# does Fe ever look like Fi?



## Bel Esprit (Aug 2, 2011)

DeductiveReasoning said:


> I read somewhere that if someone has Ti with a really developed Fe, the can sorta morph together and appear to be Fi. I'm not going to pretend like i know that much about it, though.





Waiting said:


> I can tell you right now, that's why I had a verrry difficult time figuring out if I was an INTJ of INFJ. Very developed Ti, and obviously Fe. After a lot of reflecting I saw the trend where over the years; I had suppressed the Fe more and more to where I could shut it on or off (mostly) so to speak. I still lean a bit more toward Fe naturally, but I try not to let it run wild.


 
I have never seen Fe appear to be Fi, but I have noticed all Fi's seem to come off as Fe's.
For example, Se combined with Fi appears to be Fe. And Ne combined with Fi appears to be Fe.

As for the supression of Fe, I've known that to be quite common with my Fe friends and I find it very unfortunate. I love when EXFJ's express their Fe and think them to be most lovable when they are this way.

The ENFJ I know, comes across aloof and self-absorbed most of the time instead of supporting or emotionally considerate.
The ESFJ I know comes across inconsiderate and frankly very mean. She's very young though and still bound to do a lot of growing up.

However, my point seems to be that a lot of Fi users and Fe users try to supress their function because they believe it to be a weakness. I disagree with this idea and wish that Fe users especially would recognize how enjoyable they are because I like my Fe users just the way they are.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

Existentialismz said:


> I have never seen Fe appear to be Fi, but I have noticed all Fi's seem to come off as Fe's.
> For example, Se combined with Fi appears to be Fe. And Ne combined with Fi appears to be Fe.
> 
> As for the supression of Fe, I've known that to be quite common with my Fe friends and I find it very unfortunate. I love when EXFJ's express their Fe and think them to be most lovable when they are this way.
> ...


I do understand what you're saying and I agree, it feels better to let the Fe do as it would and its not that I don't but let me explain it this way. 

"Extraverted feeling, the auxiliary deciding function, expresses a range of emotion and opinions of, for and about people. INFJs, like many other FJ types, find themselves caught between the desire to express their wealth of feelings and moral conclusions about the actions and attitudes of others, and *the awareness of the consequences of unbridled candor*. Some vent the attending emotions in private, to trusted allies."

So essentially it can get me into trouble if left unchecked, and it has. That doesn't mean I wouldn't show you my heart if you earned my trust.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

saffron said:


> Sharp cited them (in Jung Lexicon), but Jung wrote them. (The second citation is properly "Definitions," CW 6, par 835.)
> 
> The quotes are taken from Jung's Collected Works.


Thanks again, so you have a copy of Jung’s collective writings? I was going to write out the definitions but the description of attitude was over two pages long. Since you have the collective writings, do you indicate Jung believes it is the function that is most important or the attitude (E/I) or are you saying it is the function that is key as well? Clearly from what little you did post on attitude, Jung says “A further division into two classes is permitted by the predominant trend of the movement of libido, namely introversion and extraversion.[Ibid., par. 835.]” That indicates as well that the E/I will be most important.


Eric B said:


> Look at how Psychological Types Chapter 10 is structured. He does not jump into eight fixed hard items first, like Berens and some of the others do. He starts with Extraversion, ("the extraverted Type") in its own right. Then, he begins discussing the functions int he extraverted attitude, but he begins by describing "Thinking *in general*", and it's sources (subjective/unconscious, and objective/sense perceptions). THEN he begins focusing on the extraverted attitude, and how it "is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former". So both are referencing he same things, but have two different focuses.


Uh Eric, it is you that seem to struggle with this process. Let’s don’t forget what this entire discussion is regarding, which is whether the Fe and Fi look a-like. You are saying that they do because they share the same function. I am saying they do not because the attitude will always be predominant. So far you are acknowledging exactly what I am saying, so what is your point? You allude to examples of the functions. Contrary to your notion, he does not explain the function, then add the attitude. He starts off explaining the specific cognitive function in how it works using extraversion in one section and introversion in the other section. Based on your assertions, he did not need to describe the functions twice (one for each section). He only needed to provide one definition and merely say one extraverts and the other introverts. But he did not do that now did he?


Eric B said:


> I'm the one who paraphrased it in terms of a "loop", and I think I noted that.
> I wasn't omitting anything that disproved my point; (you had already printed it all out; I did not need to repost the whole thing. I was highlighting the *common themes* of the function-attitudes; which you keep choosing to pretend are not there.


No what you said was “Again, according to Jung, the functions make a loop between subject to object…… Jung did not say it, you did so it’s not a paraphrase, but an attempt to imply that Jung made the claim. Otherwise, you could have merely said it your own opinion. 


Eric B said:


> Why then do we even call both Fe and Fi "Feeling"? Why don't we just use something like Berens/Nardi's new terms for the eight; "experiencing", "recalling", "inferring", "foreseeing", "organizing", "analyzing", "considering", "evaluating"? I mean to use them as function names. (And note, these are all behaviors or actions).
> Why didn't Jung just coin these terms? Then, Myers (and Keirsey) would have had nothing to make dichotomies off of!


Which again is where the problem lies. People see a term and make an assumption similar to what you are doing. But make no mistake Jung never used codes in his writing, he wrote the word out and he does not call it feeling extraverted and feeling introverted, he calls it extraverted feeling and introverted feeling, which again indicates which he thought was more important if you are wanting to discuss why the terms. Again I am unsure of why you continue to argue a point where in every aspect, you acknowledge that it’s the attitude that makes the cognitive function work, not the function itself. 


Eric B said:


> Do both attitudes of Sensing not focus on "concrete" data (perceived through the senses)? Do both attitudes of iNtuition not deal with meanings and possibilities? Do both attitudes of Thinking not deal with more technical matters? Do both attitudes of Feeling not deal with more personal matters (humanity)? Do you even know what you are arguing against? All I'm saying is that these names of the functions represent something in common between the attitudes. And yes, this is what Myers built the dichotomies off of. But like I kept telling Naama, Jung was just one man, and there is nothing wrong with taking his concept and building off of it. He is not some infallible or all-complete authority.


I would love for you to go through his entire body of work and count how many times he uses the word concrete to describe introverted sensing type. In fact other than a few comparisons in describing introverted thinking, the only reference to any type focusing on concrete is extraversion in general. Also show how many times he uses the word technical to describe the introvert. As for feeling, all introverting types deal with personal matters, because that is the direction of their focus. There are a plethora of cognitive function descriptions floating around, but again you will notice the description will always focus on the attitude first and foremost, not the function.

Again you seem to acknowledge that Jung focuses on the extraversion/introversion then adds the function to make 8 distinct types, but you continue to argue otherwise that it is the function that is most important. So I am still unsure why the discussion that Fe and Fi have commonalities. As soon as you began using the codes, there will be a focus of that function which makes it completely different than the other function because they have opposing attitudes. Jung implies it as you have shown in everything you wrote, von Franz writes bout it extensively in declaring the differences between introverting feeling and extraverting feeling. In fact again the only one that does not agree with this principle is MBTI purists such as yourself. But the point is MBTI is not based on function attitudes, it uses dichotomies. Once again the two cognitive functions being discussed to not look a-like simply because they share a name and you have indicated that completely in your post.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I have never seen Fe appear to be Fi, but I have noticed all Fi's seem to come off as Fe's.
> For example, Se combined with Fi appears to be Fe. And Ne combined with Fi appears to be Fe.
> 
> As for the supression of Fe, I've known that to be quite common with my Fe friends and I find it very unfortunate. I love when EXFJ's express their Fe and think them to be most lovable when they are this way.
> ...


All quite true in my experiences as well. I hate the prejudice that goes out against F-doms by T types who deny that feeling is a legitimate, rational way of being. Those T types can go take a bat to their heads for all I care, or just learn to deal with their problems.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Existentialismz said:


> I have never seen Fe appear to be Fi, but I have noticed all Fi's seem to come off as Fe's.
> For example, Se combined with Fi appears to be Fe. And Ne combined with Fi appears to be Fe.


So can you describe what you are seeing when you believe this is occurring? When you say Se-Fi looks Fe and Ne-Fi looks Fe, actually how do they look like that? I can understand the latter, but it has nothing to do with Fi since Ne and Fe can look alike, but the obvious question would be simply why do you believe they are not using Fe? We use all functions depending on the circumstances. 


Existentialismz said:


> As for the supression of Fe, I've known that to be quite common with my Fe friends and I find it very unfortunate. I love when EXFJ's express their Fe and think them to be most lovable when they are this way.
> 
> The ENFJ I know, comes across aloof and self-absorbed most of the time instead of supporting or emotionally considerate.
> The ESFJ I know comes across inconsiderate and frankly very mean. She's very young though and still bound to do a lot of growing up.


Here is where I usually ask my pet question, and you know they are those types because they have actually gone through a process and confirmed they are EFJs?


Existentialismz said:


> However, my point seems to be that a lot of Fi users and Fe users try to supress their function because they believe it to be a weakness. I disagree with this idea and wish that Fe users especially would recognize how enjoyable they are because I like my Fe users just the way they are.


Not sure what you mean by Fi/Fe users. Are you saying that is not their dominant function? In that case then yes it could be suppressed but it's most likely not a suppression but a use of the cognitive function defensively which is generally more noticeable in introverting types that dominate with a perceiving function. 

The only types that suppress feeling are Ti and Te types, the same way intuiting types must suppress sensing and vice versa. No type can suppress whether consciously or unconsciously their most differentiated function, and would never try. They would always suppress their respective their use of the thinking cognitive function.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Existentialismz said:


> For example, Se combined with Fi appears to be Fe. And Ne combined with Fi appears to be Fe.


This is what I think, too! I've taken the cognitive functions test from this site several times, and I consistently get Fe as my strongest cognitive function, which puzzled me. I looked over the questions and noticed that the questions that I think test for Fe, in my opinion, are more of Fi+Se testing questions.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Existentialismz said:


> However, my point seems to be that a lot of Fi users and Fe users try to supress their function because they believe it to be a weakness. I disagree with this idea and wish that Fe users especially would recognize how enjoyable they are because I like my Fe users just the way they are.


I'm glad you feel this way - but honestly, when you're an Fe dominant ENFJ male growing up in a culture where emotions _are _a weakness, you can't help grow up relying _solely_ on Ni-Se-Ti and trying to somehow make them work like Te. I managed this to decent success till I hit 27 [when I had my second accident] and then just completely crashed emotionally because of emotional deprivation, suppression and denial.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Kayness said:


> This is what I think, too! I've taken the cognitive functions test from this site several times, and I consistently get Fe as my strongest cognitive function, which puzzled me. I looked over the questions and noticed that the questions that I think test for Fe, in my opinion, are more of Fi+Se testing questions.


But doesn't this go more to the fact that the test questions may be poorly written or you may have yet to develop a differentiated dominant function? To paraphrase Jung:


> This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom two functions stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type. Instead there is merely a relatively undeveloped dominant function. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness (E/I) of functions is therefore a distinguishing mark of a basic mentality.


Or maybe the assessment questions are accurate and you are answering them truthfully. Instead is it possible that circumstances you find yourself in merely calls for you to use Fe more, resulting on Fe being higher? On occasion I have to use my Te constantly for days and up to a week in my job. I can feel its affects on my body because I am generally drained. It doesn't mean my Ti-Se now appears more Te. It means I was actually having to use that function-attitude to get work completed. That is how any function being used in the opposite attitude would make us feel since it is not natural to use our opposing attitude for long periods of time.



Jawz said:


> I'm glad you feel this way - but honestly, when you're an Fe dominant ENFJ male growing up in a culture where emotions _are _a weakness, you can't help grow up relying _solely_ on Ni-Se-Ti and trying to somehow make them work like Te. I managed this to decent success till I hit 27 [when I had my second accident] and then just completely crashed emotionally because of emotional deprivation, suppression and denial.


Exactly, what seems being discussed here is someone succumbing to the collective unconscious or environmental influences, especially if a male who dominates with Fe or Fi. We seem to have accepted females using Ti and Te, but the western culture still seems to find males using too much Fe as taboo.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think Fi+Se can "look" like Fe, due to the fact that with Se and Fi working together, the Se wants to establish some tangible sense of feelings connection with someone else (to activate their own feelings more) and needs this external form of stimulation in order to bring out and activate Fi more (after all, Fi+Se work together). Unlike Fi-Si, Fi-Se can't really stimulate itself on it's own without some external stimulus to give Fi it's full impact (the sensory storehouse in Fi-Si users is more self-sustaining - I've sort of noticed this in general about Si types, where they tend to have their most powerful experiences and feelings when they're dwelling on something after it happens, rather than while it's happening - for me, as an Fi-Se type, what impacts my emotions the most strongly happens in the moment). Here's an interesting example:

When I (the INTJ) and my twin sister (the INTP) are watching movies or television, listening to music, etc., I'm usually the type who's more directly impacted by my immediate experiences, but after it's over, and we're talking about it, I can't conjure the same emotional impact I had when I actually saw the scene, heard the song, etc., while my twin, the Si-Fe type, might not be immediately impacted by the scene or whatever, but when we are talking about it, recalling it, sharing our feelings, suddenly, the emotional impact of whatever she experienced is at its strongest, which I can't relate to. This seems like Si-Fe to me (like, when she's connecting her feelings with someone (Fe) and recalling the experience based on her impression of it (Si), it's more meaningful to her). Really weird observation, but we've pointed it out to each other before.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

As for this thread ... I honestly don't think there's any way for an Fe dominant user [though it might be easier for Fe aux and tert] to truly mimic traditional forms of Fi ... Awareness of our own feelings is just not our strength. I'm guessing it may be even easier for Fe-Si because at least Si users can pay attention to little details of all that's transpired in order to make better judgements/decisions for themselves. 

But Fe-Ni is traditionally lost in a web of other people's feelings completely based on potentials of "what could happen", "what might happen". Almost all of the time I've had to be told "This is how you should feel about this because someone just took advantage of you" and most of the time I just sit there absolutely perplexed about why I'm being told that I should feel a certain way about something. 

My own internal feelings are of a primal and extreme nature like anger, dislike, hate, love ... but when it comes to understanding the emotions of others, I can pinpoint close to where their emotional state falls on a point along a continuum and why. I try to use another person's feelings states in certain situations in order to make judgements for myself. 

I prioritize my goals based on what the best outcome would be for others - and then derive my own feelings of happiness from the group's happiness. 

However the primal emotions that I experience are what are sometimes projected but usually kept inside. I can get to knowing exactly what I am feeling inside - but it requires retreat and introspection, and I even know why I'm feeling all those things - but I cannot express them at all without worrying about the consequences of that expression on other people.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> But doesn't this go more to the fact that the test questions may be poorly written or you may have yet to develop a differentiated dominant function? To paraphrase Jung:
> Or maybe the assessment questions are accurate and you are answering them truthfully. Instead is it possible that circumstances you find yourself in merely calls for you to use Fe more, resulting on Fe being higher? On occasion I have to use my Te constantly for days and up to a week in my job. I can feel its affects on my body because I am generally drained. It doesn't mean my Ti-Se now appears more Te. It means I was actually having to use that function-attitude to get work completed. That is how any function being used in the opposite attitude would make us feel since it is not natural to use our opposing attitude for long periods of time.
> 
> Exactly, what seems being discussed here is someone succumbing to the collective unconscious or environmental influences, especially if a male who dominates with Fe or Fi. We seem to have accepted females using Ti and Te, but the western culture still seems to find males using too much Fe as taboo.


I'm sorry, I think I could have been more elaborate. I personally think that the questions on the cognitive functions test on this site could have been a lot better written. I'm thinking of questions like, "The ability to understand what people want or what they feel, even without them saying it." (on the scale of 1-5), which, from looking at the list of questions on that test, is pretty clear that this particular one is testing for Fe. I of course answered 5 for "this is exactly me", but I don't think that this trait in me is due to Fe, but a combination of Se (observing body language cues and subtle nuances in facial expressions) + Fi (interpret/evaluate those cues). I think the key difference between me and a real Fe user is that a Fe user may be more inclined to do something about it than I am. 

Although I do notice that when I worked in office and restaurant jobs, I was always constantly drained and exhausted.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Kayness said:


> I think the key difference between me and a real Fe user is that a Fe user may be more inclined to do something about it than I am.


^^That's exactly it. It's a matter of inherent preference. I'll give a very simple example of how FeNi operates. 

Mom asks: "What do you want for your birthday?"
My thought process: "I really want her to get me this amazing pair of sneakers I saw in the market. But I can't just say it outright because even though it's what I want, I don't think she can afford it at the moment."
My response: "Anything you want to get is fine with me."
Mom gets me a T-shirt
My thought process: "Damn, maybe I should've told her to get me something, it would've been better than a T-shirt. But I can't say anything now, cuz the chance is gone. I don't want her to feel bad."
My response: "Thanks mom. I love the T-shirt."
My actual behaviour: I wear the T-shirt once, get a picture taken - put it in the back of my closet and start working towards getting my own sneakers.

That kind of thought process applies to big and small - and it's completely inherent. It's very rare for me to openly express anything without considering the potential outcome on someone else's feelings. 

When it comes to knowing exactly what I want and what I express what I want, there's almost always consideration of someone else's feelings involved before what I want.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think Fi+Se can "look" like Fe, due to the fact that with Se and Fi working together, the Se wants to establish some tangible sense of feelings connection with someone else (to activate their own feelings more) and needs this external form of stimulation in order to bring out and activate Fi more (after all, Fi+Se work together). Unlike Fi-Si, Fi-Se can't really stimulate itself on it's own without some external stimulus to give Fi it's full impact (the sensory storehouse in Fi-Si users is more self-sustaining - I've sort of noticed this in general about Si types, where they tend to have their most powerful experiences and feelings when they're dwelling on something after it happens, rather than while it's happening - for me, as an Fi-Se type, what impacts my emotions the most strongly happens in the moment). Here's an interesting example:


Fair enough, but if you are wanting to make a connection, doesn’t that entail making a decision to “make the connection” with someone or something outside the Self? In a more general way, is there any extraverting function that does not want to make a connection to something outside the self? But more specifically are you actually using Se which is a process that simply brings in information and experiences things that do not entail having to decide on something? 


JungyesMBTIno said:


> When I (the INTJ) and my twin sister (the INTP) are watching movies or television, listening to music, etc., I'm usually the type who's more directly impacted by my immediate experiences, but after it's over, and we're talking about it, I can't conjure the same emotional impact I had when I actually saw the scene, heard the song, etc., while my twin, the Si-Fe type, might not be immediately impacted by the scene or whatever, but when we are talking about it, recalling it, sharing our feelings, suddenly, the emotional impact of whatever she experienced is at its strongest, which I can't relate to. This seems like Si-Fe to me (like, when she's connecting her feelings with someone (Fe) and recalling the experience based on her impression of it (Si), it's more meaningful to her). Really weird observation, but we've pointed it out to each other before.


If you prescribe to the fact that Fe or any extraverting function is universal to where it can process things in the future or past, then you are correct. But if you believe that like extraverting functions, Fe is present oriented, then it was not a combination of Si-Fe, just Si that did what you describe. It is also the reason Berens/Nardi describes Si/Fi as a look a-likes since they both are often associated with a strong kinesthetic sense – like a whole body feeling-tone response. Si as an information source that informs decisions, would process past impressions. The as a judging process would use different sources of information as checkpoints along the way to know if their evaluation is right.


----------



## n.yumikim (Jan 20, 2012)

Jawz said:


> ^^That's exactly it. It's a matter of inherent preference. I'll give a very simple example of how FeNi operates.
> 
> Mom asks: "What do you want for your birthday?"
> My thought process: "I really want her to get me this amazing pair of sneakers I saw in the market. But I can't just say it outright because even though it's what I want, I don't think she can afford it at the moment."
> ...


Are you saying that thought process is Fe-Ni? That, contextualized, it universally my thought process for almost all matters... Unless I catch myself doing it and may attempt to stop it; it is certainly my preference, however.

Ne-Fe user here.

I think it's more of an Fe thing than Fe-Ni


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Are you saying that thought process is Fi?


We're all talking about Fe.


----------



## n.yumikim (Jan 20, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> We're all talking about Fe.


Sorry, I meant to type Fe-Ni. The two cognitive functions jumbled together I guess :crazy:


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Fair enough, but if you are wanting to make a connection, doesn’t that entail making a decision to “make the connection” with someone or something outside the Self? In a more general way, is there any extraverting function that does not want to make a connection to something outside the self? But more specifically are you actually using Se which is a process that simply brings in information and experiences things that do not entail having to decide on something?


It's not the Se that "feels" the need to make a connection - that would be driven by the Fi-Se user wanting their feelings to have a perceptual impact in a situation - I guess this could result from projection from the Fi-Se user, assuming that everyone might click with the individual's feelings more than they really might.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

n.yumikim said:


> I think it's more of an Fe thing than Fe-Ni


I don't see it as a function in isolation because there's unconscious intuitive filters applied. I'm guessing for you the possibilities and outcomes would matter more, followed by a rational evaluation of the choices and how those choices will impact another personal's feelings. 

I work in very much the same way - but my pull is to make sure that I consider my mother's feelings first before I consider the choices and how they will impact her feelings. I consider the feelings, then I try to make intuitive connections of all the possible ways I can behave in order to make her feel a certain way. I'm guessing we're talking about a similar approach. 

The problem occurs is I'm not always rational. The interpretation of Ni saying that perhaps my mom may not be able to afford it was a faulty intuitive connection in order to rationalize my sacrifice - when I knew perfectly well that my mom could afford the sneakers.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It's not the Se that "feels" the need to make a connection - that would be driven by the Fi-Se user wanting their feelings to have a perceptual impact in a situation - I guess this could result from projection from the Fi-Se user, assuming that everyone might click with the individual's feelings more than they really might.


Yet Fi in itself does not make efforts to connect to objects including people.


> Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path.


For the Se to be part of the equation, we are now alluding to Fi that is undifferentiated and needs the help of another function-attitude. In this case, Se.

I guess I should conclude my thoughts on this topic by referring to their booklet “Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Personality Type Code”, whee Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi give snippets of how each function uses it’s opposite. 

For EFJ types this is how Fi will be used:


> They can become stubborn about values as they crusade for a particular cause, turning off people instead of mobilizing action.


IFP types may use Fe this way:


> They can become stubborn about how others affect them or resist being pulled into being responsible for others feelings and choices.
> 
> 
> > Although it is not a given that Fe or Fi will be differentiated in someone using it as their auxiliary function, and IFJ type with a differentiated or well developed auxiliary may use Fi by:
> ...


----------



## n.yumikim (Jan 20, 2012)

Jawz said:


> ...but my pull is to make sure that I consider my mother's feelings first before I consider the choices and how they will impact her feelings.


I still think you're honing in on Fe. I do this, very often. I don't consider myself selfless, but most others do merely because I put others' needs & impacts above my own.



Jawz said:


> then I try to make intuitive connections of all the possible ways I can behave in order to make her feel a certain way. I'm guessing we're talking about a similar approach.


LOL again... "possible ways" -> total Ne. But I think you already pointed that out earlier. Definitely similar approach  Fe +2



Jawz said:


> The problem occurs is I'm not always rational. The interpretation of Ni saying that perhaps my mom may not be able to afford it was a faulty intuitive connection in order to rationalize my sacrifice - when I knew perfectly well that my mom could afford the sneakers.


Rationalization. It's the reason I virtually never regret. I always find ways to see what I've done as the best / only possible choice. It's a natural function for me. I'd always thought it was an Ne-Ti thing: Ne in that I always want to move forward, Ti in that I use my need for logical harmony to rationalize anything I may have done wrong / regret as something that isn't so wrong and shouldn't be regretted. If you do that too, perhaps it's a Ti thing?

Or just a rationally-optimistic human thing.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Thanks again, so you have a copy of Jung’s collective writings? I was going to write out the definitions but the description of attitude was over two pages long. Since you have the collective writings, do you indicate Jung believes it is the function that is most important or the attitude (E/I) or are you saying it is the function that is key as well? Clearly from what little you did post on attitude, Jung says “A further division into two classes is permitted by the predominant trend of the movement of libido, namely introversion and extraversion.[Ibid., par. 835.]” That indicates as well that the E/I will be most important.


I don't think anyone is saying that function is more important than attitude, just that there is some common ground there as well. One of the easiest distinctions to make with someone you know fairly well is the F/T preference imo. Not that you can always tell, but I think generally it'll become clear based on the topics and information they gravitate towards overall. Beyond that, I think it's incredibly hard to actually type someone because you can't really isolate an orientation or a process of orientations. 

And no, I don't have a copy. I just like to research and I found Sharp to be a reliable source since he graduated from the Jung Institute in Zurich, is linked as one of the few sources on the CG Jung Page, cites his quotes, and his whole objective was to give definitions as stated by Jung without interpretations.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

saffron said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that function is more important than attitude, just that there is some common ground there as well. One of the easiest distinctions to make with someone you know fairly well is the F/T preference imo. Not that you can always tell, but I think generally it'll become clear based on the topics and information they gravitate towards overall. Beyond that, I think it's incredibly hard to actually type someone because you can't really isolate an orientation or a process of orientations.
> 
> And no, I don't have a copy. I just like to research and I found Sharp to be a reliable source since he graduated from the Jung Institute in Zurich, is linked as one of the few sources on the CG Jung Page, cites his quotes, and his whole objective was to give definitions as stated by Jung without interpretations.


Still not sure why anyone thinks that the function is more important than the attitude. Even based on what you did provide, Daryl Sharp says that Jung says (okay), the direction of attitude is predominant. The only system that thinks the function is equal to or greater than the attitude is Myers-Briggs. As for determining the functions in another, Jung's entire introduction is to the attitude and says:


> The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.


 But we know that determining the E/I is sometimes impossible, which is where Jung says it is the most differentiated function that must be closely analysed to determine which type a person may be.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kayness said:


> I'm sorry, I think I could have been more elaborate. I personally think that the questions on the cognitive functions test on this site could have been a lot better written. I'm thinking of questions like, "The ability to understand what people want or what they feel, even without them saying it." (on the scale of 1-5), which, from looking at the list of questions on that test, is pretty clear that this particular one is testing for Fe. I of course answered 5 for "this is exactly me", but I don't think that this trait in me is due to Fe, but a combination of Se (observing body language cues and subtle nuances in facial expressions) + Fi (interpret/evaluate those cues). I think the key difference between me and a real Fe user is that a Fe user may be more inclined to do something about it than I am.
> 
> Although I do notice that when I worked in office and restaurant jobs, I was always constantly drained and exhausted.


Since you think they should be better worded, you should use the Quiz app at the top of the page to make your own quiz.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Yet Fi in itself does not make efforts to connect to objects including people.


Yes, but since it's a "humane" function, it has humane interests (human feelings), so it might motivate a person to compare their feelings to others, or get insight from the feelings of others into their own. It's not some infallible function.



> For the Se to be part of the equation, we are now alluding to Fi that is undifferentiated and needs the help of another function-attitude. In this case, Se.


No function works in a vacuum, right?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Ti in that I use my need for logical harmony to rationalize anything I may have done wrong / regret as something that isn't so wrong and shouldn't be regretted. If you do that too, perhaps it's a Ti thing?


I definitely agree with you here, based on what I've seen from my INTP twin sister, in terms of "rationalizing." Being a Ti dom, she does this a lot when she messes up, but has no Fi-ish consideration for her mistakes (like, owning up to personal feelings about it - for her, it's about owning up to personal logic, and the personal feelings are like the total last resort).


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

timeless said:


> Since you think they should be better worded, you should use the Quiz app at the top of the page to make your own quiz.


 Not interested.

edit to elaborate: I actually have thought that you might not like what I said about your CF test because I know you wrote it, but it shouldn't be taken as a criticism of YOU or reflective of you. I just didn't think that that particular question describes a quality specific to Fe. Not everyone's going to agree with what you say all the time. If you think that I'm wrong, you can ignore what I said, or you can revise it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Kayness

Yeah, quizzes aren't necessary to figure this stuff out. Only people using their brain power is.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kayness said:


> Not interested.


Damn, I was hoping you'd share your wisdom on this. Alright.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @Kayness
> 
> Yeah, quizzes aren't necessary to figure this stuff out. Only people using their brain power is.


Quizzes are a good starting point, but they're not the whole thing.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@timeless

Well, if she made a quiz, wouldn't the question essentially just be the answer she gave to why she thinks that Fi+Se can resemble Fe? Would it really tell more than she just said?


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

timeless said:


> Damn, I was hoping you'd share your wisdom on this. Alright.


 uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........sorry if it was too defensive. I edited the last post. if you didn't catch it i'll paste it here:


> edit to elaborate: I actually have thought that you might not what I said about your CF test because I know you wrote it, but it shouldn't be taken as a criticism of YOU or reflective of you. I just didn't think that that particular question describes a quality specific to Fe. Not everyone's going to agree with what you say all the time. If you think that I'm wrong, you can ignore what I said, or you can revise it.


I'm still learning JCFs myself.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kayness said:


> Not interested.
> 
> edit to elaborate: I actually have thought that you might not like what I said about your CF test because I know you wrote it, but it shouldn't be taken as a criticism of YOU or reflective of you. I just didn't think that that particular question describes a quality specific to Fe. Not everyone's going to agree with what you say all the time. If you think that I'm wrong, you can ignore what I said, or you can revise it.


Why would I consider it a criticism of me? That doesn't make sense. All I'm saying is that if you think the questions could be better worded, you should enrich the site by sharing those better worded questions through a quiz.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> @timeless
> 
> Well, if she made a quiz, wouldn't the question essentially just be the answer she gave to why she thinks that Fi+Se can resemble Fe? Would it really tell more than she just said?


See above


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

timeless said:


> Why would I consider it a criticism of me? That doesn't make sense. All I'm saying is that if you think the questions could be better worded, you should enrich the site by sharing those better worded questions through a quiz.


you're taking the piss, mate?


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kayness said:


> you're taking the piss, mate?


Not sure what you mean. I pushed for getting the Quiz app for the site because I wanted people to make their own quizzes, so I encourage it whenever I can.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Ooops, thread accidentally got closed. Reopening.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Uh Eric, it is you that seem to struggle with this process. Let’s don’t forget what this entire discussion is regarding, which is whether the Fe and Fi look a-like. You are saying that they do because they share the same function. I am saying they do not because the attitude will always be predominant. So far you are acknowledging exactly what I am saying, so what is your point?





> Again I am unsure of why you continue to argue a point where in every aspect, you acknowledge that it’s the attitude that makes the cognitive function work, not the function itself.





> Again you seem to acknowledge that Jung focuses on the extraversion/introversion then adds the function to make 8 distinct types, but you continue to argue otherwise that it is the function that is most important. So I am still unsure why the discussion that Fe and Fi have commonalities. As soon as you began using the codes, there will be a focus of that function which makes it completely different than the other function because they have opposing attitudes. Jung implies it as you have shown in everything you wrote, von Franz writes bout it extensively in declaring the differences between introverting feeling and extraverting feeling. In fact again the only one that does not agree with this principle is MBTI purists such as yourself. But the point is MBTI is not based on function attitudes, it uses dichotomies. Once again the two cognitive functions being discussed to not look a-like simply because they share a name and you have indicated that completely in your post.


I wonder what is _your_ point, because I have never really denied or not denied attitude being "prominent". I am not dealing in prominence. the thing I like about the models as I understand them is that you can look at them at different angles (That one of the aspects of the Ti perspective). So you can look at it one way, and attitude will be prominent. But you can look at it another way, and function is prominent. Another way, and temperament (both Keirseayan and Interaction Style) is prominent. 

So I'm not an "MBTI purist". (MBTI purists are actually more like you Jung purists in attitude, for they too are against correlating different models such as temperament. Naama seems to be another Jungian purist, and our debates are similar to this one with you, yet his conclusions are different from yours). 
You're the one who is waging an all-or-nothing argument, seeming to deny that there is ANY similarity or ANYTHING in common between function-attitudes at all. 



> You allude to examples of the functions. Contrary to your notion, he does not explain the function, then add the attitude. He starts off explaining the specific cognitive function in how it works using extraversion in one section and introversion in the other section. Based on your assertions, he did not need to describe the functions twice (one for each section). He only needed to provide one definition and merely say one extraverts and the other introverts. But he did not do that now did he?


 One _what_ introverts, and the other _what_ extraverts? Why are they framed as introverted and extraverted versions of something, when they are really two totally unrelated entities as you seem to be asserting?


> No what you said was “Again, according to Jung, the functions make a loop between subject to object…… Jung did not say it, you did so it’s not a paraphrase, but an attempt to imply that Jung made the claim. Otherwise, you could have merely said it your own opinion.


 Look at the quote again:

"Thinking in general is fed on the one hand from subjective and in the last resort unconscious sources, and on the other hand from objective data transmitted by sense-perception. Extraverted thinking is conditioned in *larger measure* by the latter [objective] *than by former* [subjective]."

"Introverted thinking is primarily oriented by the subjective factor. ... External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins from the subject and leads back to the subject, although it may *it may undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual* [i.e. external, objective]."

So we see that even as differentiated "function-attitudes" (Te/i), they both access both orientations. The attitude is determined by the starting and ending point, and it does access the opposite realm inbetween.

I paraphrased this as a "loop", and even admitted it. But you keep getting hung up on words simply because they were not uttered by Jung.


> Which again is where the problem lies. People see a term and make an assumption similar to what you are doing. But make no mistake Jung never used codes in his writing, he wrote the word out and he does not call it feeling extraverted and feeling introverted, he calls it extraverted feeling and introverted feeling, which again indicates which he thought was more important if you are wanting to discuss why the terms.


 Uh, introverted and extraverted are *adjectives*, that are _describing_ something. So we have _one_ element called "Feeling", and if we want to know how the function is oriented, then we describe it as introverted or extraverted. "Feeling introverted", and "Feeling extraverted" don't make any sense, unless we are doing that thing where we mimick other languages where the adjective follows the noun. (Like in Latin taxonomic names; "**** erectus", etc). So of course he isn't going to put them that way. It has nothing to do with "importance".


> I would love for you to go through his entire body of work and count how many times he uses the word concrete to describe introverted sensing type. In fact other than a few comparisons in describing introverted thinking, the only reference to any type focusing on concrete is extraversion in general. Also show how many times he uses the word technical to describe the introvert. As for feeling, all introverting types deal with personal matters, because that is the direction of their focus. There are a plethora of cognitive function descriptions floating around, but again you will notice the description will always focus on the attitude first and foremost, not the function.


 Just like with "loop", I see I can't coin any term that Jung did not use. I actually devised terms like "technical" and "humane" (which I already omitted from that post, using "personal" instead) precisely because of that ambiguity you address, where "personal" is often used for "introverted" perspective. That's why I tend to use "humane" instead. "Personal" for an introverted function refers to the individual person, while "personal" for Feeling refers to the collective group of "personal" beings, or humanity. Hence, I felt that "humane" was a better term. But I had to omit it, because you are getting hung up an all these terms because Jung did not use them. So I use the more well-known "personal", but that is no good either. And neither is the more familar "concrete". So I now use "tangible" instead. But Jung didn't coin that either, right? Another person also showed me that "abstract" also originally referred to introverted perspectives. So I dropped that in favor of "conceptual".

If we want to use the terms Jung used, we would have to stick with the original names, "sensation", "intuition", "thinking" and "feeling". Those are descriptive terms that have also become ambiguous, because of popular use: "He senses danger"; "woman's intuition"; "I'm thinking about it", "he's feeling sad". So we after Jung have come up with alternative descriptive terms. But Jung's original descriptve terms should really be enough to show you that there is a common element that the terms "introvert" and "extravert" are _*modifying*_.
Again, this has nothing to do with "prominence". You can say it's prominent all you want, and I won't argue. But you seem to be denying any common element in the four terms.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Still not sure why anyone thinks that the function is more important than the attitude. Even based on what you did provide, Daryl Sharp says that Jung says (okay), the direction of attitude is predominant. The only system that thinks the function is equal to or greater than the attitude is Myers-Briggs. As for determining the functions in another, Jung's entire introduction is to the attitude and says:
> 
> The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.
> 
> But we know that determining the E/I is sometimes impossible, which is where Jung says it is the most differentiated function that must be closely analysed to determine which type a person may be.


I'm baffled by why you keep arguing against a position that no one seems to be taking which I made clear in the first sentence of my last post and Eric B has said several times. And Sharp *directly quotes with citations* Jung as actually saying: _A further division into two classes is permitted by the predominant trend of the movement of libido, namely introversion and extraversion._. This says nothing about the direction of the attitude being predominant overall but rather how introversion and extraversion are determined. 

I agree that the most differentiated function must be closely analyzed since not all introverts are taciturn, inpenetrable or even shy and not all extraverts are open, sociable etc... There are those people that are extremes and fairly obvious, but many, if not most, people aren't extremes and then if you're talking about auxilliary or tertiary functions it gets even more dicey. So I still maintain that there is some common ground between Fi and Fe in terms of what information is highlighted most often and how it may look to someone who is trying to type.


----------



## Bel Esprit (Aug 2, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> So can you describe what you are seeing when you believe this is occurring? When you say Se-Fi looks Fe and Ne-Fi looks Fe, actually how do they look like that?



One example I can give you with the ESFJ I know, is that she will purposely insult people to create a reaction. She can go very far with it and often end up hurting others feelings.

The ENFJ has a hard time with emotional issues. She doesn't deal well with them. She also has a problem with communication as she will refrain from saying what she feels until she feels she has to say it and isn't very considerate when she does.

 



Functianalyst said:


> I can understand the latter, but it has nothing to do with Fi since Ne and Fe can look alike, but the obvious question would be simply why do you believe they are not using Fe? We use all functions depending on the circumstances.




I wasn't talking about soley Fi relating to Fe, I meant dominant feeler users in general tend to to think their feeling a weakness. This wouldn't be true for an ENFP or an ESFP, for example, but for an INFP, ENFJ, ISFP, or ESFJ.



Functianalyst said:


> Here is where I usually ask my pet question, and you know they are those types because they have actually gone through a process and confirmed they are EFJs?




Yes, they are both good friends and I've put a lot of thought into typing them. The ENFJ friend can sometimes function as an ESFJ, but she identifies most with the ENFJ description.
My other friend is my neighbor and she's barely thirteen. It's obviously very hard to type someone at such a young age, but I've tested her in a few ways to try to make it easier for her to understand. From this and observation, there is no other option. She is ESFJ.



Functianalyst said:


> Not sure what you mean by Fi/Fe users. Are you saying that is not their dominant function? In that case then yes it could be suppressed but it's most likely not a suppression but a use of the cognitive function defensively which is generally more noticeable in introverting types that dominate with a perceiving function.




 By cognitive function do you mean the inferior?
I'm not sure as to whether Fe is their dominant function; It very well might be, but the ENFJ friend of mine has very high Te also. She doesn't use her Se very often, but she can use Ti quite a bit when she's not comfortable with her Fe. She doesn't use Fe unhealthily, but she does try to shut it off quite often.



Functianalyst said:


> The only types that suppress feeling are Ti and Te types, the same way intuiting types must suppress sensing and vice versa. No type can suppress whether consciously or unconsciously their most differentiated function, and would never try. They would always suppress their respective their use of the thinking cognitive function.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Suppression is mainly a concious action and done in order to keep out what they dislike, in this case their Fe, or their 'differentiated function,' when they're uncomfortable with it and that is what is often seen.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Existentialismz said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. Suppression is mainly a concious action and done in order to keep out what they dislike, in this case their Fe, or their 'differentiated function,' when they're uncomfortable with it and that is what is often seen.


But you can't really dislike your dominant function. From the perspective of somebody with X dominant function, X is synonymous with the non typology definition of _thinking_. I guess you can be annoyed with yourself, but you don't tend to go "Grr, I hate the way I think about things!"


----------



## n.yumikim (Jan 20, 2012)

Owfin said:


> But you can't really dislike your dominant function. From the perspective of somebody with X dominant function, X is synonymous with the non typology definition of _thinking_. I guess you can be annoyed with yourself, but you don't tend to go "Grr, I hate the way I think about things!"


Wait, why not? The mindset can certainly dislike itself relative to how it sees itself to others. Granted that it may not be correct in its vision, the disliking your dominant function is nonetheless possible... isn't it?


----------

