# Ni/Fe vs Fi/Ne Values



## Aquarian

Silveresque said:


> @_Aquarian_, you say that it sounds like "classic, unmistakable Fi", but then in all the examples you gave, I can't relate to the INFP at all. I couldn't allow myself to think things like "the world (or my world) would be a better place if everyone did things my way". It would feel selfish for to think something like that.


Hmmm, don't know what to tell you on this - other than to say what you wrote resonated strongly as Fi for both of us, pretty much immediately. 

And also the more I think about it, I'm struck by your phrasing - you c_ouldn't allow yourself to think X_ - and it seems to me that that's different from any underlying assumptions that might exist in the background. It might be useful to keep in mind that the discussion I included comes from a groove of conversation we two can get into where there's this stark truth mode going on (not related to cognitive functions, another layer of who/what we are). So these may not be things that many INFPs say out loud or even consciously think. The question is, is it an operating assumption underneath, unspoken, possibly masked by your resistance to seeing it, even if you don't say it or even think it? I don't have the answer but that's what comes up for me in reading what you wrote.



Silveresque said:


> How certain are you that an INFJ couldn't say what I said? I'm not even certain that I managed to accurately explain what I meant. I said that everyone is entitled to their own subjective opinion, and I believe that. Yet I still try to control my own opinions sometimes to make sure they're socially acceptable (they don't have to be the same as what everyone else thinks, they just have to be not selfish or offensive), though o*nce I have a feeling, I usually can't change how I feel*. *If I go to see a movie and I thought it was boring, but everyone else thought it was great, I wouldn't change how I felt about the movie. There's no way that I could. But I would acknowledge that it was a good movie, just not my thing*.


1.From my perspective as an INFJ and also from what I've learned through observation, dialogue etc, and also hearing my INFP's response to what you wrote - it just doesn't seem INFJ-like in a discussion of Fi-Ne and Ni-Fe.

2. The bolded parts of the above comment are clearly Fi, in my view. And I don't feel that Fe is about social acceptability, exactly. It's about assigning a high value level to the values of others, whoever those others may be. 



Silveresque said:


> Then again, how certain am I that I couldn't relate to the ideas behind the INFP's reasoning? It could just be individual differences that make me less inclined to allow myself to have strong or selfish opinions.


Hmmm ... could you you have an internally held value system that values not having strong or selfish opinions? 



Silveresque said:


> And then if I am an INFP, then I have issues with the functions. I can't relate to Ne's rapid bouncing from one idea to the next, and I also can't relate to inferior Te.


That gives me pause for INFP, especially the not relating to Ne. Could you be ISFP? Fi-Se-Ni-Te. Well, there's the inf Te but I wonder what it means not to relate to having inferior anything, I guess it would depend on what you mean. 



Silveresque said:


> *Sorry if I'm being difficult,* but I want to *figure out my type beyond reasonable doubt.* (the 6 in my tritype is showing )


Those are the first things you've said that sounds somewhat INFJ to me and it's interesting that you mention the 6 in your tritype in the same paragraph. I'm a 6w5 and it's sometimes hard for me to see where INFJ ends and the other begins ... given that, it's interesting to me that the only thing you say that feels INFJish to me is related to the 6 in your enneagram type. I don't quite get tritypes, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

All of this said: In the end, you know better than anyone how you process information, no matter what I may think or say here.


----------



## Aquarian

Teybo said:


> It was then that I asked her what she thought it meant to be a good listener and she basically said something along the lines of "provide a safe space for someone else to express their thoughts." Which now I've learned means that my INFP sister wants to be understood, but for her, being understood means being heard. She doesn't want to be witness to the process that I personally must go through to understand her. When she said I wasn't probing for information, she was saying that I shouldn't probe for information based on my need to fill in the gaps missing in MY understanding, I should give her enough space so that she could offer information that may or may not even fill the gaps.
> 
> This must be related to the other part of my frustration with Fi-dominants. I feel like this INFP sister of mine doesn't try very hard to understand where I'm coming from. To them, listening is literally about having their ears open. I don't want to just be listened to, I want to be *understoo*_*d*. _I want to feel like the steps that I took to arrive at where I am are understood. I quite frequently feel like that's not a priority for the Fi-dominants in my life.


This in particular resonated for me. I think we (INFJ/INFP) do have different perspectives on what it means to listen. Yes, for me listening is about understanding/being understood whereas it does seem to me that for my INFP, listening is more about being heard//hearing/safe space for self-expression. I'll try to remember to ask her sometime, she's sleeping right now. 

And yeah, I feel like a lot of what I do in probing for information doesn't necessarily feel supportive to my INFP, it's more like she''ll allow me to do it because I need to do it. So this part resonates more the more I think about it: 

*"When she said I wasn't probing for information, she was saying that I shouldn't probe for information based on my need to fill in the gaps missing in MY understanding, I should give her enough space so that she could offer information that may or may not even fill the gaps.*"

I could see this. She wants to self-express, you want to understand, and so it seems to her that your probing for your own understanding (which is part of HOW you listen and attend to others - me too) is counter to what she needs because it takes up space that should be used for her self-expression, if what we're doing is me listening to her. 

I'm haunted by something and that is that I've felt hampered at times when I'll be trying to figure something out and my INFP intervenes and I get off track. But as I think about it, I realize that her intervention isn't about asking me questions so she'll understand better where I'm coming from, it's more about bringing her own viewpoint into the discussion, whether in questions or statements. And sometimes that throws me off.

Anyway, I need to think more about this because it seems to me there's something pretty huge in this for my own comprehension, but I also feel like it's not quite in focus for me yet. Very interesting. I'm glad you posted the whole comment and hope you don't decide to edit it away. Thank you.


----------



## Aquarian

Teybo said:


> I wouldn't describe my INFP sisters as "rapidly bouncing from one idea to the next", for the record.


 @Silveresque, what Teybo wrote got me thinking. 

Another way to think about Ne is that it's about expanding possibilities and seeing connections between things in a broad/expansive way. So my INFP will look at a situation and will have this whole range of possibilities unfold for her. I get frustrated with this sometimes because where Ne is about a wide range of possibilities, Ni is about narrowing things down and digging in deep (which is frustratingly limiting to Ne in possibility mode, seems to me). 

I think it's also important to remember that for INFPs, Ne is not dominant, Fi is - so Ne serves Fi. Conversely, in INFJs, Ni is dominant and Fe serves it.


----------



## thunder

Wow, even though Ni/Fe is my tertiary and inferior functions, it's interesting to see how this still applies. Reading @_Aquarian_ and @_Teybo_ 's narratives with their INFPs I can just imagine myself internally screaming with frustration, thinking "WTF are you saying?" and then when I get a straight-forward explanation and understand, bewail "Why couldn't you have just _said_ that in the first place?"


----------



## Figure

This is an answer to a different question that may still be helpful for this one. 

FiNe is static, NiFe is dynamic. Meaning, that the rational/irrational difference is flipped in both order and attitude, such that the perceiving function of an INFJ would be static were it not perceptive, and the judging function would be dynamic if it wasn't judging. In a nutshell, one is constantly judging on their own basis, and one is constantly gaining new perspectives on their own basis. This difference alone, aside from the actual functions involved (not attitudes) creates a substantial difference between the two types, as the Ji dominant will be prone to (J) correct, decide, and judge on their own (i) belief or understanding, whereas a Pi dominant will be prone to (P) interpret or explore, and envision or recall on their own (i) envisionments or sensations. 

An INFP, therefore, will evaluate everything with respect to their own set of static , human (F) values. An INFJ will want to explore their own mental concepts and envisionings. The mechanisms are mirrored here - the INFP _must _look outward to ensure that their personal values are truly valid. An INFJ _must _make objective conclusions on their insights, so they have some element of validity in the real world. In both cases, the aim of Function 2 is validation, or a check against the dominant. 

As INFJ and INFP will say, the fascia of this functional alignment is appealing, but once the very differently-aligned motives become apparent, it can lead to quarrels. In interaction, the two are best to keep some measure of personal distance so as to not force an alternative, unvalued ego onto the other.


----------



## Aquarian

So good to see @Figure here with this wonderful clarity:



Figure said:


> This is an answer to a different question that may still be helpful for this one.
> 
> FiNe is static, NiFe is dynamic. Meaning, that the rational/irrational difference is flipped in both order and attitude, such that the perceiving function of an INFJ would be static were it not perceptive, and the judging function would be dynamic if it wasn't judging. In a nutshell, one is constantly judging on their own basis, and one is constantly gaining new perspectives on their own basis. This difference alone, aside from the actual functions involved (not attitudes) creates a substantial difference between the two types, as the Ji dominant will be prone to (J) correct, decide, and judge on their own (i) belief or understanding, whereas a Pi dominant will be prone to (P) interpret or explore, and envision or recall on their own (i) envisionments or sensations.
> 
> An INFP, therefore, will evaluate everything with respect to their own set of static , human (F) values. An INFJ will want to explore their own mental concepts and envisionings. The mechanisms are mirrored here - the INFP _must _look outward to ensure that their personal values are truly valid. An INFJ _must _make objective conclusions on their insights, so they have some element of validity in the real world. In both cases, the aim of Function 2 is validation, or a check against the dominant.


*nods*



Figure said:


> As INFJ and INFP will say, the fascia of this functional alignment is appealing, but once the very differently-aligned motives become apparent, it can lead to quarrels. *In interaction, the two are best to keep some measure of personal distance so as to not force an alternative, unvalued ego onto the other*.


Well .... not always. Then again, for my situation the jury is still very much out.


----------



## Recede

Aquarian said:


> _How certain are you that an INFJ couldn't say what I said? I'm not even certain that I managed to accurately explain what I meant. I said that everyone is entitled to their own subjective opinion, and I believe that. Yet I still try to control my own opinions sometimes to make sure they're socially acceptable (they don't have to be the same as what everyone else thinks, they just have to be not selfish or offensive), though o_*nce I have a feeling, I usually can't change how I feel. If I go to see a movie and I thought it was boring, but everyone else thought it was great, I wouldn't change how I felt about the movie. There's no way that I could. But I would acknowledge that it was a good movie, just not my thing.*
> 
> 
> 
> 1.From my perspective as an INFJ and also from what I've learned through observation, dialogue etc, and also hearing my INFP's response to what you wrote - it just doesn't seem INFJ-like in a discussion of Fi-Ne and Ni-Fe.
> 
> 2. The bolded parts of the above comment are clearly Fi, in my view. And I don't feel that Fe is about social acceptability, exactly. It's about assigning a high value level to the values of others, whoever those others may be.
Click to expand...

Now wait a minute. What I said in the movie example is essentially the same as the Fe example Teybo gave. 



Teybo said:


> My instant gut reaction was to soften the expression of my preference and I said something like, "Oh, I can see the appeal of those different aspects of Zoo Ipsum. I really like Zoo Ipsum as well. And Zoo Lorem does have its downsides I guess."
> 
> *My preference hasn't changed. I still Like Zoo Lorem more, but I did consider the evidence put forth about the objective value of each zoo.* All of this happened on the fly during the conversation, and it wasn't until later that I realized how stereotypically I was exhibiting my extraverted Feeling in that instance. I wanted to accommodate the possibility that the hierarchy of value that I was using to make value judgments should be modified based on external evidence that it may be wrong.


I think I must not have explained myself very well. Maybe a judgment of personal enjoyment wasn't the best example for me to use. No matter what type you are or what you hear about it from other people, you can't change how much you initially enjoyed something _after you already experienced it_. 

Now, when it comes to judging something in order to make a decision, that's different. How I decide and how much I allow outside opinions to influence my own really depends on the situation. I can tell you there are plenty of occasions where I want to accommodate all viewpoints and will incorporate what other people think into my decision. Usually these are situations where my decision affects other people in some way, or when I could easily argue for either side. Like on the issue of abortion, for example. There is support for both sides, so I could go either way and my view could be easily influenced by what other people think. 

But there are also plenty of occasions where I'm deciding things purely for myself. These are things like what I want to do as a career for the rest of my life, or my thoughts on religion, or where I want to go to eat when I'm alone. I also have a "moral indignation mode" where the methods of some person or group really just outrage me--in which case I'll be very independent in my view and won't go along with them. Unless I receive more information and decide they have good reason for the way they do things. 

I think in all cases, outside opinions influence me only slightly, if at all. I'm not going to jump off a bridge just because everyone else is doing it. But outside facts, information, and evidence influence me greatly. I cannot turn a blind eye to solid evidence. If people can provide a good, logical reason for jumping off that bridge, I'll consider it. 



Aquarian said:


> Hmmm ... could you you have an internally held value system that values not having strong or selfish opinions?


Not exactly. There's nothing wrong with having strong or selfish opinions, and I wouldn't judge anyone else for it. But it's different for myself. I want to avoid stepping on anyone else's values, opinions, or way of being, and the easiest way to do this is to stay neutral, receptive, and accepting. This is what I consider the bulk of my feeling function, whichever one it is. 



Aquarian said:


> That gives me pause for INFP, especially the not relating to Ne. Could you be ISFP? Fi-Se-Ni-Te. Well, there's the inf Te but I wonder what it means not to relate to having inferior anything, I guess it would depend on what you mean.


ISFP is not possible, since Se is my weakest function by far.



Aquarian said:


> Another way to think about Ne is that it's about expanding possibilities and seeing connections between things in a broad/expansive way. So my INFP will look at a situation and will have this whole range of possibilities unfold for her. I get frustrated with this sometimes because where Ne is about a wide range of possibilities, Ni is about narrowing things down and digging in deep (which is frustratingly limiting to Ne in possibility mode, seems to me).



This is why I relate more to Ni than Ne. My intuition is more about narrowing down and digging deep, perceiving the essence of the matter. I don't really see my thoughts expanding or bringing in a whole range of possibilities. I can think of different possibilities, but that doesn't seem like an automatic process for me.


----------



## Teybo

Aelthwyn said:


> I think this example is really more just a feeler thing in general seeking harmony, smoothing over differences and focusing on where we can relate. I do that all the time - the "I can also see what you mean about ____ and agree that those are good points about it" but still hold to my personal preference.


Yes, you are right. All feelers will accommodate. But there is a difference in the tone that takes between an FJ and an FP. IMHO, you've captured the FP way: "I hear your opinion, and your opinion is valid." vs. the FJ way: "I hear your opinion, and our opinions are similar in these ways."

As you said, it's not really important for FP's to reach a consensus with others, but for FJ's, it can be quite psychologically uncomfortable if we feel that there is a gulf between our opinions and the opinions of those around us, even people we may have only just met.

When discussing love and connection for INFJ's, Lenore Thomson writes:


> INFJ's may envision a perfect relationship in which thoughts and moods are so perfectly aligned as to constitute a communion of souls.
> 
> This ideal is understandable, given the complex nature of the INFJ's inner life. Because INFJs are so alert to the unsaid, they may find it difficult to sort out their own emotions from the moods and feelings they discern in others. Young INFJs, in particular, are sometimes labeled hypersensitive or melodramatic, because their self-experience is tied to others' emotional boundaries. Such types can be overwhelmed by the task of finding their own personal truth. Because they have a strong need for approval, they can feel literally split between their Feeling and Intuitive motivations.


It's been my experience that INFP's can have problems with emotional boundaries, but it is WAAAY more common for INFJ's, especially if they grew up in unstable environments. We have to learn to deal with the Fe-driven need to unify our thoughts and opinions with others so that it doesn't become a destabilizing, destructive influence on our lives.


----------



## Recede

Teybo said:


> Yes, you are right. All feelers will accommodate. But there is a difference in the tone that takes between an FJ and an FP. IMHO, you've captured the FP way: "I hear your opinion, and your opinion is valid." vs. the FJ way: "I hear your opinion, and our opinions are similar in these ways."


I can relate to both of these, but if I had to choose one, it would be the FJ way.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Well, in response to LXPilot, who has it down well in a highly technical, mechanized way, I might argue that it's certainly possible for both to be fluid and whatnot, just that in the judgment dominant, the perception process gets repressed in favor of definitive evaluations. Doesn't mean they aren't perceiving the same way any other type would be.


----------



## Aelthwyn

Teybo said:


> Yes, you are right. All feelers will accommodate. But there is a difference in the tone that takes between an FJ and an FP. IMHO, you've captured the FP way: "I hear your opinion, and your opinion is valid." vs. the FJ way: "I hear your opinion, and our opinions are similar in these ways."


I'd still agree with both of these, but I think you are right that there are subtle differences in how the two types go about this.




> _"INFJ's may envision a perfect relationship in which thoughts and moods are so perfectly aligned as to constitute a communion of souls.
> 
> Because INFJs are so alert to the unsaid, *they may find it difficult to sort out their own emotions from the moods and feelings they discern in others*. . . . Such types can be overwhelmed by the task of finding their own personal truth. Because they have a strong need for approval, they can feel literally split between their Feeling and Intuitive motivations."_


The ideal is one I have, however, the difficulties mentioned here are ones I've seen in other people but not experienced so much myself.



> =It's been my experience that INFP's can have problems with emotional boundaries, but it is WAAAY more common for INFJ's, especially if they grew up in unstable environments. We have to learn to deal with the Fe-driven need to unify our thoughts and opinions with others so that it doesn't become a destabilizing, destructive influence on our lives.


mhmm, this makes sense to me


----------



## Entropic

Teybo said:


> Some people like to think they can type people based on visual inspection (hello, Socionics!),



Just want to point out that VI is hardly an important aspect of socionics and is controversial in general. Most socionists themselves don't support VI. 

With that said, I do think based on the little I looked into VI myself that there's something to VI but it doesn't mean I think we should only type on VI or that VI is that useful when typing people.


----------



## Teybo

Aelthwyn said:


> The ideal is one I have, however, the difficulties mentioned here are ones I've seen in other people but not experienced so much myself.


When I read that sentence in Thomson's book, it made me pause, because I had previously assumed that that was what "love" meant to all people.


----------



## Recede

Teybo said:


> It was then that I asked her what she thought it meant to be a good listener and she basically said something along the lines of "provide a safe space for someone else to express their thoughts." Which now I've learned means that my INFP sister wants to be understood, but for her, being understood means being heard.


Maybe it's not that INFP's don't want people to ask questions and try to understand them, but that they don't want to be judged. When INFP's are upset, they can't help but notice signs or subtle impressions that the other person isn't truly empathizing or is somehow judging them (Fi-Si loop). When an INFP is like this, tread carefully. Asking too few questions can make it seem like you don't care, and asking too many can make it seem like you're interrogating them and will only sympathize if they give the right answers. 

I can't speak for all INFP's (nor can I be sure if I even am one), but if I were in your sister's place, I would want to know that your support doesn't depend on how you interpret my situation--that you will offer care and acceptance unconditionally. That doesn't mean you can't ask questions and try to understand the situation, I would just need to know you're not doing that in order to judge me.


----------



## Old Intern

Silveresque said:


> Maybe it's not that INFP's don't want people to ask questions and try to understand them, but that they don't want to be judged. When INFP's are upset, they can't help but notice signs or subtle impressions that the other person isn't truly empathizing or is somehow judging them (Fi-Si loop). When an INFP is like this, tread carefully. Asking too few questions can make it seem like you don't care, and asking too many can make it seem like you're interrogating them and will only sympathize if they give the right answers.
> 
> I can't speak for all INFP's (nor can I be sure if I even am one), but if I were in your sister's place, I would want to know that your support doesn't depend on how you interpret my situation--that you will offer care and acceptance unconditionally. That doesn't mean you can't ask questions and try to understand the situation, I would just need to know you're not doing that in order to judge me.


I think my brother is INFP. I may be wrong on this but I think people with Fi are hard on themselves. They take it so hard if they think they may have screwed up (and they worry about someone else thinking that). Fe - Ti has a flexibility that comes with Ti, that we see everything as fixable. It's just not the end of the world to look hard at something and learn (for Fe- Ti, including in ourselves). My brother, if he is upset, needs to feel bad for a while and eventually he will get down to what the whole deal is that is bothering him, especially if I just use reflective listening that shows I notice he is upset or "hear" what he is upset about.


----------



## Aquarian

Old Intern said:


> I think my brother is INFP. I may be wrong on this but* I think people with Fi are hard on themselves.* *They take it so hard if they think they may have screwed up (and they worry about someone else thinking that). Fe - Ti has a flexibility that comes with Ti, that we see everything as fixable. It's just not the end of the world to look hard at something and learn (for Fe- Ti, including in ourselves)*. My brother, if he is upset, needs to feel bad for a while and eventually he will get down to what the whole deal is that is bothering him, especially if I just use reflective listening that shows I notice he is upset or "hear" what he is upset about.


Wow. This seems really accurate to me, but I never actually saw this as clearly as you're putting it out there. Thank you. I can see how this difference between myself and my own INFP has played out. This description will help me a lot in sorting through some current reflections. Beautifully clear. Did I say thank you? Thank you.


----------



## OrangeAppled

*Both Fi & Fe do valuation using "being human" as the scale* (as opposed to what has value if you're a pet rock or a centipede). Valuation is just judging worth, which can be "like" or "dislike" or larger, more universal ideas of "good" and "bad", and of course many shades inbetween. I'm using "worth", but you could also use significance, meaning, importance, necessity, etc. All of these are ways of valuing.

You don't have to us Fe/Fi to judge value; Thinking classifies what something is in an impersonal way (without the context of being human" and that can sometimes look like valuations. It might have a more "pro/con" look to it, which people will call "objective", but it's still an individual's judgment on what is good/bad.

But Fe/Fi value is done in context of "people", which is why Feeling types are noted for having a focus on people, even if in an abstract way. 

IMO, it's a bit disparaging to say Fi is subjective, personal valuation & Fe is objective & based on evidence (as one poster did). I'm not surprised it's a Fe type to say this. Those who don't use Fi tend to write it off as not very creditable, even if that's not their intent. They also tend to see it from a Je perspective - assigning value categories to things one comes across in life. If that were the case, then Fi would be very infantile, because we'd just go around "I like this, not that!". *But Ji is about defining more than assigning. *

*Fe concerns itself with - "what is it worth to people?" and also "what is it worth to me?" and uses external categories of worth.* *What is used to support this is Pi, or subjective impressions which strike the individual as "true"*. For Si, that's a kind of "sureness" about reality supported by facts & experiences, & for Ni it's a grasp of the underlying dynamics of reality or "insights". They review, explore, & reference these to decide what is the most pertinent "content" to consider when making a judgment. You'll notice IxxJs will dismiss things as "irrelevant" a lot, weeding out info _before even making a rational decision_. The "J" behavioral patterns are not just Je; it's the Pi + Je dynamic that produces it. Pi is "selective" also.

*Fi concerns itself with "what is 'worth'?" and "how does 'worth' manifest outside of me?"*. For Fi types then, _a concept of value_ is explored, and then they look for something real to match it, perhaps without knowing what it will be (Jung calls this "an image which has no existence in reality"). *They use Pe to explore reality and its opportunities & experiences (Se) or potential & relationship/dynamics (Ne) to find things which resonate with their value concepts.* The inner exploration of value concepts is not all analysis, probably less so than exploring through fantasy & emotion. The whole self & inner world is a testing ground of sorts, to explore all feeling (emotional & rational) so as to know what it means & have a clearer idea of what "worth" can be. The Pe behavioral patterns are a result of Ji too - exploratory & in a flow of revising/seeking to reach a clearer/more perfect grasp of what value is (or what logic is, for Ti).

With Fi, the self is a prototype for "human". In exploring the self & using it as the gauge, you have a sort of working model of what is ideal in terms of the human condition. These concepts allow you to understand value for other people too. Pe makes the connections between these concepts & the real world, and now you see why/how others feel & how it's essentially the same fundamental value concept (perhaps manifested very differently though). Again, this isn't necessarily analyzed; it's a "knowing" or a "seeing" because it's Pe influenced. Most xxFPs probably just call this "empathy" or knowing how people work. So there's not necessarily an insistence on your own valuations, because you see how the value concept takes many forms. What is good for me may not be good for you, but what is good for you is understood to be essentially the same thing at core as it meets _the same basic human need_.

----

Also note that *subjective reaction to concrete things is very Si*. What is real & experienced in a concrete or factual way that "strikes" you as significant is sensing, and when it's a sort of concentrated lingering & "selective", that's Si. NPs may experience this as very sentimental, and it may seem more emotional for an INFP than their Fi. Si types may confuse themselves with Fi types for this reason also (especially SFJs) because of how Fi & Si are described by some. SFJs (especially ISFJs) form priorities with Si & Fe - what is most striking and then categorizing it with objective value categories & acting on it accordingly.


----------



## OrangeAppled

Figure said:


> This is an answer to a different question that may still be helpful for this one.
> 
> FiNe is static, NiFe is dynamic. Meaning, that the rational/irrational difference is flipped in both order and attitude, such that the perceiving function of an INFJ would be static were it not perceptive, and the judging function would be dynamic if it wasn't judging. In a nutshell, one is constantly judging on their own basis, and one is constantly gaining new perspectives on their own basis. This difference alone, aside from the actual functions involved (not attitudes) creates a substantial difference between the two types, as the Ji dominant will be prone to (J) correct, decide, and judge on their own (i) belief or understanding, whereas a Pi dominant will be prone to (P) interpret or explore, and envision or recall on their own (i) envisionments or sensations.
> 
> An INFP, therefore, will evaluate everything with respect to their own set of static , human (F) values. An INFJ will want to explore their own mental concepts and envisionings. The mechanisms are mirrored here - *the INFP must look outward to ensure that their personal values are truly valid*. An INFJ _must _make objective conclusions on their insights, so they have some element of validity in the real world. In both cases, the aim of Function 2 is validation, or a check against the dominant.
> 
> As INFJ and INFP will say, the fascia of this functional alignment is appealing, but once the very differently-aligned motives become apparent, it can lead to quarrels. In interaction, the two are best to keep some measure of personal distance so as to not force an alternative, unvalued ego onto the other.


I don't experience FiNe this way at all. This is kind of what I meant about Je types interpreting Ji through their Je lens.... 

What you describe in the bolded sounds like Fe to me. 

INFPs look outward to find _manifestations_ of value concepts. Nothing is defined or static, especially not in a Je sense. Instead, as you come across something in reality & it resonates, it gives form to something which can otherwise be difficult to put into words or explain because it's an idea of "human significance" (or "impersonal logic" for Ti) explored in the inner world. Ji isn't static judgements, but more like a scale _you're constantly adjusting_ so when it comes time to use it, you can get as close to perfect as possible. 

INFP values are the result of Ne+Si being applied. After exploring many angles, we'll settle on one which strikes us as most ideal, and this builds more specific references of what's important to us. Good Ne keeps this broad - always open for something new to emerge that is more ideal, which means they aren't static either. So on the surface, INFP values can change a lot. Deep down, the pre-verbal feeling of what is essential to humanity is always there, but the individual is always trying to surface it & give shape to it without compromising it or watering it down. This is nothing static still then; it's like an art project that's never finished because you keep thinking you can make it better, but you don't have any real reference for better _until you see it_. You just "know" there is better.

EDIT: Come to think of it, your description of FiNe sounds like SiFe. Si is static....it involves clear priorities & impressions of what is most real/sure being given an external category of value (Fe) - checked against external measures to make sure the weight of the impressions are valid.

Jung says Sensing tells us what exists, Thinking categorizes it, Feeling evaluates it, and iNtuition tells us where it's going. The most static of these is sensing, and in particular, Si will be most static. The most dynamic is arguably Ne.


----------



## Figure

OrangeAppled said:


> Ji isn't static judgements, but more like a scale _you're constantly adjusting_ so when it comes time to use it, you can get as close to perfect as possible


The very idea that you are correcting me implies staticism, because you had an innate idea of what FiNe is, and felt the need to say something about it to keep my reasoning in line with that concept. Obviously I have no problem at all with that, but it's clearly performing the role. Your quote here speaks to it - there would be nothing to constantly adjust if there was nothing stable to adjust _to_. You cannot have an idea of "perfect" if you have no stable basis to compare things to. These things cannot be perceptions, because the act of perceiving is itself taking in additional information that could or could not "be" a certain way. See what I mean now?

In other words, the "static" doesn't mean you can't improve as a person or what not, it means that the person does exactly what you described above, in comparing the world around them and what they see and hear to what they already know or _believe_. An Ni dominant will do the same to what they _see_, but this is subject to constant variation from their own ideas, because to "dig in deeper" as Ni dominants crave would be impossible if they already saw what they were digging for to begin with.


----------



## OrangeAppled

Figure said:


> The very idea that you are correcting me implies staticism, because you had an innate idea of what FiNe is, and felt the need to say something about it to keep my reasoning in line with that concept. Obviously I have no problem at all with that, but it's clearly performing the role.


Says pot to kettle 

I have an idea of FiNe that I am always refining a bit. It's a work in progress, like everything else. 



> Your quote here speaks to it - there would be nothing to constantly adjust if there was nothing stable to adjust _to_. You cannot have an idea of "perfect" if you have no stable basis to compare things to.


You need to read what I wrote again. You missed the main points because you seem to be latching onto info which confirms your present idea & ignoring that which doesn't, so as not to have to change your judgement (perfectly in-line with what I wrote about PiJe  ). 

There is basically "nothing" to compare to in any way that could be given form, so how could it be static? You're not adjusting to anything defined. You're NOT adjusting to "perfect", you are defining perfect while exploring what it even is. The adjustment is within the defining itself, not adjusting beliefs to external things. This is hard to explain because I am forced to use Je language, which involves pre-defined terms which makes Fi sound like it has static concept of value (ie. "perfect"). This is why Fi-dom, when young especially, can struggle to express verbally. 

Also, Fi-dom try to adjust the external to themselves, not the other way around. So they don't seek to validate their feelings with external info; _they seek to validate reality with their feelings_ (give it meaning). But first they must decide what meaning is, and that is almost never-ending process. It can appear to be at end, but all that has to change is the scale (see below).

This is NOT Je. You have to let go of the Je way of judging to understand this. 

You should read Lenore Thompson's spaghetti sauce example as an illustration of Fi. 



> These things cannot be perceptions, because the act of perceiving is itself taking in additional information that could or could not "be" a certain way. See what I mean now?


Of course they're not perceptions. Who said that?
This isn't taking in info or mulling over impressions. This is using the inner world to create & shape value concepts. This is a _creating of ways to classify_ as opposed to classifying according to _an existing set_ of criteria. It's very much judging because it's deciding what is what.

People don't see this; they see end product valuations, which are not closed to revision although can be very deeply rooted & hard to reopen. Still they're working concepts; the best one can do for now (and "for now" may be a long or short time). This is why people don't understand how Ji works. They don't really see it, just some of it's working concepts. 



> In other words, the "static" doesn't mean you can't improve as a person or what not, it means that the person does exactly what you described above, in comparing the world around them and what they see and hear to what they already know or _believe_.


That's not how I interpreted it anyway. I'm talking about mindset, not self-growth.

There is not a static defined set of beliefs at core. It's a working concept always being refined. The self is the gauge, and since this is never static either, then you don't have an unchanging base to use; although it can be quite _stable_ at times. My metaphor of adjusting scales is very important in understanding this. Fi is not weighing with scales; it's adjusting the scales, which is the self. Unlike scales, you don't have a defined point for balance. You're always trying to find it _within_.

This is the eternal struggle of the Fi-dom, and sometimes we force a set point of sorts, because we're told we're supposed to do this. Then we get stuck adhering to valuations now "outdated", because our scale has changes - ourselves. When INFPs try to maintain a static set of values, they are using too much of their crappy Si, and harboring a past working definition of value as "identity". The static aspect is Si. It's not always negative, but it's not as complementary to how Fi works as Pe is. It stunts Fi refining, and individuals end up unhappy, with values & feelings at odds.


----------



## Empurple

Aquarian said:


> Here's a shortened and paraphrased fragment of a INFP-INFJ discussion from yesterday that IMO gets at some framework and communication differences and difficulties that can come with the Fi-Fe differences (INFP Fi-dom, INFJ Fe-aux):
> 
> 
> My INFP wife: I've seen you over-react a lot.
> 
> 
> INFJ me: {strong internal feeling that I need to immediately scrutinize and change what's wrong with me that I over-react, followed by questioning this feeling}
> 
> 
> INFJ/me: {drawing on what I've learned about INFPs}: So when you say "over-react" - what standards are you using to determine what is and isn't an over-reaction?
> 
> 
> INFP/my wife: What's right for me to do. What's right for you could be different.
> 
> 
> INFJ/me: So it would be accurate to say that what you just said is, "By the standard of what's right for me to do, you're over-reacting"?
> 
> 
> INFP/My wife: Yes! What other standard would I be using? Everyone's different.
> 
> 
> INFJ/me: But you seem to have a negative judgement associated with me doing something differently than what would be right for you do do - instead of an open-ness to difference as possibly necessary diversity.
> 
> 
> {discussion about the differences between those two things - differences/diversity versus judgement}
> 
> 
> INFP/my wife: Well, yes, the world *would* be a better place if everyone did this my way. Lots fewer problems, much more peaceful.
> 
> 
> INFJ/me: That's what I mean! You're applying a judgement that your way is best.
> 
> 
> INFP/my wife: Not best. Just that the world would be a better place if everyone did it my way.
> 
> 
> {more discussion}
> 
> 
> INFJ/me: {light bulb goes on} Wait a minute. When you say "the world would be a better place" ... you actually mean that YOUR world would be a better place?
> 
> 
> INFP/My wife: Of course! What else would I mean?
> 
> 
> INFJ/me: See, if I said, "I think the world would be a better place if" - I would mean *the* world, not *my* world. What's best for me isn't always or necessarily the same thing as what I think would be best for the whole world. So I have to take the need for diversity into account and understand that there are needs that go beyond my own.
> 
> 
> INFP/My wife: What right do I have to say what's best for the whole world? All I can say is what's best for me.
> 
> 
> ====================
> 
> 
> I find Fi extremely difficult to understand! Things my wife takes for granted about her communication - that everything is deeply subjective for her, that "the" means "my" etc etc ... aren't immediately obvious to me at all and can be very hard for me to grasp.


This IS a wonderful snapshot!!


----------



## Bricolage

Silveresque said:


> @_Teybo_, I strongly relate to your example in most situations. I usually don't have strong opinions about things, so I tend to give other people's opinions a lot of weight and soften my own opinion. However, when I do have a strong view supported by logic or evidence, the only thing that can change my opinion would be contrary evidence. Other people can believe what they want to believe, but unless they can provide a logical argument, they can't sway my opinion at all.
> 
> The problem is there are some ways in which I relate more to Fi. Like for example, I'm not very animated and don't show emotion easily, and I tend not to notice how other people are feeling in the group. I can't consistently relate more to one function over the other.


In short, Fi is a personal values system and Fe is a broader ethical framework.


----------



## Empurple

Silveresque, 

getting back to your original question, I might present another couple of variables to consider (albeit in a very indirect way). It's easy to get the impression that Fi, Fe, Ni, Ne sort of stand alone in what they _do, _but I think they are really quite affected by shadow functions. For instance, being an INFJ, I know that when I am in a situation requiring a more contemplative decision/judgment, my Fe is greatly influenced by my Ti, and that when I am in a more action-oriented situation - a time-sensitive work situation requiring a more hands-on approach to gathering information/perceiving - my Ni is greatly in need of my Se. So, I'll get involved physically with the situation and memorize important facts and communicate what's what as it it's happening. The presence of Ti and Se are unmistakable, but they drain me considerably (particularly Se). I can tell my preferred decision making function concerning the outside world is feeling, and when I'm able to use feeling judgment, my Ni is free to fly and soar and gather all sorts of ideas and realizations. Fe is sort of my Ni protector, whereas Ti is its filter, leaving Se to take care of less-desirable (to me), fact gathering, hands-on, mundane detail grunt work.

So, if a person is an ENFx, one way to determine their J/P preference is to look at whether their S has a greater influence on his/her natural life flow than his/her T has. Secondly, if S, does it prefer hands-on, action-oriented, experiential sensing (Se) with external, value based structure (Fe)? Or, if T, does it prefer a 1, 2, 3, organize, one-size-fits-all, efficient, direct way to order the environment (Te) but with the prevailing sense that there are a multiplicity of possibilities and an amazing variety of thoughts to consider (Ne)? 

Then, if a person is an INFx, a way to figure out the J/P preference is to consider whether or not T has a greater influence than S. 'T' in this case (Ti) would typically present itself as a way to order and fool-proof ideas (intuitions) rather trying to order the environment. Fe takes care of the environment in this case, probably with artistic flare and probably considering how it will affect the specific people in that environment. If S is stronger than T, then it will generally feel like a sense of continuity in one's life, the way things stick in your memory with a lot of specificity and the way they felt, sounded, smelt, etc., whether comfortable or uncomfortable, greatly informing what is the best course of action for the future (Si).


----------



## Recede

I now lean toward INFJ, based on a number of theoretical reasons as well as observations of Fi in other posters. Fi sounds like me in theory, but perhaps not in practice. 

I'm still collecting and analyzing information, and I'm not quite ready to settle on a type just yet.


----------



## Entropic

Funnily enough though, as a Jungian Fi type, I actually fully understand what @_Teybo_ is saying and I think he is correct in the knowledge and understanding he is presenting in this thread regarding Fi and Fe. Anyone who doesn't agree is just getting butthurt because it doesn't overlap with how they internally view the system. 

Just felt like putting that out there.


----------



## Old Intern

@*Silveresque *Not trying to sway you, just one thought about what you said about not being sure you relate to Fe or Fi.
When a person has high Fi, they value others people's individuality because they know how much they value their own. They are truly doing their own thing and expect that others want the same freedoms, or respect. Feeling in terms of emotions is something else that Jung calls affect, not a function. Not noticing other people in terms of seeking to understand them on their own terms is an Fi thing, but how a person behaves is a combination of much more than that. Highest amount of Fi, means highest amount of "tolerance" for people different from you, because you want tolerance. Highest amount of Fe, means highest amount of involvement in other peoples lives because you want connection. At some point we all give what we want to get, in any type.

The husband and wife scenario, and different meanings about the world, and my world was a good example.
Fi thinks it would be presumptuous to know what someone else wants, unless they are sure that person is a lot like themselves. Although some Fi's don't know how much that assume that everyone is like them. Some Fe doms draw from their own experiences to relate to others too, they presume it is possible to understand someone on that someone's own terms, that doesn't mean they always get it right. 

Maybe the reason Fe believes they can "get" what other people are like in terms of all their diversities, is because the nature of Ti, can hold multiple possibilities with equal weight while investigating, or exploring. Te pushes for true/false conclusions.

Anyway I guess I'm just saying the battles people have about one function over another might sometimes be because of not taking into account how function orders and combinations of things balance out each type. Please don't think it is a crime to be Fi or Fe based on frustrations people have with each other on PerC.

BTW INFJ would mean you place a high priority on social connections and deeper understand of relationship dynamics. This would be much different than INFP. INFP's can care deeply about people they care about, without trying to understand everyone the way an INFJ might.


----------



## mimesis

Teybo said:


> Dear INFP's, why do you think, every time you project onto me, I go back and try to make it very clear what it was exactly that I said or didn't say?
> 
> Why, hmm, would I keep restating all this noise about subjectively- and objectively- sourced evaluation? Because I like being pedantic? No. Because I'm trying to be clear about what I AM saying in the hopes that you will see that what you are projecting onto me is NOT something that I have actually ever said.
> 
> Your perception of me making a value judgment about the "goodness" or validity of Fi is a projection. I have made no such judgment.
> 
> Your hurt feelings and insecurities belong to you, not me.



I believe I had said that I didn't think you meant it that way. That it was a bit (quote unquote) 'inconsiderate'. Of course I used that word, since you made this distinction between Fi and Fe, respectively 'regardless of what other people value' and Fe who looks for 'existing evidence of what people find important and valuable'. 

That ('inconsiderate', like 'disparaging') is of course not in line with your Fe self-concept of harmony-seeker, and that's probably why you are the one acting so incredibly defensive and throwing all those ad hominems, accusations and strong language at me. And 'deny the evidence', I guess and blame me. What did I do, other than disagree with you and give you my view? Not what I would expect from the supposedly 'more open' Fe. 

To keep this in line with the topic, I explained about 'placing ourselves in the other person'. It's in part, and to begin with because we have so often turned inward to observe our emotions and motivations, fears, our validations and elaborations of what is significant, right or wrong, etc. and have needed to motivate why we judge that way. And again, not (quote unquote) 'merely' because other people think that is significant, right or wrong (often without needing motivations for that, as it just 'is' or 'is evidently so'). 

In fact, most Fi-dom have a history of taking an eccentric position, not conforming to consensus and have often needed to justify or defend their point of view. And mind you, we have also experienced how some Fe-people, usually not the bravest amongst them, may respond to non-conformation of values or established norms, in particular those with _'overwhelming' evidence_. _Not so_ open minded. Hostile and possibly pretty aggressive and collectively try and extort compliance. 

Not that Fi can't be hostile and aggressive. But more likely it found itself alone against many, or at least 'it felt that way' and for that reason often preferred to be avoidant and silent rather than aggressive (unless the so called 'core values' are violated). Anyway, we have learned to defend our views, be it initially with inferior Te and a bit black and white, and Si not much detached from self and differentiated from Fi (mixed up). 

However, when Ne kicks in, as said, it will start to open the mind for alternative views and 'evidence', both within the realm of Fe 'awareness' of other peoples values as well as becoming more perceptive for 'what's behind' or 'what happens within', by recognizing behavioral patterns, learn to better understand interpersonal interaction (like reciprocity), and even 'reconstructing other peoples personal constructs', to elaborate this in its own personal construct. Thus it will learn to build bridges, because it understands different points of view and see where people could be harmonized under a shared objective, mutual understanding, preferably without anyone needing to conform much to one another. This of course is an ongoing learning process. 

Fe sort of needs to do the opposite, and elaborate intrapersonal intelligence within a Fe-construct. And I have explained why this is a complicated process, differentiating personal feeling (let's call it 'inner self') and motivations from external 'feeling' and motivations. 

That's probably why Fi is so hard to phatom for Fe. Conversely it's not true that Fi, (not even in their teens) are unaware of what is valued outside of themselves. In fact, most values are gathered from outside. How we were raised, and internalized values, for instance from other 'eccentrics'. But nobody wants to be rejected, and rather be liked, and so many of use have tried to conform ourselves to other people's expectations, to find out -and often the hard way- what we feel itching in our gut, maybe even feeling virtigo, when we do something that is not 'aligned with our subjective vision of the world', is because we are disconnecting from ourselves if we continue to do so and ignore our inner self.


----------



## Moss Icon

I'm at the stage in my MBTI geek-dom where I want to better get to grips with cognitive functions. A lot of interesting stuff has been said so far and I'm trying to read it and absorb it all before commenting. For now I'll just talk about something kinda personal that sorta relates, I think...

The differences between INFPs and INFJs are of particular interest to me because someone I once considered my closest friend is an INFJ and I'm INFP. We're still friends, but our relationship has deteriorated and I've often looked to the potential conflict and discord between our respective cognitive functions to attempt to make sense of my frustrations. I'm not sure if we've each behaved as typical examples of our respective types, but I'll try to give some examples of our issues. I'm keen to not only understand on a personal level, but also, as I say, simply understand the cognitive functions better. So if anyone cares to weigh in, please..! 

As Introverts, I always figured he and I would prefer to keep our socialising to just a few close, solid friends. That's definitely how I am. I usually try my best to gauge just what friends and acquaintances expect from our relationship and act accordingly. But I try to be clear on just how I perceive our relationship, too. I know I can't be all things to all people and so I have my priorities. I don't spread myself too thin. In the words of Aristotle, "a friend to all is a friend to none." My INFJ friend on the other hand almost seems extroverted in his dealings with people. He admits (and I've seen it, so I know it's true) that he's not good in big-group social situations and when he's out of his element/comfort zone. But he does seem to try and be the "friend to everyone." He seems, in my view, to care very little about forging real, meaningful bonds with people and having close friends. He seems to befriend new people frequently and is seen by them as a great guy, but then when they're no longer convenient, they'll rarely see him. He seems very much an "out of sight, out of mind" person who professes to care but only shows it when you're in his immediate life. When I'm feeling especially spiteful, I might even say he's got the Selfish Martyr complex - wanting to be seen as selfless and giving but refusing to let others in so he can indulge this narcissistic concept of martyrdom he likes to portray.

When we were at university, we were inseparable. He said I was one of the closest friends he'd ever had, and easily the one he had the deepest and most "intimate" relationship with, bar only his wife. But now I'm no longer in his immediate life, he seems content to just never see me, despite my living just 60km away. I'm cool with the fact we have other priorities going on and can't have our college days back, of course. But we literally go months without contact - so much for bestest buddies! I've come to see him as something of a user - one who gives his all to people when he stands to gain from it/needs it. He's probably come to see me as volatile and resentful. 

He's also got this tendency to talk a good game but not follow through, especially when it comes to telling people what they want to hear. I'm very much of the "don't say it if you don't mean it" opinion. My friend is full of niceties and is, by his own admission, a people-pleaser. I've even come to feel that the friendship he professed to experience when we were at uni was more "people-pleasing" on his part and that he's disingenuous. He's gone back on promises when he realises they may be inconvenient to fulfill and despite some serious talks we've had about him not telling me what I "want to hear", he continues to (from my point of view) profess stuff he has no intention of following through with. 

Is this an Fi/Fe issue? Am I failing to understand something about Fe users here? I have heard that Fe users are more likely to be concerned with keeping people happy and thus seeming phoney when they don't follow through. Would fellow Fi doms say they often take more seriously displays of emotion and things like promises and friendships than they should? I'm guessing at this stage that maybe Fi takes everything very personally and sees bonds as unbreakable vows, almost, whereas Fe takes things very fluidly and sees bonds as dependent on what they can do at what time..? Any thoughts on how Ne/Ni might play into all this too? 

Oh, and.. 



Old Intern said:


> I may be wrong on this but I think people with Fi are hard on themselves. They take it so hard if they think they may have screwed up (and they worry about someone else thinking that)... My brother, if he is upset, needs to feel bad for a while and eventually he will get down to what the whole deal is that is bothering him, especially if I just use reflective listening that shows I notice he is upset or "hear" what he is upset about.


Your brother sounds just like me in this respect. I'm INFP, thus Fi Dom, and I react just as you describe. I am terrified of screwing up, especially when my failure affects others. I fenced on my university team and was so scared of letting my teammates down that I'd fence badly in a lot of team events. I'd fall apart sometimes on the piste, start raging at myself and they'd have to calm me down. They were a really cool bunch and very supportive and used to reassure me, but I felt so bad for failing them. I really can't stand that feeling... Luckily be final year I had learnt more self control and found a more zen, controlled mindset to put myself in for fencing. I still hate to fail, though. I still beat myself up about it, avoid situations where it might happen, feel insecure and defensive, etc. when threatened with looking inferior... >_<


----------



## Recede

Moss Icon said:


> As Introverts, I always figured he and I would prefer to keep our socialising to just a few close, solid friends. That's definitely how I am. I usually try my best to gauge just what friends and acquaintances expect from our relationship and act accordingly. But I try to be clear on just how I perceive our relationship, too. I know I can't be all things to all people and so I have my priorities. I don't spread myself too thin. In the words of Aristotle, "a friend to all is a friend to none." My INFJ friend on the other hand almost seems extroverted in his dealings with people. He admits (and I've seen it, so I know it's true) that he's not good in big-group social situations and when he's out of his element/comfort zone. But he does seem to try and be the "friend to everyone." He seems, in my view, to care very little about forging real, meaningful bonds with people and having close friends. He seems to befriend new people frequently and is seen by them as a great guy, but then when they're no longer convenient, they'll rarely see him. He seems very much an "out of sight, out of mind" person who professes to care but only shows it when you're in his immediate life. When I'm feeling especially spiteful, I might even say he's got the Selfish Martyr complex - wanting to be seen as selfless and giving but refusing to let others in so he can indulge this narcissistic concept of martyrdom he likes to portray.
> 
> When we were at university, we were inseparable. He said I was one of the closest friends he'd ever had, and easily the one he had the deepest and most "intimate" relationship with, bar only his wife. But now I'm no longer in his immediate life, he seems content to just never see me, despite my living just 60km away. I'm cool with the fact we have other priorities going on and can't have our college days back, of course. But we literally go months without contact - so much for bestest buddies! I've come to see him as something of a user - one who gives his all to people when he stands to gain from it/needs it. He's probably come to see me as volatile and resentful.


I can actually relate your INFJ friend on some level. I'm extremely introverted and don't make many friends, though I'm friendly and caring toward anyone who approaches me. And even though I have very few friends, I'm not very close to the friends I do have (though I wish I had close friends). It's strange, but even with the friendships that feel most meaningful to me, I can't seem to stay in touch with them once they leave. It's not that I don't care about the person...I don't know what it is, really.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume your friend doesn't care about you just because he hasn't stayed in contact. Maybe he's like me and just has a hard time staying in touch with people in general.


----------



## Entropic

@_Moss Icon_ most of all what you describe sounds like a dissonance between you being an sx-preferring type and your friend being soc first, most likely. I fail to see what you wrote is indicative of Fe versus Fi anyway, since you never describe the cognitive processes of your friend and how your friend rationalizes such behavior.


----------



## Moss Icon

Silveresque said:


> I can actually relate your INFJ friend on some level. I'm extremely introverted and don't make many friends, though I'm friendly and caring toward anyone who approaches me. And even though I have very few friends, I'm not very close to the friends I do have (though I wish I had close friends). It's strange, but even with the friendships that feel most meaningful to me, I can't seem to stay in touch with them once they leave. It's not that I don't care about the person...I don't know what it is, really.
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to assume your friend doesn't care about you just because he hasn't stayed in contact. Maybe he's like me and just has a hard time staying in touch with people in general.





LeaT said:


> @_Moss Icon_ most of all what you describe sounds like a dissonance between you being an sx-preferring type and your friend being soc first, most likely. I fail to see what you wrote is indicative of Fe versus Fi anyway, since you never describe the cognitive processes of your friend and how your friend rationalizes such behavior.


It may indeed not be indicative of Fe/Fi at all. I was just curious. As for the sx/soc thing, that's Enneagram-related, right? It's been a while since I tested my Enneagram; all I remember is I initially came out as 4w5/5w4/1w9. 

Heh, I would _love_ to know the cognitive processes of my friend. He's extremely inconsistent. With regard to his lack of contact once people aren't in his "immediate" life, he insists he still cares for them deeply but can't quite explain why they are so often "out of sight, out of mind" (much like @_Silveresque_ describes.) I've challenged him before to reflect on what that means: does that imply you don't care as deeply as you profess to, perhaps? The idea seems to trouble him and I've never gotten a truly honest answer from him after that. He insists he cares but doesn't show it once you're successfully "netted", as it were - once the friendship is reasonably established. He sorta "takes for granted" that friendship. In my mind it's rather like the kid who insists to his parents that he really wants this new toy, that it's the best toy ever and he _must _have it... only to play with it for a week then put it in his cupboard and barely play with it again. And then he starts hounding his parents for the new "best toy ever" and so the process repeats until he's a cupboard full of un-played-with toys. 

Silveresque, you said you "don't really know" either why you don't stay in touch with people. Have you reflected on this much? I don't doubt you care in your own way, much like my friend. I don't for a minute think he's being deliberately deceitful or neglectful... but it does get to the stage where what he says and what he does are 2 different things. His actions don't follow his words. I don't know if you're the same or if you're more inclined to not make such big, bold statements about how much people mean to you, aware that you don't plan to necessarily stay in touch or take the relationship much further. I would consider the latter at least honest and responsible. 

He's also said that he feels the best kinda friendships don't _need _to always spend time together. That best friends should be able to spend time apart and remain best friends. I don't disagree, but I feel he's missing my point. I have a couple of close friendships like that: we're friends of unshakable bonds that, even after years of being apart, we can pick up as though it were yesterday we saw each other. However, why would one ignore a friend for so long if they truly are that close to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. As far as I'm concerned, friendship is like anything: neglect it and it diminishes. Now I know life often gets in the way; we have jobs, families, commitments that consume our time, etc. I get that. But put it this way; I live in Japan. My best friend since middle school lives in the UK (where I'm from.) He and I have no doubt in our minds that we could spend the rest of our lives living on opposite sides of the world and our bond will never break. The point is, though, we _want _to get in touch. We e-mail regularly (long, epic e-mails) and we _want _to visit each other. Same with my other best friend, in Australia. He and I also e-mail regularly and visit each other. Both friends agree with me on the principle that whilst we don't _need _regular contact to maintain our friendship, we _want _it. Because we're best friends and if you are best friends, it's not a matter of necessity, it's a matter of wanting to! (FYI, both these friends are Fi-users - a fellow INFP and an ISTJ respectively - ... though I'm still not saying the Fe/Fi thing necessarily is the issue!) My INFJ friend on the other hand lives merely 60km away from me. He's also in Japan, in the same general area. I could understand the lack of in-person contact if we were in different countries, or even different cities! But we're not. When you actually have the ability to hang out quite easily, why neglect to do so? 

One last thing about him that may shed further light on his rationale: I personally feel he's very self-absorbed. I don't mean that in the conventional usage, with the negative connotations that come with it. I just mean his life is very much about him and his immediate desires. His primary foci always seem to be on doing something for himself: he loves to work out, to develop his photography and musical pursuits and what-not; to self-improve and all that. It's all very good stuff, very admirable, and he sets these challenges for himself to accomplish some new goal quite regularly. But the thing I've noticed is nothing he does involves anyone but himself. Everything he does is focused inwardly. By his own admission, he is bad at staying in contact. Yet his challenges never involve keeping in touch or spending time with friends. He is, as I say, "self-absorbed." And again, please don't think I'm using that phrase loaded with its usual connotations. I just can't think of a better way to describe someone almost entirely focused on their own, personal world and pursuits. 

Incidentally, I don't think there's anything wrong with being the kinda person described above. I don't think there's anything wrong with being largely focused on introverted, personal concerns. It's the fact that he professes so often to the contrary. Nothing I expect from our relationship is anything he didn't encourage and enable, I'm not the kinda person who will expect a level of friendship from another other than the one they present themselves. I don't resent people for not meeting my expectations... but I do resent them for not meeting the expectations they set themselves. I hold people accountable to what they say and expect their actions to follow their words. I could deal if he just said, "yeah, sorry, I kinda misled you and while I do care about you, I don't consider you that kinda friend/I'm not really interested in "best friends", or something like. But he won't. He continues to make grand, idealistic proclamations and talk a good game only to utterly neglect the responsibility that comes with those words and shows no accountability later on. One way or another, if he would just start showing some responsibility in what he says, it might stop bugging me so much. 

If you mean what you say, do it. If you don't mean it, don't say it. If you do mean it but can't do it, take responsibility, learn from it, and try to do better in the future. That's all I ask.


----------



## Recede

@Moss Icon

I think you're making the same mistake extraverts make when judging introverts (though it's not uncommon for introverts who are more social to make this mistake too). You don't seem to understand that not contacting or even not desiring to contact does not mean not caring about the person. Extremely introverted people like me struggle with wanting deep connection and friendship but not wanting to spend time socializing or to make commitments. This can cause a lot of confusion in both the introvert and the people the introvert has connected with. You also don't seem to understand that a preference for introverted or solitary activities does not mean self-absorbtion. You go on and on about how your friend has hurt you by not caring and not staying in touch with you, but you don't seem to realize how much your misunderstanding of how your friend feels must be hurting him. I will bet you nothing could hurt him more than being accused by his own best friend of not caring.


----------



## Entropic

@Moss Icon Really what you wrote reflects your cognitive function preference more than that of your friend's. You yet again failed to actually describe how your friend operates. Your projection on him being too introverted and self-absorbed is also interesting. 

Again however, the way I see you reason around wanting to keep in contact with good friends is indicative of sx as an instinct. Also, you're not a 4, that much is clear. I'd wager 6 core type actually.


----------



## Moss Icon

Silveresque said:


> @_Moss Icon_
> 
> I think you're making the same mistake extraverts make when judging introverts (though it's not uncommon for introverts who are more social to make this mistake too). You don't seem to understand that not contacting or even not desiring to contact does not mean not caring about the person. Extremely introverted people like me struggle with wanting deep connection and friendship but not wanting to spend time socializing or to make commitments. This can cause a lot of confusion in both the introvert and the people the introvert has connected with. You also don't seem to understand that a preference for introverted or solitary activities does not mean self-absorbtion. You go on and on about how your friend has hurt you by not caring and not staying in touch with you, but you don't seem to realize how much your misunderstanding of how your friend feels must be hurting him. I will bet you nothing could hurt him more than being accused by his own best friend of not caring.


Believe me, I'm not a social introvert! If anything, my friend is more social an introvert than I. Well... I tend to be more adaptable to being out of my element and around new people. He's not. But he seems more comfortable with being in large groups with people he's somewhat familiar with, and being more of a "social butterfly". I'm not. 

Socialising is draining for Introverts. I know. I am one, so I get that perfectly. But most Introverts like to make close friends of people they feel can be part of their inner world. Interacting regularly with a select, small group of people is pretty common for Introverts and shouldn't be draining for them. If anything, solid, meaningful contact with people is _more _important for an Introvert because Introverts value depth of experience over breadth of experience. Conversely, my friend seems more content to have himself and his wife on the inside, and then merely have fleeting, Extrovert-style friendships with everyone else these days. This contradicts everything our friendship was based on. Like I said originally, we were inseparable at uni. That was not a 1-way street thing either. If anything during our student days, _I'd _slink off to be alone and _he'd_ come find _me_. I tend to be very cautious with relationships and friendship, especially the ones I start to let into my Introvert Zone, because I know I can get like... well, like this: intense and insecure. So I usually hold back. I remind myself that what I want, they don't necessarily want. What I define in the term "friendship" is not always what others do. But I check this with him before making any leaps. It was him who initially allayed such fears and assured me that we were on the same page/that he was with me on the whole "close friends" thing and how it plays out. Every expectation I have, I'm not imposing them. They were invited by him. 

I am being overly critical, I know. These are my perceptions and I'm trying to be very clear with my language here to let you know that, stating that "it _seems._." "I _think_ that..", "I _feel_..", "to _me_ it _looks like_..", etc. But ya know, it's all very well to feel misunderstood and hurt over it, but there comes a time where you have to ask yourself, why the misunderstanding? What am I projecting? How is my behaviour leading people to these conclusions? Ironically, I've been told myself that my withdrawn and stoic approach with people I don't know can be misinterpreted as disinterest. I make little effort to reach out to people at first cos, well, I'm not very secure. Part of me wants them to see through my facade and just "know" what I'm feeling and reach out to me. But I know that that's not fair, I know I have to take responsibility for my own social attitudes and persona, and that how I seem to people is something I have to work on myself. I'll never be a gregarious Extrovert - and I don't have to be nor desire to be - but I do have to be mindful of how I come across. I have taken criticisms on board and try to adapt accordingly.

Ultimately I'm not saying he doesn't care about me. I'm saying he doesn't care about the quality of our relationship. No, he doesn't _seem_ to care. More to the point, he doesn't follow through on his words and promises. That's my main issue here. Like I said, I can deal with anyone of any personality type so long as I know where I stand with them. If they are honest with me, I will act accordingly and never impose my expectations on them. But intentional or not, he misleads me. Not just me. Others have said the same. If he was just people-pleasing in our uni days, or if things have changed, I can deal. I just wish he'd tell me. I would just like some honesty and integrity in his words and behaviour, even if it's stuff that's difficult to hear. That's all. 



LeaT said:


> @_Moss Icon_ Really what you wrote reflects your cognitive function preference more than that of your friend's. You yet again failed to actually describe how your friend operates. Your projection on him being too introverted and self-absorbed is also interesting.
> 
> Again however, the way I see you reason around wanting to keep in contact with good friends is indicative of sx as an instinct. Also, you're not a 4, that much is clear. I'd wager 6 core type actually.


Like I say, I cannot discern my friend's cognitive functions. I wish I could, but he is too damn inconsistent and self-contradicting sometimes. He admits he doesn't even understand his cognitive functions sometimes. All I can offer is what he's said to me and what I can discern from (or "project" onto) him. 

I'm still not sure what the sx/soc thing means. I just retook the Enneagram test and couldn't find anything alluding to it? Would you mind explaining it? 

Interesting you say I come off as a Type 6. I've been told that before, yet I keep scoring 4w5 when I take the test. I do feel I need a bit more comprehensive an Enneagram Test than the one I've been taking (the PerC one.) I've read the Type 6 description and... it's not inaccurate. Type 4 is not inaccurate either, both fit me pretty well, just in different ways. 


I appreciate both of your inputs here. I apologise if I'm coming off aggressive/defensive or something like that.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Teybo

I had a girlfriend who liked dead baby jokes. Initially I found them rather disturbing, but since she found them funny I started finding them funny and eventually I switched completely. Was it for her sake, or why?...I really don't know, I just did.

Similarly when I met my first girlfriend I started adopting all her values and adapting to her very quickly...I even took over mannerisms and ways of expression that I found useful. What she valued became what I valued...even the irrational stuff, something I corrected later on, but I still wonder about that... My heavy emoticon use and online interaction methods mainly stem from copying her at first and then corrupting that, twisting it into a completely new level...my own.

I basically took from her and made it my own and could adapt behavior to meet her needs, especially emotional ones.

I am like this with everyone, I call it being a chameleon. I understand or more exactly I just "get" other people through non verbal cues and adapt my "presentation"to meet them in a "realm" where they are comfortable. If someone is rather logical, i'll be logical, if they are emotional I'll be more caring warm, if they are introverted I'll initiate more often and will express my pseudo extroverted side if they are extroverted i'll listen and ask questions.

To me who I am often depends on who I am interacting with. Of course I'll disagree AND I will voice my opinions and convictions on things I am absolutely sure about, however if I am not, then I begrudgingly admit that I was wrong and that their logic was correct. I did it recently after some heated discussion about the functions concerning socionics & MBTI. I admit I was wrong and when we consider the valued functions INFJ lines up with INFp IEI for example perfectly. 

I find it odd because I may not manifest the typical emotional expressions found in Fe types. I don't like expressing my feelings unless I'm angry for example, thou I can't really hold back if I'm happy either.  when one's girlfriend walks into class there is no other way but to smile, because the motion takes complete control of ones face ...damn it.

It could be that I don't express feelings because men should not, we should be tough, so I hold myself to that...stereotype? I can't cry in public or in front of anyone, because the shame would kill me. I reluctantly admit...that what other people think of me has been a strong deciding factor in how I act and what I do. There is this struggle between who I am and what others want me to be. I feel guilt if I want to break free, but I want to break free so I end up at a stalemate...in procrastination, because it takes considerable effort to break values, however logic tells me it must be done and done in a fair way that will hurt the minimum amount of people I care about. One can't allow oneself to be a slave to irrational values even if others cling to those, however going against it is also very difficult.

I guess it would explain why I'm agnostic. Ultimately I decided based on what i personally found to be more logical and that was to be a complete agnostic & not choosing any side, because neither atheists nor theists make any logical sense.

*Is this Fe?*


----------



## Old Intern

*@Moss Icon *I can appreciate your feeling hurt. The trouble is, some people stay best friends all their lives and keep in touch, but I think it is rare. Sometimes it is an eb and flow, but other times people's lives just change. It takes more and more effort to get together and people have less and less in common. Sometimes it ends up just being Christmas cards, if that. I'm not saying you should give up, and I'm not trying to sound harsh. Just know that it isn't you, but it isn't him either. You have a right to tell him he is being a jerk if he makes plans he doesn't keep, but maybe you guys need to talk about what kinds of plans he will be able to commit to. ?

It could be more of a life, and schedule, and the two of you having different paths right now thing, more than being a type thing. ?


----------



## Recede

@Moss Icon

As much as I wish I could help, this conversation is one you should be having with your friend, not with me. I could keep responding and telling you how I think your friend may be feeling and why two seem to be misunderstanding each other, but in the end it would just be idle speculation.

So my advice is to talk to your friend with the intent of trying to understand your friend's perspective rather than a "why don't you care about me?" approach. The desire to understand, of course, needs to be mutual. You both need to be feel secure enough to open up, to want to understand and be understood, without worrying that the other will get angry, blaming, or defensive. If you can create this kind of atmosphere, chances are you'll make some progress in understanding one another and feel good about it. 



Moss Icon said:


> I appreciate both of your inputs here. I apologise if I'm coming off aggressive/defensive or something like that.


Don't worry, you haven't come off as aggressive or defensive. If you think I've misunderstood you, you have every right to disagree and explain further. In fact, I encourage it.


----------



## Moss Icon

@_Old Intern_ You're right, the part that bothers me is that I thought I knew which friendships were which. Again, I'm very careful about letting people in and the degree to which I "bond" with them for this very reason - I know that very often friendships are fleeting and fade. My friend, I really thought he wasn't like that, and that he was gonna work to be a "lifer" too. 

@_Silveresque_ Yeah, it is very hard to understand a situation when a) you are only getting one side of the story, and b) you don't know the individuals or circumstances involved, and are only getting a few paragraphs of text. I do appreciate you taking the time to reply and share your thoughts, though. Perspectives are always good. 

You are both right in stating that it is something he and I must talk about. Thing is, we have. Time and time and time again. That was part of our relationship, how open and honest I could be with him and he encouraged me to share my feelings with him. Problem is, he didn't return the favour. he wouldn't be honest with me, and he admitted this several times. I told him over and over if we're to be "equal" in our friendship, he needs to be open with me too. But he never really has been. Only at these big moments, after a lot of misunderstanding and frustration, does he finally say what he feels. He's even admitted before that he _wants _me to open up to him but doesn't want to have to open up to me. He admits that it's unfair and unbalanced, but he doesn't change. 

Unfortunately I have sort-of given up. I can't force him to care more, or want more interaction, or whatever. All I can do now is act accordingly with the type of relationship he seems to want. That seems to be a "barely interacting" relationship, so I'm now quite stand offish and distanced from him. No more opening up, no more big talks, no more... much of anything, really. And he seems content to let it be that way and if that's that, then that's that. 

I guess in the end I'm more annoyed by this cos I let myself open up to someone who maybe I shouldn't have. Cos I misjudged something about our friendship, cos I allowed myself to get close and trust him and believe and all that shit. I only brought it up here because he's Ni>Fe and I'm Fi>Ne and was curious to know if that was relevant. It may be, it may not be. I'd just like to understand what I see as inconsistencies in his attitude and behaviour, if that's related to his cognitive functions or mine. Or if it's something else. Either way, it's clearly a point of conflict in our 2 personalities.


----------



## Old Intern

You mentioned that your friend is married. Some of what you guys helped each other with or shared is just not the same anymore. As a married couple they have a lot of social unit married couple stuff that keeps him busy, plus the emotional support or stress whatever the case may be, for their married life. The point is that this has to change the relationship between friends at least to some extent. *Even if *you were close for a while during them being married, they have married friends together too, or in-laws and what have you.

*Whatever your friendship was, if it was good, then it was good. Don't devalue it now because things seem to be changing.* You didn't make a mistake in choosing your friend. This is just the way life goes sometimes. You might even feel like grieving, and it seems like that would be kind of normal. But your friend isn't gone. If you only give him the choice of feeling guilty or going away, he might go away.

I would never tell anyone to let themselves be treated disrespectfully and you have to decide what is fair about how you are treated. Maybe you can come to a compromise where the relationship continues, but makes allowances for you both to be yourselves the way your lives are now, and not the way it was?


----------



## Teybo

FreeBeer said:


> *Is this Fe?*


With the caveat that I don't know you from Adam, given what you described in your post, I would be more inclined to say that's Extraverted Feeling than Introverted Feeling. So, tentative "yes", that seems like Fe to me. Some of what you wrote is just Feeling in general -- stuff all Feelers are going to be more inclined to do/think/feel than Thinkers, but I get more of a Fe flavor than a Fi flavor.

I relate to what you wrote about adopting the traits, mannerisms, speaking styles, or preferences of those I interact with.

I don't know what you mean by "typical" emotional manifestations of Fe/Fi types? Feeling isn't emotion or affect. Fi types can be extremely expressive of their emotions, Fe types can be very reserved, and vice-versa.

I'm inclined to think that some male INFJ's mistype as T's (either INTP or INTJ) especially if they've grown up in a more conservative culture (or with conservative parents) that expects men to be "logical not emotional". I first typed as an INTJ, then realized that didn't seem right, but I struggled to pin down what my type actually was. I didn't understand that I was a Feeler until someone pointed out just how uncomfortable I am with discord here on PerC, and that the values that under lie many of my word choices and phrasings are NF in nature.

Extremely introverted INFJ's (*raises hand* Hi there!) may also have spent more time in "Ti-land" than in "Fe-land", and thus may actually have more consciousness of Ti than of Fe. I believe @_Abraxas_ has said that he's felt that way as well.

We can approach the attitude of your Feeling function from the other direction as well, though: How much do you identify with what the INFP's have written about Fi in this thread? Do you feel like you are _constantly_ comparing how your internal "scale of values and ideals" matches up to the outside world? Do you experience in yourself a frequent categorization of your experiences and subsequent "recalibration" or "fine tuning" of your inner sense of aesthetics and values? The stuff that the INFP's have written seems to describe the inner world of an Fi-dominant as highly structured and mostly concerned with comparing, matching, and evaluating. 

Personally, I feel like my inner world is highly chaotic, and I would describe myself as an "observer" of my internal world. I watch as thoughts, emotions, associations, and impressions come in, and I wonder what they could all mean. I don't try to categorize them or compare them to a standard, I just wonder what they are pointing to. In this way, Fi as described by the INFP's in this thread sounds completely foreign to me. In fact, I remember once when I told my INFP sister that I feel like my inner world is highly nebulous and unstructured, she was floored. She said something like, "Don't you examine everything that happens in your life to try to determine what it means to you?" and I said, "Honestly, no. That sounds exhausting! Life is an overwhelming stream of, well, stuff, and there's too much information being thrown at me. I just can't imagine even having the time to sort through it all."


----------



## Vanishing Point

Teybo said:


> Personally, I see my inferior sensation being "black and white" when one day I'll look out of my apartment window and see a telephone pole, and I'll be shocked: When did that telephone pole get there? Did they do construction over the weekend while I was out? Of course, after so many of these incidents I've learned to stop myself from wondering endlessly about if I hallucinated and either just accept that I missed seeing something that should have been obvious, or if I feel like it, sometimes I'll just ask someone: "Hey Mom, did you notice a telephone pole outside of my window when you came over to visit?" Essentially, suddenly some object seems to have just popped into existence and usually it's something big and obvious that I wonder how I could have ever missed it. That's how I personally experience Se being "black and white".
> 
> If other INJ's have similar experiences, I'd love to hear them.


Lol. Yes... "What?When did this apartment complex get here?When did they build it? It wasn't here last week!" to not remembering which house was mine on a street of identical houses after someone removed a blue flowerpot from the front yard. ....that was my "marker". Ringing the wrong doorbell because I didn't notice I got out on the wrong floor... Or suddenly exclaiming "All these buildings are tiny!" on my first trip to a small "city" up north AFTER I'd been there for a good 24 hours. Yes... Well... My S friends have some extra entertainment on the road. ....Or when I call and ask for them to come find me because I can't find my home because someone moved the flowerpot...


----------



## Old Intern

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Fi is the feeling evoked upon an archetypal ideal of experience (what the person sees value in or not in relation to an inner image indirectly related to the valued object/event that confirms the intensity of the feelings for whatever this representation of the image is - really, really hard not to view as mystical if you're a heavy Fe type), not upon anything for what it represents against standards at face value.


*Maybe you would like to believe that people think this is mystical?* As long as an Fi user has made some effort at self knowledge and communication skill, this is not a problem. But It actually does explain why some people make no distinction between ethics and personal likes and dislikes. Associations that have been abstracted to the point that the feeler does not know what they feel or that the judgement is resultant from an association that has been misappropriated.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

@_Old Intern_

No. I'm referencing the most objective sources imagineable. I don't like that (nor do I think I'm necessarily a fully-differentiated Fi type). All you have to do is observe the typical reactions of Fe types to something that comes off as too "personal" and hard to find ground to relate to from an Fi type to know what I'm talking about. The Fi type might seem narcissistic to them for placing their own experiences above any kind of relatability. It's often the Fe type projecting something like "You think you're so much better than everyone else," or "You're discluding me from your fun." or what have you.


----------



## mimesis

Old Intern said:


> *Maybe you would like to believe that people think this is mystical?* As long as an Fi user has made some effort at self knowledge and communication skill, this is not a problem. But It actually does explain why some people make no distinction between ethics and personal likes and dislikes. Associations that have been abstracted to the point that the feeler does not know what they feel or that the judgement is resultant from an association that has been misappropriated.


Which could also be Si or Ni projection. (collective unconscious, personal unconscious, oxytocin, whatever, sometimes causing bodily innervations)


----------



## Old Intern

@*JungyesMBTIno* ESFJ's and ESFP's can look almost the same in terms of attitude about other peoples personal evaluations and feelings. A mature Fe user will however, see the silliness of addressing anyone's feelings, or likes and dislikes as being anything other than something that is whatever it is, and has a right to be that. Your feelings or preferences are yours and factual as such. An Fe user does not have to agree with you to like you. By Jung's own definition Fi users need to not only approve of someone but they need to agree, or be in the same boat somehow in order to have what they value as empathy. This is occasionally annoying if the Fe believes someone is not being honest with themselves. If the Fe thinks someone has a bias based on how they were raised, that is fine if the Fi doesn't seem to be making it about something else, for example.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Old Intern said:


> @*JungyesMBTIno* ESFJ's and ESFP's can look almost the same in terms of attitude about other peoples personal evaluations and feelings. A mature Fe user will however, see the silliness of addressing anyone's feelings, or likes and dislikes as being anything other than something that is whatever it is, and has a right to be that. Your feelings or preferences are yours and factual as such. An Fe user does not have to agree with you to like you. By Jung's own definition Fi users need to not only approve of someone but they need to agree, or be in the same boat somehow in order to have what they value as empathy. This is occasionally annoying if the Fe believes someone is not being honest with themselves. If the Fe thinks someone has a bias based on how they were raised, that is fine if the Fi doesn't seem to be making it about something else, for example.


I never said that all feelings aren't personal. It's just that Fi gets rationalized in a way that has no consideration for outer circumstances and outer knowledge that makes it come off this way (I was using this term in a loose adjectival way). Moral values really have nothing to do with the feeling functions - they deal with the rationalization of the entire ego (perhaps through the feeling function as a filter, or maybe not). I'm not debating this, I'm stating the facts. It's not really that big a deal, it's just a phenomenon that you might see IRL.


----------



## Old Intern

Being an NI-Te user, you may not have this conflict, but many Fi users believe Fi as a guiding light of right and wrong. Fe's don't have a problem with Fi on the wide scope you seem to believe them to. It's when an individual's Fi values, are assumed to be obvious or righteous that Fe's will get a fed-up righteousness about it, directed back at the Fi. For example, there are many things I don't mind doing whatever way simply because someone else prefers something to be a certain way. Someone getting righteous on me with their list of shoulds, however, will piss me off.

I'm only saying these things because you seem a little less than open about who Fe doms are. You may disregard this, but Jung's observations will be a little skewed in the literalness of the importance of social protocol just because he was living in a time when class identity and other social context issues were so noticeable. -and maybe even life or death.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Old Intern said:


> Being an NI-Te user, you may not have this conflict, but many Fi users believe Fi as a guiding light of right and wrong. Fe's don't have a problem with Fi on the wide scope you seem to believe them to. It's when an individual's Fi values, are assumed to be obvious or righteous that Fe's will get a fed-up righteousness about it, directed back at the Fi. For example, there are many things I don't mind doing whatever way simply because someone else prefers something to be a certain way. Someone getting righteous on me with their list of shoulds, however, will piss me off.
> 
> I'm only saying these things because you seem a little less than open about who Fe doms are. You may disregard this, but Jung's observations will be a little skewed in the literalness of the importance of social protocol just because he was living in a time when class identity and other social context issues were so noticeable. -and maybe even life or death.


My type has nothing to do with how I understand anything (it doesn't, period - you're operating on the wrong conceptions of type here entirely, whether you realize it or not). You're reading so much into this that you've completely created a context of your own to go by for what I'm saying, even though it's unrelated.


----------



## mimesis

Old Intern said:


> Being an NI-Te user, you may not have this conflict, but many Fi users believe Fi as a guiding light of right and wrong. Fe's don't have a problem with Fi on the wide scope you seem to believe them to. It's when an individual's Fi values, are assumed to be obvious or righteous that Fe's will get a fed-up righteousness about it, directed back at the Fi. For example, there are many things I don't mind doing whatever way simply because someone else prefers something to be a certain way. Someone getting righteous on me with their list of shoulds, however, will piss me off.
> 
> I'm only saying these things because you seem a little less than open about who Fe doms are. You may disregard this, but Jung's observations will be a little skewed in the literalness of the importance of social protocol just because he was living in a time when class identity and other social context issues were so noticeable. -and maybe even life or death.


I can see what you refer to. Although, see @_Teybo_'s defense 'I wasn't wrong because everybody here does it'. It wasn't about that in particular, but the way of arguing with 'overwhelming' evidence (extensity). Is it good _because_ everyone does it?

I've lived with a Fe-dom for quite a few years, and often when we had discussion I would ask her 'why do you think that is good?' And it was often difficult to answer. I mean something like a framework of motivations and arguments. It just was. Or people may apply 'double standards', as 'objective' standards are not always in line with one another, so you can cherrypick whatever suits you, whenever it suits you, whatever the environment requires. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit just like you.


----------



## Old Intern

*JungyesMBTIno* I'm going by a cumulative effect of what I've noticed in your posts, (in that regard reading into things) and of course I could be wrong. I'm mixing two things at once I suppose. Not putting your opinions on any or everyone of your type, but listening to things you have said and they trying to see it through what I understand so far of Ni-Te.


----------



## Teybo

mimesis said:


> I can see what you refer to. Although, see @_Teybo_'s defense 'I wasn't wrong because everybody here does it'. It wasn't about that in particular, but the way of arguing with 'overwhelming' evidence (extensity). Is it good _because_ everyone does it?


Well, if it wasn't clear before that you didn't get what I was saying, it's clear now.  

I would ask why you turned (and are still turning) what I said into value judgments, but I think I can figure that one out on my own.


----------



## mimesis

Teybo said:


> Well, if it wasn't clear before that you didn't get what I was saying, it's clear now.
> 
> I would ask why you turned (and are still turning) what I said into value judgments, but I think I can figure that one out on my own.


Fair enough, but it was your defense for what you projected (Ni), to be the 'factual' basis of the _value judgement made_. (factual, I assume based on your extensive defensive response, where you could have saved yourself a lot of energy and excitement by checking your assumptions). 



> "If you feel disparaged or written off, that's not because I'm disparaging you or writing you off. If you feel mis-represented, please, by all means, speak up. But do not accuse me of ill intent where none exists."


We know now that that (subjective/objective cognitive introversion/extraversion) wasn't the issue. It seemed you were projecting all kinds of petty emotions and personal motivations to the ones who objected to your description/understanding. 

So, what is said earlier about Fi (not seeing personal views as subjective but objective (universal)), can just as well be said about Ti judgement, and Ni and Si projection. That it may be unaware of subjective bias.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Old Intern said:


> Being an NI-Te user, you may not have this conflict, but many Fi users believe Fi as a guiding light of right and wrong. Fe's don't have a problem with Fi on the wide scope you seem to believe them to. It's when an individual's Fi values, are assumed to be obvious or righteous that Fe's will get a fed-up righteousness about it, directed back at the Fi. For example, there are many things I don't mind doing whatever way simply because someone else prefers something to be a certain way. Someone getting righteous on me with their list of shoulds, however, will piss me off.
> 
> I'm only saying these things because you seem a little less than open about who Fe doms are. You may disregard this, but Jung's observations will be a little skewed in the literalness of the importance of social protocol just because he was living in a time when class identity and other social context issues were so noticeable. -and maybe even life or death.


It is true that A Fi dom will not value Fe, however subconsciously they will be using it and relying on Fe when needed. It is something a Fi dom for example will find much easier then using Te, Ti.

Fi doms score high on Fe and the reverse is also true, because they can use both to a similar degree, just that they ignore Fe if they can. The reverse is as always true for Fe doms, they ignore Fi if they can, but subconsciously they are equally adept at using it. Fe doms can have internal values like a Fi dom, but they tend to ignore these in favor of Fe when interacting with the world. This doesn't mean it happens all the time.

In simpler terms Fi doms don't go around shoving their values down other people's throats, rejecting anyone who is different from themselves and Fe doms are not sheep without any internal values  hell bent on imposing external value sets. For what purpose the specific person uses their function and what specific values they have is not defined by them valuing Fi or Fe.

*To provide a clear picture:*

1. A preference for F means a preference for both Fi & Fe
2. If you value Fi (fi dom) then you automatically don't value Fe.
3. Since you have a preference for both, Fi will be the conscious and Fe the subconscious (shadow) preferred function 
4. If you are adept at using F, then you are adept at using both functions, there is such a thing as a low functioning Fi dom imo, where the person in question has Fi as their primary function and finds it comforting, but sucks at using it properly or the environment forces her/him to rely on other valued functions....or worse.

ISFP = Fi Se Ni Te - *Fe Si Ne Ti* <==the ESFJ shadow.


----------



## Teybo

mimesis said:


> Fair enough, but it was your defense for what you projected (Ni), to be the 'factual' basis of the _value judgement made_. (factual, I assume based on your extensive defensive response, where you could have saved yourself a lot of energy and excitement by checking your assumptions).
> 
> 
> 
> We know now that that (subjective/objective cognitive introversion/extraversion) wasn't the issue. It seemed you were projecting all kinds of petty emotions and personal motivations to the ones who objected to your description/understanding.
> 
> So, what is said earlier about Fi (not seeing personal views as subjective but objective (universal)), can just as well be said about Ti judgement, and Ni and Si projection. That it may be unaware of subjective bias.


Ok, I know I should just let this go, but at the same time, part of me thinks that this failure to see eye-to-eye is a great example of how differences in type can lead to communication breakdowns, and I think that's worth exploring as a meta topic.

Let me go back and quote what started the whole hubbub:



OrangeAppled said:


> IMO, it's a bit disparaging to say Fi is subjective, personal valuation & Fe is objective & based on evidence (as one poster did). I'm not surprised it's a Fe type to say this. Those who don't use Fi tend to write it off as not very creditable, even if that's not their intent. They also tend to see it from a Je perspective - assigning value categories to things one comes across in life. If that were the case, then Fi would be very infantile, because we'd just go around "I like this, not that!". *But Ji is about defining more than assigning. *


Let's zoom in on the first sentence:



> IMO, it's a bit disparaging to say Fi is subjective, personal valuation & Fe is objective & based on evidence (as one poster did).


In this sentence, OrangeAppled confused my description of Fi as subjective and Fe as objective as a value judgment (i.e., Fe treats observable things as evidence for value, so it must be better than Fi). No where in my post did I write that Fe was better than Fi, _nor did I ever imply it_. Subjective/Objective and Introverted/Extraverted was _*precisely*_ the issue, because OrangeAppled interpreted the words incorrectly as a values judgment (F) rather than a relational explanation (T).

Despite my efforts to explain that what I wrote contained no values judgments one way or the other, OrangeAppled persisted to project her insecurities onto my words, even as her posts continued to affirm my relational explanation:



OrangeAppled said:


> No one is saying Fi is NOT "sourced from within". It's an attitude of there being "evidence" to support Fe _because_ it's objective, with _implication_ there is no evidence to support Fi _because_ it's subjective. You don't see how this is invalidating, even if unintentional?


Now, a separate issue is whether my post represented the internal process within an Fi-dominant, specifically within an INFP. I've said before and I'll say again, I welcome critiques, explanations, and refinements of my personal take on type. I'm not an Fi-dominant, and I'm not even an F-dominant, so please, tell me what it's like to be an Fi-dominant. I'd love to learn.

Still, the adequacy of my relational explanation of the function-attitudes is a separate issue than the issue above about my making a value judgment regarding Fe/Fi. You and OrangeAppled have thoroughly confused the two issues.


----------



## mimesis

Teybo said:


> Ok, I know I should just let this go, but at the same time, part of me thinks that this failure to see eye-to-eye is a great example of how differences in type can lead to communication breakdowns, and I think that's worth exploring as a meta topic.


Apparently you still have no clue what Fi is about. And again, your Ni is assuming things that aren't said. You keep pushing so much on insecurities, why do you do that? Why do you need such ad hominem arguments? Is this intimidation?


----------



## Teybo

mimesis said:


> Apparently you still have no clue what Fi is about.


That's not the point.



> And again, your Ni is assuming things that aren't said.


No, I provided quotes as evidence.



> You keep pushing so much on insecurities, why do you do that? Why do you need such ad hominem arguments? Is this intimidation?


*facepalm* Maybe @_OrangeAppled_ isn't insecure. That's not really the point. The point is that she made incorrect assumptions and confused a relational discussion with a values discussion. I can only do so much to put the quotes right in front of your face.

Apparently, because I made an observation that OrangeAppled misread my post and then conjectured about why she may have done that, you seem to now be framing this whole discussion as one about the "true" internal state and motives of OrangeAppled and yourself, rather than the issue that started the discussion, which was OrangeAppled's incorrect assumptions about what I wrote. If that doesn't represent Fi/Fe miscommunication, I don't know what does.


----------



## mimesis

Teybo said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I provided quotes as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> *facepalm* Stop taking everything so personally.



Haha, you call the other 'insecure' and that's not to be taken personally? 

Just so you know, disparaging is a eufimism of something I would say in less gentle terms. @_OrangeAppled_ has more style than me. 

Don't mistake that as being 'evident' for insecurity.


----------



## Teybo

mimesis said:


> Haha, you call the other 'insecure' and that's not to be taken personally?
> 
> Just so you know, disparaging is a eufimism of something I would say in less gentle terms. @_OrangeAppled_ has more style than me.
> Don't mistake that as being 'evident' for insecurity.


You can lead a horse to water...


----------



## Aquarian

And so it goes when INFJs and INFPs get into it. The energy raised begins to create a negative feedback loop, everyone digs in stubbornly and there's that inexorable clashing feeling.

*sigh* So very glad I'm only skimming this thread now!


----------



## mimesis

Teybo said:


> You can lead a horse to water...


And that's why I don't bother much about your misconceptions. It's interesting though, to the extend that even a misconception can be informative. It says more about you. Like someone who sees in that word a sign of weakness, and immediately jumps on it, what does this say about his courage and confidence? Of course, this is subjective conjecture  But still.


----------



## Recede

Vanishing Point said:


> Lol ...I just wanted to state as a end verse to my huge ramble that Ni-doms really really don't like it when people say "Nothing's going on besides the obviously observable. You're being paranoid. Reading too much into it etc."


Actually I'm usually the one saying this. But since it might not be the same type of context you were referring to, I should give an example.

Mom: "My editor said he was going to look at my chapter and he still hasn't done it yet. This is the same thing that happened last time and that's why I tried a different editor before...Maybe he doesn't like my book and is reconsidering working with me."

Me: "But you just said he's done that before. There's no reason to assume he's changed his mind about your book. Maybe he's just busy."

I don't think it makes sense to assume something when things are ambiguous. We have to be careful to make a distinction between what's there objectively and what we're adding or projecting with our minds. That doesn't mean we can't speculate, but I think it's important to keep in mind that speculation is merely speculation. It doesn't necessarily reflect any form of truth. 

Another thing is that I've noticed often people assume all sorts of things about what I think from what I've said in my posts. And then I have to tell these people not to read too deeply into my words. Nothing was being implied. I meant nothing more than what was actually said. And just because I didn't mention something in my post doesn't necessarily mean I don't know about that either.


----------



## Vanishing Point

Silveresque said:


> Actually I'm usually the one saying this. But since it might not be the same type of context you were referring to, I should give an example.
> 
> Mom: "My editor said he was going to look at my chapter and he still hasn't done it yet. This is the same thing that happened last time and that's why I tried a different editor before...Maybe he doesn't like my book and is reconsidering working with me."
> 
> Me: "But you just said he's done that before. There's no reason to assume he's changed his mind about your book. Maybe he's just busy."
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to assume something when things are ambiguous. We have to be careful to make a distinction between what's there objectively and what we're adding or projecting with our minds. That doesn't mean we can't speculate, but I think it's important to keep in mind that speculation is merely speculation. It doesn't necessarily reflect any form of truth.
> 
> Another thing is that I've noticed often people assume all sorts of things about what I think from what I've said in my posts. And then I have to tell these people not to read too deeply into my words. Nothing was being implied. I meant nothing more than what was actually said. And just because I didn't mention something in my post doesn't necessarily mean I don't know about that either.


Yes. Depends on the context, because now that you mention it I actually do tell people not to speculate too... So in effect my official opinion is there's usually more to things than seems to be, but one should avoid speculation and jumping into conclusions, unless they are me, because my conclusions tend to be right, unlike theirs which tend to be off and only cause them anxiety, so as it stands I will very acutely and astutely observe the real unseen motives where as others shouldn't because let's face it, they stink at it, and ....I'll just get my coat. XD
(Exit stage right)


----------



## Old Intern

@*Abraxas* most of the posts on PerC involve more than one function by the time the writer is finished. I understand your point about one thing being conscious and therefore everything else is not being consciously used at that instant.

Not trying to harass you or anything but you do see how in the post you just did you are logical but also Fe motivated. You look at the back and forth here and it makes you feel frustrated. You also know the effort you have made to explain things to people, Ti, using Jung as a reference but still offering your own effort to explain, I think would be still Ti and not Te? But Fe is here too.

I'm imagining that comments about pairing were made at least partly in response to thoughts I was party to.


----------



## Entropic

@_Old Intern_ i think you should be careful ascribing that on people, especially when I reading what happened in this thread I just kind of share @_Abraxas_' sentiments of wanting to facepalm through time and space.

Communication problems don't just occur because of different perceiving and judging functions.


----------



## Old Intern

ascribing what? . . . . facepalm?

I was defending or supporting that people use functions mixed together in pairs. Not exactly at the same time but definately in the same posts. That was all.


----------



## Abraxas

Old Intern said:


> Not trying to harass you or anything but you do see how in the post you just did you are logical but also Fe motivated. You look at the back and forth here and it makes you feel frustrated. You also know the effort you have made to explain things to people, Ti, using Jung as a reference but still offering your own effort to explain, I think would be still Ti and not Te? But Fe is here too.



It doesn't matter.

What matters is what the CLIENT is conscious of, in this case, me.

It makes me feel frustrated due to _hereditary biases in my feelings themselves_. I'm not relating to anyone - I'm _subjectively experiencing my own emotional reactions to the stimulus in front of me._

_*THAT IS INTROVERTED.*_

How you perceive it is completely irrelevant. If I tell you that I made a choice because I saw it as being a matter of fact, and I give you reasons such as to provide empirical reality itself as my excuse - if I do that, then I am giving an extraverted opinion - and that MEANS my consciousness of the function I am using to do it with is _extraverted._

But nowhere, not even once in my post, did I ever do that.

Not once do I stop and try to provide any kind of an EXTRAVERTED FEELING JUDGMENT to justify anything I had to say.

So no dude, you really haven't grasped any of this theory yet, and what's worse is that you _so totally think you have_ - which sucks, because I personally can relate to that kind of hubris. I've been about as passionately convinced of my own viewpoints in the past as you seem to be right now, even passionately defended them.

Well, good luck with all that. I'll be waiting on the other side when you come to your senses and start taking this stuff seriously.


----------



## Entropic

Old Intern said:


> ascribing what? . . . . facepalm?
> 
> I was defending or supporting that people use functions mixed together in pairs. Not exactly at the same time but definately in the same posts. That was all.


I was referring to that you were reading motives in Abraxas' post that I opine weren't necessarily there. I think Abraxas cares more about how the data and facts are presented in this thread and whether that's correct or not than whether people agree or disagree...


----------



## Old Intern

It was extroverted feeling judgement for you to care about writing the post. We can all see it, if we are willing to admit what we see.
Not about caring if people agree with you, simply the difference between an intellectual curiosity and caring communication.

Jeeze you should be insulted by that?


----------



## Antipode

Vanishing Point said:


> but one should avoid speculation and jumping into conclusions, unless they are me, because my conclusions tend to be right, unlike theirs which tend to be off and only cause them anxiety,


Hahaha. I love it. roud:


----------



## Abraxas

Old Intern said:


> It was extroverted feeling judgement for you to care about writing the post. We can all see it, if we are willing to admit what we see.
> Not about caring if people agree with you, simply the difference between an intellectual curiosity and caring communication.
> 
> Jeeze you should be insulted by that?


Now I'm wondering if you are just trolling or what.

I _just flat out said to your face_ that I don't, and DID NOT give a flying fuck about anyone's feelings when I wrote my post, I just wrote it because _*I*_ felt like it, and that's introverted feeling _by definition._

Furthermore, what do you even mean "we can all see it"?

What are you on about?

What do you think, that just because someone cares about anything they perceive in their external environment that they are thus showing extraverted feeling? Because that's what it sounds like you seem to believe, and if that's the case, well _*stop right there criminal scum*_ - that's not how it works at all.


----------



## Old Intern

Ti doesn't get this defensive


----------



## Antipode

Old Intern said:


> Ti doesn't get this defensive


I got to say, neither function gets defensive. A function is like an imaginary number--it can't physically be seen, nor adequately used to describe someone. It is merely there to help people categorize the way they operate. While I don't agree any function works entirely alone, since you are a personality, which is a group of functions working together, I can say one can focus more heavily on characteristics that fall into one function over the other.


----------



## Recede

Abraxas said:


> So no dude, *you really haven't grasped any of this theory yet, and what's worse is that you so totally think you have - which sucks, because I personally can relate to that kind of hubris.* I've been about as passionately convinced of my own viewpoints in the past as you seem to be right now, even passionately defended them.





Old Intern said:


> *It was extroverted feeling judgement for you to care about writing the post. We can all see it, if we are willing to admit what we see.*


Both of these posts seem to contain some kind of projection or assumption stated as if it were fact. Neither of you could possibly have enough insight into the mental processes of the other person to make these assertions. 

Just wanted to point that out, because I see this kind of thing happening a lot, especially in this thread.


----------



## Entropic

Old Intern said:


> It was extroverted feeling judgement for you to care about writing the post. We can all see it, if we are willing to admit what we see.
> Not about caring if people agree with you, simply the difference between an intellectual curiosity and caring communication.
> 
> Jeeze you should be insulted by that?





Old Intern said:


> Ti doesn't get this defensive


That's right. Fi gets defensive like that. 

And I'm not sure if you were referring to me or Abraxas but I don't give two fucks about social harmony in this thread. The reason why I posted my post was because of an introverted feeling judgement of sympathizing with Abraxas and feeling that he was genuinely misunderstood and misrepresented by you.

If there's anyone projecting extroverted feeling here it's you, not the other way around. It kind of furthermore questions your cognitive preferences in my opinion, than it questions what functions Abraxas were using or not using (or me, for the matter). 



@_Silveresque_, could you be less 9 in this thread?


----------



## Old Intern

*Ti can get into a heated discussion. It reads differently when it alternates with Fe insights. If you don't believe that, then you mean to tell me you don't see any difference from the flavor of posts in an INTP dominated thread?*

I don't believe that Fe means desperate for approval or being compliant, maybe this is being read into this? Fe taking into account social context, genuinely believing that people can understand each other and working to that end with clips and not walls of text.Defending and explaining beliefs because they matter or could matter to the people concerned, and not simply to play an intellectual game can be a product of Fe or Fi but this thread has obviously not been a pure logic thread. -why would that be an insult? -certainly don't mean it that way.


----------



## Entropic

Old Intern said:


> *Ti can get into a heated discussion. It reads differently when it alternates with Fe insights. If you don't believe that, then you mean to tell me you don't see any difference from the flavor of posts in an INTP dominated thread?*
> 
> I don't believe that Fe means desperate for approval or being compliant, maybe this is being read into this? Fe taking into account social context, genuinely believing that people can understand each other and working to that end with clips and not walls of text.Defending and explaining beliefs because they matter or could matter to the people concerned, and not simply to play an intellectual game can be a product of Fe or Fi but this thread has obviously not been a pure logic thread. -why would that be an insult? -certainly don't mean it that way.


See, the problem becomes when you try to apply this to why someone else posted something without truly and fully understanding why they posted in the first place. I'm projecting as much on Abraxas as you were on him, but I am at least going to be honest about that as I was, since I clearly laid out that I did what I did out of a sense of sympathy which was driven by an Fi jugdement.

Similarly, Abraxas has mentioned that the reason he posted was because of an Fi judgement of wanting to state his opinion. 

Everything else you wrote is just largely irrelevant. Feel free to believe whatever you want but if a person who possesses great self-awareness like Abraxas does and knows how to relate this back to the theory I think you shouldn't tell him why he was posting or the logic behind that was.

That's pretty arrogant and I very well understand why he took it as an offense. 

Also, Fe and Fi can both be very logical.


----------



## mimesis

Silveresque said:


> I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here.
> 
> Where did that come from? I wasn't even talking about Fi.
> 
> I never implied she would agree with everything.
> 
> Mimesis, I'm very confused by your responses because they don't seem to be directly related to what I've said. I get the sense that you're basing your response on assumptions about what I think, and I can't quite follow what you're trying to get at because that's not what I'm really thinking.


No you're right. I shouldn't debate this with you. Never mind.


----------



## mimesis

Vanishing Point said:


> Yes. I would say I'm personally very sensitive to others' moods and feelings about things. I strive to harmonize and keep things constructive and jovial if possible and nothing's too offensive to me. Sometimes in the moment it's hard to say exactly how I feel about things. I usually need a second to reflect. It's a little different I've noticed with some Fi doms I know. Can't say for the very shy ones because.. well.. you can't see what they're thinking/feeling because it's all going on behind the scenes, but I know some fabulous spunky ISFPs and they'll let you have it if you offend their sensibilities. Lol. I think it's a definite richness to be able to access your values and feelings instantly and directly... like you have a kind of a defined essence in that respect. I personally have a great liking for a few particular ISFPs I know in the punk scene and the way they speak their minds about things regarding politics etc. I think those voices need to be heard. More diplomatic, which is kind of the Fe harmonizing effect, approach can appear wishy washy I suppose to a person whose talent is that direct connection to their value essence, but it's really not. I've got some values I've derived from Ni-Fe. Let's say the fact I'm a feminist. It's Ni-Fe, yes. Fe-Se maybe collective values being observed and what behaviour is "rewarded" but Ni-Ti I think is apt to look beyond that and question it, taking it apart, looking at the fallacies, kind of aiming for that POV sub specie aeternitatis, what have you... THAT is what I see as the Quest for the Holy Grail in my INFJ personality. Yes I'm pliable in social situations. If I think MC5 is crap but I know 99% of my buddies love that band and they go on one of those "Oh MC5 is great, and such an ingenious band..." I won't necessarily feel the need to say "Oh you boring droogies of Rock'N'Roll conformity! They're boring and over rated! Shoo! Go away! Come back when you have better taste!" ...which is what my favorite ISFP does actually. He changes tables. Lol. Bless. ...In any case it's just not a big deal to me. Now let's say someone said something like "Female bands have it easier because they're chicks" I'd tear them a new one and give a very long and rambly lecture about all the hidden structural violence against women in the music industry, the hidden misogynism in our culture and the way women are discouraged from certain things in our society anyway. That and I have plenty of anecdotes from real life too. To me it's important to voice those things to initiate change. So my Ni-Fe values are soundly and firmly rooted in my perception of the mechanisms behind appearances and when I think something is a boil on the collective fabric of our society that spreads it's tendrils into people's position, relationships or skews their sense of self worth I'm going to pop it with what observations I've accrued into the world. I would consider myself a person with values and good intent. If that's not enough then the qualifications for enough are not reasonable. I forgot what my point was at this point. I've got a migraine coming on and I'm very rambly. Sorry.  Anyway... I guess what I'm trying to say is yes it may be a different process how the values are derived but the actual value may well be the same and the action may be the same. Wether one exclaims their like or dislike for something or if one prefers to hop when others hop but is also able to stand their ground when important things are at stake does it matter really? Some Fi doms may have funky values they feel very strongly about that they probably oughtn't if they don't keep their eyes open to the world and some Fe doms need to use their Pi function more keenly to not become drones, but if a person is one of character and integrity it will be reflected in their actions by default. ... Lol. My head's exploding. I give up. I'm rambling. I'm gonna get a bag of frozen peas from the freezer and lie down. :crazy:
> 
> 
> Lol ...I just wanted to state as a end verse to my huge ramble that Ni-doms really really don't like it when people say "Nothing's going on besides the obviously observable. You're being paranoid. Reading too much into it etc." Even if it's TRUE I can safely say 90% of the time something is going on ...people don't want you to discern it because it's a secret motive, something embarrassing, they're not conscious of it, if it would be stated it would need to be corrected which would take time/money/effort/you name it or be too subversive as an idea and rattle their sense of security ...and 100% of the time people will look you in the eye and say it isn't. That's why the remaining 10% of time when there is no agenda I know I'm personally hard to convince otherwise and it's not fair, but the 90% of the time I'm not wrong people will tell me that I'm wrong anyway ...and in 5 years they'll say "I guess it was like you said" It's a pet Ni-dom peeve. You guys have an uncanny ability to access that depth of personal value and authenticity and it may be easy for you Fi doms to discern when some behaviour in another does not come from that place but it's good to remember everyone doesn't have the same gift or process or insight. Fe doms repress that ability to develop another very meaningful gift that brings a whole lot of good into the world, so ...end ramble.  :laughing: Ok... I'm going now. Bye


:laughing: Haha. I like your rambling, and I agree. (Although don't know MC5 that well).


----------



## mimesis

Old Intern said:


> *mimesis,* objective and subjective mean what they mean. Maybe you are too stuck on the idea of the word values? We have a modern use association with the word values that might make it misleading. Fi follows internal standards. But Fi is always paired with Te,(if you believe the 16 type models). Internal standards and external facts, or objectively verified data. Ti creates it's own structure, and connects to the world through social feedback and observation, getting objective verification from social context.
> 
> This is not a good/bad or better/worse thing.


I don't understand what you refer to. I don't imply anything being better or worse. I'm saying there is intrapersonal cognition and interpersonal cognition. There are people who may understand the first, but not much about the second, (or vice versa). Of course it's better when you understand (and are perceptible for) both. Now usually we only perceive (in the sense of giving attention to) what we can understand, else we feel 'overwhelmed' with too much information we cannot process. In response to that we may choose to avoid that (completely physically avoid the situation), or shut ourselves off, and ignore it. So I was talking about a situation of being overwhelmed, or unable to differentiate/process and not able to shut off.


----------



## Dyidia

LeaT said:


> True, but you don't sound very concerned except when you asked your mother to confirm that it existed?


Incidentally, not noticing an object and then becoming concerned about its existence reminds me more of sanity|insanity.

I actually thought your flower example was good, though I wouldn't think of flower color as "bad." From my understanding, it's more like, because I cannot regulate how I experience food/sound/etc., I blow the sensation itself out of proportion, such that normal sensations are experienced as intolerable. 

For example I had experiences growing up where I got really angry and threw a fit just because when I stepped outside to do something there were dogs that encroached on my experience of being outside. A more simple way to put it is that having experiences sometimes irritate me _and I overreact to them because I'm tired of them _(the sensations are blown out of proportion). Not because I'm having a bad day, or because I inherently dislike dogs/people I interact with, but because sensation is not going my way (which from a judging perspective I would say means *the sensations have become bad*). It's kinda like throwing a fit over some minor sound or intrusion because of the impact of the experience itself (and not, for example, an invasion of privacy).

In light of that, it is natural to want to "tune out" sensation, leading to the more tame experience of finally noticing a lightpost or flower pot that's actually been there for months, though this can reflect anyone who is consistently unconscious of sensation.


----------

