning because I couldn't give less of a damn. I quickly get into stalemates with them, they have no way of gaining the upper hand over me when I'm determined to assert myself while I hate conflict at heart because I'm so sensitive and would rather not fight unless I really had to. Still, I sense glaring weakness in them, and I wish they were safer in their own skin.


This is the part of Fe that I really don't identify with. I mean, I can intellectualise it and even say to myself oh, ok, so that creates an evolutionary advantage that we can work together and all, but then I think, well, that's Te as well and that's so much more efficient without having to make certain no one gets their feelers hurt. And Fe manipulation never works on me. It's always so transparent and sorta creeps me out. 

I'm not saying there's nothing positive about Fe, though. I know there is. There are tons of things that are great about it. It's just very hard for me to imagine _myself_ ever wanting to respond to a situation with Fe or valuing Fe over Te. I have a friend - he says it's so much better to work together in harmony to solve a problem rather than to actually solve the problem itself and hurt other people's feelings. That makes so little sense to me. It's like, then you guys are effectively doing absolutely nothing, but at least you're working together? Makes me so confused lol!



hornpipe2 said:


> Correctly interpreting the situation means you have to understand that people can have individualized and complex emotions, which are not always visible on the surface (or, which you can't project onto them).


Or, individualised and complex _values_, yes. In the same way that person A says my values are stronger than they are (misinterpreting my Fi priorities), person B can be inarticulate with what values are actually strong in the situation (my inability to extravert F effectively).



> Maybe it has more to do with underdeveloped F in general?


This is a really good point.


----------



## katnip (Mar 27, 2019)

This thread has been interesting to read. I know a few high Fe-users, and their Fe-based approach to most things can drive me crazy at times. I can be pretty spontaneous and not give a damn what anyone else thinks, meanwhile they'll be like "We should do X thing because -insertsocialgraceshere-" which I will roll my eyes at if I think its unreasonable and/or goes against my Fi. As an example, I find the very idea of inviting a someone you hate to an event just so it doesn't cause friction within your social circle to be stupid. If I don't like someone, they're not invited, and that's it. This can strike some people as selfish, but it also just doesn't make sense why you'd willing hang around with someone you don't like.



> You could think of Fe as being an art collector, while Fi is an artist.
> Whereas of course Fi users craft all their own creations;
> Fe sees works that it appreciates, and acquires them. Hanging the art in their own space, it then becomes part of the identity of that person. Even though they didn't create those individual pieces, they created the combination of pieces that gives the room / person a particular feel. Throughout a lifetime, they continue to expand on their collection, and perhaps move some pieces around. This is our version of having our "own" values - it's a personal collection - and no, it isn't changed moment-by-moment.


Also, I really love this analogy. I may use it in the future when trying to explain Fi vs Fe to people interested in this stuff, because I often feel like my explanation (and understanding) of Fe tends to be more or less superficial compared to when talking about Fi.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

katnip said:


> This thread has been interesting to read. I know a few high Fe-users, and their Fe-based approach to most things can drive me crazy at times. I can be pretty spontaneous and not give a damn what anyone else thinks, meanwhile they'll be like "We should do X thing because -insertsocialgraceshere-" which I will roll my eyes at if I think its unreasonable and/or goes against my Fi. As an example, I find the very idea of inviting a someone you hate to an event just so it doesn't cause friction within your social circle to be stupid. If I don't like someone, they're not invited, and that's it. This can strike some people as selfish, but it also just doesn't make sense why you'd willing hang around with someone you don't like.
> 
> 
> Also, I really love this analogy. I may use it in the future when trying to explain Fi vs Fe to people interested in this stuff, because I often feel like my explanation (and understanding) of Fe tends to be more or less superficial compared to when talking about Fi.


I'm lousy at art but I can't pretend to like anyone. The best I can do is not talk to them and just wave or nod my head.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

hornpipe2 said:


> Again, from my perspective, the reply was way out of proportion to brightflashes' - it assumed degree of "upset" that wasn't there. That's all I mean.
> 
> It would be like if you replied back to this post here and said "okay, now my question for you: why can't you take alternate viewpoints??? like, why are you so bothered by the fact that others might have an alternate interpretation?!? can't you just accept that we disagree?"
> 
> *My initial point was part of a bigger observation too though - that people in general are quick to assume upset, triggered, butthurt, all kinds of "negative" emotions from the people they interact with online. Like, they just picture the person at the other end bawling and tearing their hair out because of the epic takedown you just posted. (I think it comes from this false idea that if you get Emotional in a debate, You Lose.)*


And my point is that this greater observation doesn't apply to what happened. Person A got irritated, bothered, frustrated, annoyed, whatever word fits. Person B noticed it. Not magically assumed it for no good reason. And that's my entire point. The rest about accepting alternate interpretations, sure that could totally be reading too into her being irritated, that part idk about.





brightflashes said:


> lol. Look, he might be making distinctions and all, but he lives with me lol. He knows just how "bothered" I was by it. As in, check this out, hornpipe2, isn't this hilarious? type of irritated when I was busy reading it interrupted me sort of bothered. The book wasn't that great. Further, I specifically said that I wasn't that bothered later on. It's not a big deal.
> 
> Look, I was enjoying having a conversation with @Sour Roses. She has been my friend on here for at least a year and I've always liked her perspective. It was - how do I say this without sounding raging mad - strange for me to have someone else answer a question I directed at a specific person.
> 
> ...



People over the internet that don't actually see you can't actually know how you feel so there's no way she could of been accurate to how bothered or irritated you were by the long post. Sure she said "easily bothered" and that also could have been interpreted wrong as well from your side. Either way all that can be gleaned was that you had a negative reaction to Kizuna and that is about the only thing that can be accurately picked up on from your post , and it was. That's my entire point.

As far as Fe and Fi. I know INTJs hate being told how they feel by Fe as I have seen this expressed strongly by multiple INTJs. I also know many INTJs do not like their emotions affected by other's, and this is what Fe's mission is often times and how they create harmony. Many times I have gone outside with in a bad mood and Fe stranger will make efforts to try and cheer me up, because somehow it is their responsibility to make other's around them happy.


----------

