# What is F anyway?



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> Murder, from a purely logical point of view can be viewed as a bad thing for society. If we allowed people to just take out somebody just because they wanted to--for any reason--we would have chaos.


And why are we opposed to chaos? Because of emotion and feeling.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> And why are we opposed to chaos? Because of emotion and feeling.


Um no, because if there were chaos, society at any level wouldn't survive. Also, I would bet that you, as an INTJ would be quickly fearing for your life. ;-) Call that emotion, but it is still logical to want to stay alive, and logical for people to want their personal community to stay alive. It's rational... I really don't see why the resistance to that... I suggest that the resistance would be your Fi speaking. ;-)


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> Um no, because if there were chaos, society at any level wouldn't survive. Also, I would bet that you, as an INTJ would be quickly fearing for your life. ;-) Call that emotion, but it is still logical to want to stay alive, and logical for people to want their personal community to stay alive. It's rational... I really don't see why the resistance to that... I suggest that the resistance would be your Fi speaking. ;-)


I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. It is so-called "logical" to want to stay alive because feeling and emotion tell us that "alive" is preferable to "dead." You can loop reasoning into the picture six ways to sunday and it'll still come back to feeling and emotion at its core.

That doesn't mean that reasoning has no value - it absolutely does. But at its core, it always comes back to feeling and emotion.

Anyway, I don't want to oversimplify the point - it's easy to misconstrue if not taken with the larger picture of how the two go together.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. It is so-called "logical" to want to stay alive because feeling and emotion tell us that "alive" is preferable to "dead." You can loop reasoning into the picture six ways to sunday and it'll still come back to feeling and emotion at its core.
> 
> That doesn't mean that reasoning has no value - it absolutely does. But at its core, it always comes back to feeling and emotion.
> 
> Anyway, I don't want to oversimplify the point - it's easy to misconstrue if not taken with the larger picture of how the two go together.


But you are looking at it from a personal perspective. I'm looking at it from a broader, non-personal perspective--at a group level, beyond any personal feelings on the matter. As I said, the closing can come down to personal emotions and feelings, but at a larger level, ignoring all the feelings, etc. chaos cannot be allowed to reign.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> But you are looking at it from a personal perspective. I'm looking at it from a broader, non-personal perspective--at a group level, beyond any personal feelings on the matter. As I said, the closing can come down to personal emotions and feelings, but at a larger level, ignoring all the feelings, etc. chaos cannot be allowed to reign.


That was the whole point though (which you disagreed with in your first response). You can never completely isolate from the origin of these positions, which is based in individual emotion and feeling, and the commonality between multiple individuals' emotion and feeling.

You don't, however, need to isolate completely to find benefit in the language of reasoning. I suspect we are more in agreement than you think.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> That was the whole point though (which you disagreed with in your first response). You can never completely isolate from the origin of these positions, which is based in individual emotion and feeling, and the commonality between multiple individuals' emotion and feeling.
> 
> You don't, however, need to isolate completely to find benefit in the language of reasoning. I suspect we are more in agreement than you think.


My original point was that you implied that the process starts from feeling, but I contended that it doesn't have to start from there... That logic or reason, without emotion, can play a role... that was all.


----------



## Xenograft (Jul 1, 2013)

F is for friends who do stuff together!


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

I like to view them from a rational standpoint. The judging functions are all about systems and structures. Ti and Fi build their own inner systems and Te and Fe rely on traditional, social, or rational functions that exist already. 

The F functions work best with social, personal, and value judgement, and they separate themselves from the forensic, impersonal, and economic worth aspects of a situation, which are all T based.

Fe uses those social, personal and value systems that are traditional or customary. Things like grouping people, social status, and roles for the household. They expect people to stick to their groups and fulfill the roles dictated by tradition and customs. Such as mothers are housewives who cook and clean and fathers work and maintain the functions of the house (it's just an example, not saying all Fe's will do exactly that.) They want people to "stick to the program," and not act out of line. They may even aspire to a higher status by behaving as if they are already there.

Fi users build their own social, personal and value systems. The traditional and customary ways are not always the best. They take from what they have experienced and observed and design their own expectations. They can either adopt the traditions, make an entire new ones, or mix the two. When they see problems with the system it can be adjusted. So if a father can't hold down a job they don't have to stick to the traditional role, but can stay at home. Fi is more likely to live the life they're dealt with, until they actually achieve a higher status.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> My original point was that you implied that the process starts from feeling, but I contended that it doesn't have to start from there... That logic or reason, without emotion, can play a role... that was all.


Interesting conversation. I do think one can form such a moral worldview simply on thinking/logic. But, in the case of humans, feeling/emotion obviously predated rational thought. It is more foundational. And it is kind of built in other animals too. They basically have order/cooperation in their societies too.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Fe uses those social, personal and value systems that are traditional or customary. Things like grouping people, social status, and roles for the household. They expect people to stick to their groups and fulfill the roles dictated by tradition and customs. Such as mothers are housewives who cook and clean and fathers work and maintain the functions of the house (it's just an example, not saying all Fe's will do exactly that.) They want people to "stick to the program," and not act out of line. ...
> 
> Fi users build their own social, personal and value systems. The traditional and customary ways are not always the best. They take from what they have experienced and observed and design their own expectations.


Assuming you subscribe to the functions model that says INFJs are "Fe users," I think you're pretty far off base in suggesting that INFJs are among the types most prone to adopt "value systems that are traditional or customary" and "expect people to ... fulfill the roles dictated by tradition and customs" — like "mothers are housewives who cook and clean."

And FYI, that certainly wasn't Jung's perspective. It's important to keep in mind that Jung's Fe descriptions are descriptions of Fe _as manifested in extraverts_. And it's also worth noting that Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars took the view that an introvert would have both an introverted dominant function _and an introverted auxiliary_, in which case you wouldn't really expect an I_FJ to be an "Fe type" anyway.

In any case, whatever Jung did or didn't think about the orientation of the auxiliary function, he _certainly_ believed that _extraverts generally_ tended to adopt the majority values of their time, while _introverts generally_ tended to be independent minded. In fact, Jung said that the fact that a value was favored by the majority could lead an introvert to reject it just for that reason.

Here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:

[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did _not_ compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.​
So... that's what Jung thought, and that's the main reason the _majority values_ focus was there in his Fe-dom descriptions. To Jung, it was first and foremost an extravert characteristic, rather than an Fe characteristic.

Was Jung right to identify this as predominantly an E/I issue? Well, not exactly, I wouldn't say. All other things being equal, I'd say an introvert is more likely to be independent-minded than an extravert, but I think S vs. N is the biggest factor — and, among the S's, and as I think Keirsey rightly noted, SJs are the most likely to be majoritarian/traditional in their beliefs. But, as a final note, Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "extravert," he was presumably more often looking at what we'd consider an ES than an EN — and, conversely, the cussedly independent/individualistic "introverts" he spotted were presumably more often INs than ISs.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

There is more to feeling than simply values and ethics. Thinkers that follow ethics may do so out of principle or following rules, there may be no _feeling_ of right or wrong, good or bad, etc, associated with that.

Thinking about judgment in these simple kind of ways of logic vs values is great when discussing behaviour, but what about cognition? Feeling also involves paying attention to the connotations or "feeling tones" behind words, ideas, actions, etc.

Here's an excerpt from Jung talking about feeling based ideas: [original thread]



Jung said:


> These characteristics are individual peculiarities which we must not import into our conception of the introverted or extraverted attitude. In a man whose attitude is predominantly reflective, the Apollinian perception of inner images produces an elaboration of the perceived material in accordance with the nature of intellectual thinking. In other words, it produces ideas. In a man whose attitude is predominated by feeling a similar process results: a *"feeling through" of the images and the production of a feeling-toned idea, which may coincide in essentials with an idea produced by thinking. Ideas, therefore, are just as much feelings as thoughts, examples being the idea of the fatherland, freedom, God, immortality, etc.*


I also really like @Neverontime 's response from the same thread:



Neverontime said:


> There are 'feeling tones' attached to almost everything. There's always feeling present in situations. It's attached to words, people, things, body language, facial expressions, tones of voice, etc. My memories are dominated by the feelings I was experiencing at the time. I find it difficult to process anything if it hasn't got any feelings with it.
> I find when working with cold, hard facts, it's like my mind hits a brick wall. I can't get them to form into something that's understandable. I need something I can relate to and connect with.
> When we experience something, the feelings or 'feeling undertones' of the situation get stored in our brain, along with the rest of the information. Feeling can then be used to navigate through ideas.
> 
> That's what I think he's talking about.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> Assuming you subscribe to the functions model that says INFJs are "Fe users," I think you're pretty far off base in suggesting that INFJs are among the types most prone to adopt "value systems that are traditional or customary" and "expect people to ... fulfill the roles dictated by tradition and customs" — like "mothers are housewives who cook and clean."
> 
> And FYI, that certainly wasn't Jung's perspective. It's important to keep in mind that Jung's Fe descriptions are descriptions of Fe _as manifested in extraverts_. And it's also worth noting that Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars took the view that an introvert would have both an introverted dominant function _and an introverted auxiliary_, in which case you wouldn't really expect an I_FJ to be an "Fe type" anyway.
> 
> ...


You can disagree with my description. However, Jung made it known that the extraverted attitude has a focus for tradition. I would add customs to that as well. When an introvert has an extraverted aux they have that extraverted aspects to the function. I find that the word tradition has erroneously been given to Si, when it fits the extraverted functions better, mostly Fe. 

I think it's more likely for an ISFJ to relate to the tradition descriptions than ISTJs. Especially since most people define traditions as part of holidays and family customs. As far as INFJs go they would only look different in their perception. So they would focus more on the intangible aspects of tradition and Si would focus more on the tangibles.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> You can disagree with my description. However, Jung made it known that the extraverted attitude has a focus for tradition.


Well, again, there are matters of Jungian interpretation about which reasonable people can disagree and there are matters that are clear, and Jung _clearly_ said that he thought that it was _extraverts_ who tended to adopt majority values and _introverts_ who tended to reject majority values. And it's also clear that, to Jung, introverts included everybody with a dominant introverted function.

So... regardless of what attitude you think Jung assigned to the _auxiliary_ function, it's clear Jung would have expected an Ni-dom with an F-aux — along with all the rest of the introverts — to be somebody more inclined to favor their own independent values than to follow the herd.

And again, I'm not endorsing that perspective, just pointing out that the majoritarian-values streak in Jung's Fe-dom description was there because the Fe-dom is an _extravert_, and I definitely think carrying that streak over to an INFJ because of the (non-Jungian) Ni-Fe-Ti-Se functions model is a mistake.

Setting aside what Jung did or didn't think, _real world INFJs_ are _not_ among those prone to, as you put it, "expect people to stick to their groups and fulfill the roles dictated by tradition and customs. Such as mothers are housewives who cook and clean." Instead, I'd say you're more likely to find a disproportionate number of INFJs actively involved in progressive social movements (like women's lib, gay rights, etc.) that seek to change rules "dictated by tradition and customs" that the more independent-minded INFJs believe are wrong.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

pianodog said:


> Now I'm just confused?
> 
> I understand that feeling is what compels me, an ENFP and others do make a decision based on what I wanna do, what I feel like doing at the moment, how it affects others ect... But what I don't get it how it plays in making decisions that are deeper then just saying "I don't feel like doing this" there is a process there that takes a bit of time just as thinking does, or am I wrong?
> 
> If F just a process of weighing values and morals?


Why do you want someone to tell you what to do? There are plenty of thought-provoking explanations here. You're gonna get nowhere if you ask this crowd what the correct opinion is in search of a definition.

...and I just realized you were trying to steer the thread. My bad.


----------



## pianodog (Jan 25, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> You can disagree with my description. However, Jung made it known that the extraverted attitude has a focus for tradition. I would add customs to that as well. When an introvert has an extraverted aux they have that extraverted aspects to the function. I find that the word tradition has erroneously been given to Si, when it fits the extraverted functions better, mostly Fe.
> 
> I think it's more likely for an ISFJ to relate to the tradition descriptions than ISTJs. Especially since most people define traditions as part of holidays and family customs. As far as INFJs go they would only look different in their perception. So they would focus more on the intangible aspects of tradition and Si would focus more on the tangibles.


So Jung thought that extraverts were more traditional and liked global customs? Or did he mean extraverted functions? That generally makes no sense either way. If you talk about F then sure, but extraverted aspects being traditional would apply mainly to judging functions not perceiving ones. 

Fe - Like them
Fi - Like me 

But I'm starting to get what F is now, combined with intuition, Fi can be a powerful way to invent concepts and pick appropriate ones in order to flesh out a scene in a book or a movie. If also could be helpful in understanding psychology which I believe that a good psychologist should be able to understand within themselves what their theories are to some degree of some aspect.

Not only that but I heard others say that F tends to be very fast where as T is slower, or may'be it depends on Te vs Ti. F can make decisions, I believe that Fi is actually the "gut feeling" or what is commonly known outside of psychology as intuition. In type, Ne and Ni have nothing to do with gut feeling right? They are perceiving functions not judging ones.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> Well, again, there are matters of Jungian interpretation about which reasonable people can disagree and there are matters that are clear, and Jung _clearly_ said that he thought that it was _extraverts_ who tended to adopt majority values and _introverts_ who tended to reject majority values. And it's also clear that, to Jung, introverts included everybody with a dominant introverted function.


Of course that would still mean tradition is an erroneous characteristic of Si. It would mean all the extravert doms are the ones who would be more inclined to adhere to tradition. I think extraverts in general will accept objective input more at face value and won't argue against traditions and customs, even if they don't care one way or the other. 

Based on the extraverts I know, I see that as somewhat true. However, the top Fe users are the ones who cling to what they consider traditions more.



> So... regardless of what attitude you think Jung assigned to the _auxiliary_ function,


I don't think Jung made it that far in his research. Like you've pointed out, he focused on introvert and extravert. I have applied his observations of the extravert characteristic to the Fe function. I don't think it's that big of a stretch. Nor do I think the basics of a function change in different positions. 



> it's clear Jung would have expected an Ni-dom with an F-aux — along with all the rest of the introverts — to be somebody more inclined to favor their own independent values than to follow the herd.


I'm not inclined to think the perception functions take on the judging aspects of a function. We all have either Fi or Fe for a reason, they fulfill the value portion for people. I see Ni and Si as more often to favor what they perceive and don't want other people to contradict them, in that part they are independent. 



> And again, I'm not endorsing that perspective, just pointing out that the majoritarian-values streak in Jung's Fe-dom description was there because the Fe-dom is an _extravert_, and I definitely think carrying that streak over to an INFJ because of the (non-Jungian) Ni-Fe-Ti-Se functions model is a mistake.


I don't agree. I think it's a mistake to ignore it or apply it to the wrong functions. 



> Setting aside what Jung did or didn't think, _real world INFJs_ are _not_ among those prone to, as you put it, "expect people to stick to their groups and fulfill the roles dictated by tradition and customs. Such as mothers are housewives who cook and clean." Instead, I'd say you're more likely to find a disproportionate number of INFJs actively involved in progressive social movements (like women's lib, gay rights, etc.) that seek to change rules "dictated by tradition and customs" that the more independent-minded INFJs believe are wrong.


Those all fit with my original statement about Fe. That group alignment and social status. Accepting new traditions to stay inline with the public. Traditions doesn't have to imply old traditions. I'd think Fi users are the early motivation for those movements because they are independent value judgers. Once it becomes the new normal, Fe users take over and make it social tradition and values.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

pianodog said:


> So Jung thought that extraverts were more traditional and liked global customs? Or did he mean extraverted functions? That generally makes no sense either way. If you talk about F then sure, but extraverted aspects being traditional would apply mainly to judging functions not perceiving ones.
> 
> Fe - Like them
> Fi - Like me


He did apply tradition to extraverts in a general way. I can see it, in that the outside objective world guides extraverts. What is acceptable from outside is more easily acceptable to the extravert. I think its a method to be exposed to the objective world more often.

That said, I also think Fe is the main motivator for old or new value traditions. 



> But I'm starting to get what F is now, combined with intuition, Fi can be a powerful way to invent concepts and pick appropriate ones in order to flesh out a scene in a book or a movie. If also could be helpful in understanding psychology which I believe that a good psychologist should be able to understand within themselves what their theories are to some degree of some aspect.
> 
> Not only that but I heard others say that F tends to be very fast where as T is slower, or may'be it depends on Te vs Ti. F can make decisions, I believe that Fi is actually the "gut feeling" or what is commonly known outside of psychology as intuition. In type, Ne and Ni have nothing to do with gut feeling right? They are perceiving functions not judging ones.


I'm not sure if I agree with all that. Though, I will say a "gut feeling," is a relative term that isn't specific to any one function.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Of course that would still mean tradition is an erroneous characteristic of Si. It would mean all the extravert doms are the ones who would be more inclined to adhere to tradition. I think extraverts in general will accept objective input more at face value and won't argue against traditions and customs, even if they don't care one way or the other.
> 
> Based on the extraverts I know, I see that as somewhat true. However, the top Fe users are the ones who cling to what they consider traditions more.
> 
> ...


That's like saying new thought starts with Ti, and then Te takes over. That new ideas come from Ti.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That's like saying new thought starts with Ti, and then Te takes over. That new ideas come from Ti.


Thoughts aren't T based, everyone has them obviously. Though structures and systems are. Ti builds the structures and Te uses them. That is exactly how I've seen the differences between the two.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

pianodog said:


> Not only that but I heard others say that F tends to be very fast where as T is slower, or may'be it depends on Te vs Ti. F can make decisions, I believe that Fi is actually the "gut feeling" or what is commonly known outside of psychology as intuition. In type, Ne and Ni have nothing to do with gut feeling right? They are perceiving functions not judging ones.


You know, this is a tougher question than it sounds for me because I use both Ni and Fi. But even with that in mind, I wouldn't really call my intuitions "gut feelings" - more like "flashes of insight" - so you're probably on the right track.

For the sake of clarity, can you elaborate on what you consider a "gut feeling" to be?


----------

