# Fe and Fi: When the Emotional Palettes Collide



## marzipan01

When Fi runs up against Fe, it is usually very emotional, messy, and painful. This is because we are running against each other's value system and it feels like if one of us is right the other is completely wrong. If I am wrong (thinks Fi user) then my entire life is meaningless. If I am wrong (thinks Fe user) then I am alone. 

Fi (empathy) and Fe (sympathy) are: Two value systems; Two emotional palettes.
Fe says: Social norms; Ethics of the Group (we do what is in the best interest of "us"); Happy, Sad, Sorrow, Loss, Joy...etc. 
Fe is: what "I" want and what "We" want. Fe is social adhesive that binds one person to another. Fe is a feeling of "connection" to another person or group. 
Fi on the other hand is like a sink for all the Fe. Fi tells you: What "they" want. Fi, in this way, isolates the individual from the group. Fi separates the individual from other people.
Fi says: Good, evil, bad; global ethics (we do what is in the best interest of everyone); Guilt, Remorse, Redemption, Forgiveness...etc. 

So when an Fe user cries, it's a feeling of loss, deprivation, wanting and not having, losing "connection" with someone/some group.
When an Fi user cries, it's usually because we feel guilty (we "hurt" someone in some small way).

Fe aligns it's feelings to others. If someone is crying, the Fe user feels the sorrow, loss, or sadness. If someone is happy, the Fe user also feels happy. Fe users often speak about their ability to align their emotions to others, sensing the vibes of a room, or people being toxic. Someone being toxic means that the person's emotions are negative and the Fe user has difficulty turning the negativity off. Fe users wear their hearts on their sleeves in this way.

Fi separates from the other person's emotions while still listening. Fi users imagine how they would find themselves in that situation and try to give help to ameliorate the problem. Fi users are more likely to see someone crying and to assume the person is "sorry" (i.e. feels guilt); however, many times an Fe user cries because of loss of connection to another person which is a punishment for doing "bad" and in this way allows an Fe user to learn to be "good" if only "good" for their social group to which they have felt connection. 

Fi works more analytically by taking Fe through an emotional processing system. So, if I feel sad about losing something, I have to ask myself: "Why do I feel this way?" And then I have to go further and say, "By losing this, has someone else gained? Did I do the "right" thing?" If I have done the "right" thing, my loss has meaning and I am given the gift of "hope" with is an Fi emotion that compensates for the feeling of loss. 

To an Fe user, hope is less conscious. So, when an Fe user loses something or feels sadness, the reaction is to do anything to re-establish the connection. While Fe users grow to appreciate the beauty in sadness, in truth, the only beauty in it is as a drive toward connecting (i.e. realizing the importance of connection with the person or group.) 
So an Fe user after losing connection with a person will say: "I loved them so much." And the sadness shows them how much they had and teaches them to value that feeling of joy and bliss in the connection.
When an Fi user is asked to behave using only Fe, Fi becomes repressed and personifies itself in guilt. An Fi user will feel self-loathing for being "bad" or "self-absorbed." And thus, the Fi user will have great difficulty being "happy" just going along with the group without question.

So when an Fi user demands an Fe user to cultivate Fi, the Fe user feels loneliness and isolation leading the Fe user to seek that connection again by saying the Fi user is bad and wrong and doesn't the group agree? 
Similarly, when the Fe user demands the Fi user to stop at Fe, the Fi user feels wrong, immoral, guilty, self-absorbed and disgusting (loneliness in the universe, a meaningless existence). And thus, the Fi user re-connects with their feelings of meaning and purpose by deeming "the group" mentality to be wrong and evil--thus, "the relationship is toxic" or "what a bunch of NAZIs" etc. 

Nobody likes to be called a NAZI for having social cohesion. 
Nobody likes to be shunned by the group for having a different perspective. 
Thus, it's very painful for both parties when Fi and Fe collide.


----------



## Up and Away

As my ex Fe used to say, when I disapprove I show it, which can be good or bad, and like I told her from my Fi perspective, she is willing to tell a lie to be agreeable, which can be good or bad.

Good stuff. It can be worked through is Fi approves of the groups the Fe user looks to I think.


----------



## Istbkleta

This is *very* interesting.

I've been thinking for some time now. This forum does not offer the opportunity to construct a scientifically sound qualitative study, using codes and deriving constructs. Respondents would be wary of expressing politically incorrect views, which everybody will see.

It would be interesting to see the subjective feelings of Fi about Fe and vice versa. 

selfish vs dogmatic ?

lying vs lying ? (which might be interesting of both feel they are the telling the truth and the other one is lying).

Now if there was a way to get that study done ... only if there was a way.

Thank you for the great post. Are you currently working on Fe and Fi only?


----------



## Invidia

This explains a lot about the dynamic in relationships I have with some Fe users in my life. Very well put and in a manner that is easy to understand. Good work


----------



## marzipan01

Istbkleta said:


> This is *very* interesting.
> 
> I've been thinking for some time now. This forum does not offer the opportunity to construct a scientifically sound qualitative study, using codes and deriving constructs. Respondents would be wary of expressing politically incorrect views, which everybody will see.
> 
> It would be interesting to see the subjective feelings of Fi about Fe and vice versa.
> 
> selfish vs dogmatic ?
> 
> lying vs lying ? (which might be interesting of both feel they are the telling the truth and the other one is lying).
> 
> Now if there was a way to get that study done ... only if there was a way.
> 
> Thank you for the great post. Are you currently working on Fe and Fi only?


Well, emotions happen to be the most volatile functions and intimately connected, the biggest source of problems in relationships that lay beneath the surface of any logical argument. 

So this Fi vs. Fe argument happens between ENFPs and ISTPs, ENFJs and ISTJs, ENTP's and ISFPs, and is the source of conflicting relations between those types despite the fact that on the surface only one is a feeler and the other is a thinking type.

Oh, and yes, I do believe this is the source of misunderstandings that have led both parties to believe they were telling the truth when in fact the other perceived them to be lying.


----------



## saffron

marzipan01 said:


> Well, emotions happen to be the most volatile functions and intimately connected, the biggest source of problems in relationships that lay beneath the surface of any logical argument.
> 
> So this Fi vs. Fe argument happens between ENFPs and ISTPs, ENFJs and ISTJs, ENTP's and ISFPs, and is the source of conflicting relations between those types despite the fact that on the surface only one is a feeler and the other is a thinking type.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I do believe this is the source of misunderstandings that have led both parties to believe they were telling the truth when in fact the other perceived them to be lying.


Well said. When I break it down, the Fi vs. Fe dynamic has caused me the most difficulty relationship wise, regardless of the type of relationship.

Fe upset seems to want you to not only identify with the emotion (I can do that), but also agree with their position in the situation. I just can't lie if I disagree with your position or I'll feel like I've abandoned myself and I'm a fake and a liar. I can say nothing on the subject of position, or that everyone sees things differently, and just offer empathy for the hurt, but that often doesn't seem to feed Fe. I really would like to help them to feel better, but I'm not going to become creepy to myself in the process, plus the hesitance or inner conflict just seems obvious and it isn't believable anyways. 

Fi is more judgmental in a principled sort of way which can be irritating I suppose, but it's largely fed internally, so to me, it seems less demanding interpersonally. But then I'm a Fi user. 

At least when I do say, yep, he's seriously an asshole, or what a totally shitty thing to do or you're right... it's because I am completely convinced and not just saying it because it's the thing to say.


----------



## Branden

saffron said:


> Well said. When I break it down, the Fi vs. Fe dynamic has caused me the most difficulty relationship wise, regardless of the type of relationship.
> 
> Fe upset seems to want you to not only identify with the emotion (I can do that), but also agree with their position in the situation. I just can't lie if I disagree with your position or I'll feel like I've abandoned myself and I'm a fake and a liar. I can say nothing on the subject of position, or that everyone sees things differently, and just offer empathy for the hurt, but that often doesn't seem to feed Fe. I really would like to help them to feel better, but I'm not going to become creepy to myself in the process, plus the hesitance or inner conflict just seems obvious and it isn't believable anyways.
> 
> Fi is more judgmental in a principled sort of way which can be irritating I suppose, but it's largely fed internally, so to me, it seems less demanding interpersonally. But then I'm a Fi user.
> 
> At least when I do say, yep, he's seriously an asshole, or what a totally shitty thing to do or you're right... it's because I am completely convinced and not just saying it because it's the thing to say.


Based on OP and what you have said here, I wonder if this same set of frustrations encompasses Te and Ti users, just in logical matter instead of emotions. 

Te wants an objective, agreed upon standard of measurement, whereas Ti operates off internally derived logical principles. 

The reason I mention this is because in your post you said you won't lie about the emotional situations. I feel like I can relate to that in the sense that I will never tell anyone a lie about their situation in a logical sense. I may comfort them emotionally in whatever way is necessary, but I would never be untruthful about the objective facts.


----------



## susurration

> Fi separates the individual from other people


In more ways than one... *sighs*


----------



## marzipan01

Branden said:


> .
> The reason I mention this is because in your post you said you won't lie about the emotional situations. I feel like I can relate to that in the sense that I will never tell anyone a lie about their situation in a logical sense. I may comfort them emotionally in whatever way is necessary,...


See but that's the part that rubs Fi wrong. It's the difference between being (Fe) Nice vs. (Fi) Good.
Let's see what this looks like the Fi user. 
Sally and Jackie are at the roller rink. 
Sally: Hay, Jackie what do you think of my new skates? 
Jackie: Oh, Sally, they are so cute!
Sally: Yay! OMG! 
Everything is great until Hannah comes along. 
Hannah says: Sally, I really like your skates.
Sally: Hey, Thanks. 
Okay, then Hannah and Jackie go off alone. 
Sally comes around the corner and over hears
Hannah: I know she got those new skates (fact) they look awful (emotional pleasing)
Jackie: What was she thinking? 
Hannah and Jackie are using Fe (being nice) to be inconsistent with their emotions but are at least not lying about any facts. 
Will we ever know what Hannah or Jackie actually like? Who knows? Who cares? I don't like to hang out with people like that. I mean I do hang out with them but they're lumped in a category called fair-weather friends.

Fi is emotional fact. And I think Fe users can cultivate it through maturity? Some Fe users don't lie to me to please me, sure, they with hold information but they don't lie.


----------



## Branden

marzipan01 said:


> See but that's the part that rubs Fi wrong. It's the difference between being (Fe) Nice vs. (Fi) Good.
> Let's see what this looks like the Fi user.
> Sally and Jackie are at the roller rink.
> Sally: Hay, Jackie what do you think of my new skates?
> Jackie: Oh, Sally, they are so cute!
> Sally: Yay! OMG!
> Everything is great until Hannah comes along.
> Hannah says: Sally, I really like your skates.
> Sally: Hey, Thanks.
> Okay, then Hannah and Jackie go off alone.
> Sally comes around the corner and over hears
> Hannah: I know she got those new skates (fact) they look awful (emotional pleasing)
> Jackie: What was she thinking?
> Hannah and Jackie are using Fe (being nice) to be inconsistent with their emotions but are at least not lying about any facts.
> Will we ever know what Hannah or Jackie actually like? Who knows? Who cares? I don't like to hang out with people like that. I mean I do hang out with them but they're lumped in a category called fair-weather friends.
> 
> Fi is emotional fact. And I think Fe users can cultivate it through maturity? Some Fe users don't lie to me to please me, sure, they with hold information but they don't lie.


I am not saying I am out of the ordinary or anything, but I feel the same way as you do towards the majority of Fe users. I don't feel like I can trust them for the truth. I suppose it sounds odd coming from an Aux Fe user, but I grew up with an INTJ mom, ISTJ Dad, and ISTJ sister, so there is a streak in me to tell the truth, because they always have. This doesn't stop me from being nice, and to be honest if you are just some random person at a party, I may tell a white lie to avoid conflict, but I absolutely do not lie to my friends or family period.


----------



## babblingbrook

marzipan01 said:


> Fi separates the individual from other people.


As a dominant Fi user and relating to the enneagram type 9 (as I see you do as well) and as I know their basic fear is "of loss and separation". How do these interfere according to you?



> So when an Fe user cries, it's a feeling of loss, deprivation, wanting and not having, losing "connection" with someone/some group.
> When an Fi user cries, it's usually because we feel guilty (we "hurt" someone in some small way).


 For me it's usually if not almost always the first. Continues wondering about the relationship between Fi and enneagram type 9. So much conflict now isn't there?


----------



## snail

I'm an Fi-user who gets distressed by the feeling of disconnection and not being accepted, 
but how I differ from Fe-users who are distressed by these things is that
-I consider the truth of my feelings vital to my sense of self, so I will not assume that the majority determines what is right or good.
-I am very unlikely to lie for social reasons. 
-I do not consider being accepted for going along with things that feel unreal the same as actual acceptance. 
-I cannot be socially fulfilled by conforming in order to get along.
-I believe in an objective morality that is not determined by popular opinion.
-I trust my own sense of what is right more than I trust the feelings of others, which I do not experience directly in order to evaluate.
-I care more about doing and believing what is right than I care about doing and believing what others want or expect.

One of the worst fights I ever had with my INFJ friend in real life was because of his Fe. He wanted me to conform in order to appease his shallow friends, and I felt betrayed because he was taking the wrong side. Instead of standing up to them when they said unfair things about me behind my back, when they were going to exclude me for not looking the way they wanted me to, he decided I was just being stubborn for no reason, and that my refusal to change my appearance for them was some aggressive act against them. He thought I was the one doing something wrong to refuse to change myself in a way that validated an attitude I consider invalid, just because all of his friends were attacking my choice. I almost broke off the friendship because of it, and if he hadn't been there to comfort me after the panic attack that he caused, I would not be his friend now.


----------



## marzipan01

babblingbrook said:


> As a dominant Fi user and relating to the enneagram type 9 (as I see you do as well) and as I know their basic fear is "of loss and separation". How do these interfere according to you?


As a 9w8, I learned to embrace my fear. 
In high school I was very argumentative and rebellious. This might sound very odd but where I went to school all the girls wore dresses all the time and were very soft spoken. I sort of stuck out like a sore thumb. As a result, all the strange, oppressed little INFPs and such sort of flocked to me. I spoke up for them, allowed people to be themselves, etc. 
So, by "disconnecting" from the group, I ended up "re-connecting" by forming my own social group. 
This is what I continue to do today. I find like minded people, they leave their authoritarian oppressors and flock to me where they have the freedom and liberty to say whatever enters into their minds.


----------



## saffron

@Branden I wanted to reply to your other post, but didn't have time at the moment. First of all, this is not hard science. Secondly, I also think that upbringing, intelligence, and life experiences have a lot to do with how we develop our functions (if there really is even such a thing). 

There may be more variations of types than are standardly acknowledged, or certain functions in combination may do a decent job of replicating other functions, (I think I have some strong Ti, am I wrong, is it an anomaly or just Ne Fi Te combining to mimic Ti. I don't know.) 

It's a great tool when used to understand differences and try to communicate as effectively as possible. But don't let it define you or use it to stereotype. People are more complex than a handful of functions.


----------



## Branden

saffron said:


> @Branden I wanted to reply to your other post, but didn't have time at the moment. First of all, this is not hard science. Secondly, I also think that upbringing, intelligence, and life experiences have a lot to do with how we develop our functions (if there really is even such a thing).
> 
> There may be more variations of types than are standardly acknowledged, or certain functions in combination may do a decent job of replicating other functions, (I think I have some strong Ti, am I wrong, is it an anomaly or just Ne Fi Te combining to mimic Ti. I don't know.)
> 
> It's a great tool when used to understand differences and try to communicate as effectively as possible. But don't let it define you or use it to stereotype. People are more complex than a handful of functions.


While I won't disagree with you regarding the possible modifiers that influence individual personalities uniquely, I do in fact believe that there are cognitive pre-configurations in human beings. It's your choice whether or not you believe it is a hard science, but I do.

I won't comment on your use of Ti, because I don't know if you are actually an ENFP. I don't believe type is something we determine for ourselves, but something we are born with, like height and eye color. By no means however do I believe these cognitive functions measure potential. I believe all humans have potential to varying degrees, regardless of type. The idea with the cognitive functions is where your energy comes and doesn't come from.


----------



## saffron

Well the thing about hard science is it can be tested and proven. 

But you're entitled to believe whatever theory you choose to, to whatever extent you choose to.


----------



## marzipan01

saffron said:


> Well the thing about hard science is it can be tested and proven.
> 
> But you're entitled to believe whatever theory you choose to, to whatever extent you choose to.


Not that you asked my opinion but I'm with Branden on the matter. Because so many people seem to point out that personality type "doesn't define" anyone, and this statement was unbearably confusing to me, I started a thread:
http://personalitycafe.com/critical...768-personality-theory-prison-launch-pad.html
So, we can reserve the debate about personality theory's validity for that thread. 

As far as "hard science" is concerned, I redirect you to another thread I started on that very topic: 
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/59788-yourself.html

Now let's get back to the emotional palettes. Thanks, so much!


----------



## marzipan01

snail said:


> I'm an Fi-user who gets distressed by the feeling of disconnection and not being accepted,
> but how I differ from Fe-users who are distressed by these things is that
> -I consider the truth of my feelings vital to my sense of self, so I will not assume that the majority determines what is right or good.
> -I am very unlikely to lie for social reasons.
> -I do not consider being accepted for going along with things that feel unreal the same as actual acceptance.
> -I cannot be socially fulfilled by conforming in order to get along.
> -I believe in an objective morality that is not determined by popular opinion.
> -I trust my own sense of what is right more than I trust the feelings of others, which I do not experience directly in order to evaluate.
> -I care more about doing and believing what is right than I care about doing and believing what others want or expect.
> 
> One of the worst fights I ever had with my INFJ friend in real life was because of his Fe. He wanted me to conform in order to appease his shallow friends, and I felt betrayed because he was taking the wrong side. Instead of standing up to them when they said unfair things about me behind my back, when they were going to exclude me for not looking the way they wanted me to, he decided I was just being stubborn for no reason, and that my refusal to change my appearance for them was some aggressive act against them. He thought I was the one doing something wrong to refuse to change myself in a way that validated an attitude I consider invalid, just because all of his friends were attacking my choice. I almost broke off the friendship because of it, and if he hadn't been there to comfort me after the panic attack that he caused, I would not be his friend now.


I really enjoyed your post and want to thank you for sharing. I think that Fe users grow to develop their sense of personal ethics but it takes time and is very frightening because of their loss of social connection so it's important that they have a group devoted to it. I believe this is exactly the purpose for which churches were formed.  

But, your response leads me to wonder...in today's world what is the solution for building strong emotional value systems? Systems where people can enforce individual ethics and explain to Fi users ways of being polite _and honest_. I often find myself getting into trouble with groups for being impolite or Fe users thinking that I'm attacking them. The reason for this thread was to point out what I think is going on--just by pointing out ethics (Fi) or sharing my feelings (Fi feelings), I may be causing the Fe user to experience a loss of social connection. What is the solution? How do I share with them without making them feel attacked?


----------



## IonOfAeons

This is one of those times where I'm inclined to point to Jung when he stresses the point that 'all other functions are subservient to the dominant'. My use of Fe is always to serve Ni, I am not always nice just so I can get along with people, because that feels like a bit of a lie to me. Many times I feel obligated to point out to people that disparage others once they are out of earshot that they shouldn't because they're being disrespectful to their own belief in their moral code, if you don't speak up when someone does something that bothers you then they might never change. We all have our reasons for behaving the way we do and if you don't explore the possible reasons why someone else behaves differently to you then you may never really connect with each other, because your feelings are largely fabricated for the moment.

Also I have seen plenty of ExFPs do EXACTLY what the Fe-reaction is supposed to be. The ENFPs usually mock them in more and more absurd ways and the ESFPs make a real show of pretending to be the other person and showing up their 'disobedience' to expectations, not for one second providing any good reason why, once they are questioned. Usually they both get defensive and turn against you using emotionally loaded phrases that don't mean anything.

I think these people are subservient to their dominant function and do it from enjoying criticizing what's in front of them, I also believe these people to be emotionally unhealthy. There's a difference between being nice sometimes, because there are bigger problems to worry about, and being a complete liar.


----------



## marzipan01

Very interesting. I like that you're pointing out how Fi can go wrong, too! I love it. I really want us to share information on emotions and when they are healthy and unhealthy. 
Looking back two years ago, my emotions were so stifled that I would feel them and I couldn't express them. I would feel rage, jealousy, hurt, pain, loss...all these Fe emotions but because I couldn't talk about them in a big-picture Fi-funnel way, they would just fester and blow up. I would lose my cool and flip out once every couple of months at my ISTJ ex and then eventually, I just had all these feelings I didn't understand that I just dumped him because he made me feel all these things all the time that I didn't have words for. Because I thought it was selfish, disgusting, and immoral to "want" someone or to feel jealous--also some other situations occurred where I felt a lot of loss and sadness and I couldn't understand why I felt that way-- all my Fe emotions jumbled together and I couldn't express any of them. I tried to push them away because I didn't understand what they were and they felt disgusting. I didn't want to be that sad, weepy monster of a girl crying in a corner at the party so I repressed them. But they only became stronger and stronger the more I pushed them away and denied them. 
Looking back on it, it was so stupid to dump someone because you love them (but I was so confused, I didn't even know that's what I was feeling). It's actually the opposite of what you want to do. So, I think that's another example of an Fi user being emotionally unhealthy--(being too Fi all the time).
Now, I've learned to use both. In order to be good at Fi, I have to feel my Fe, listen to my Fe and express my Fe. 
Now that I have this understanding of Fe and Fi, I am better at using both and distinguishing between the two helps me to understand what I'm feeling, what it means, and what to do about it.


----------



## Old Intern

Neverontime said:


> If Jung thought it was a coincidence then why did he say that it was extraverted feeling?
> Which Psychological Types are you reading?
> I'll post the same quote again since it clearly hasn't sunk in from 3 pages previous.


Your last quote here^ extroverted feeling, 
Is describing an Fe dom, as a whole attitude or tendancy, not Fe as simply a cognitive function?
Where exactly is your excerpt from?


----------



## Kynx

Old Intern said:


> *Wrong,* and I gave a definition further up in the thread (dictionary link). "Values", has automatically come to mean something in many people's minds because of a language, common usage trend. Value is also a sale price in terns of our common use for the word. Value and values, can simply refer to the importance, priority, and meaning an individual attaches to something, such as "I value your post", or "I value originality" or "I value fast cars". So individuals can have values that align or oppose, or have no relationship at all, to morals or what was above referred to as collective values.
> Putting an s on the end doesn't change value to a different word.
> 
> ^This is why I apologized for symantics confusion in a prev thread.


I'm getting confused. What do judgements about what is agreeable, appropriate, polite, etc. come under then? Logic or value? 





Old Intern said:


> Your last quote here^ extroverted feeling,
> Is describing an Fe dom, as a whole attitude or tendancy, not Fe as simply a cognitive function?
> Where exactly is your excerpt from?


Jung's Psychological Types


----------



## Old Intern

These are choices made by all types, for different reasons, and through different processes of cognition.
Some people will do what they believe they can get away with. Some people will do what they need to do to support their need to be thought of as a good person. Some people will behave according to how they were raised, or according to what they believe is expected of them. For one person, in a particular situation, this could be a one function process, but you could also have a scenario where someone's behavior in etiquette, was the result of three functions working together.


----------



## Kynx

Old Intern said:


> These are choices made by all types, for different reasons, and through different processes of cognition.
> Some people will do what they believe they can get away with. Some people will do what they need to do to support their need to be thought of as a good person. Some people will behave according to how they were raised, or according to what they believe is expected of them. For one person, in a particular situation, this could be a one function process, but you could also have a scenario where someone's behavior in etiquette, was the result of three functions working together.


We are looking at the theory in completely different ways. So we aren't going to get anywhere discussing the functions and attitudes.


----------



## Old Intern

It seems that you are into Jung theory, but the MBTI types and function order were created later. 
Not that they conflict directly but the type indicator was set up to be systematic. A lot of what Jung has to say in his earlier work is interesting but it gets kind of out there and less useful. It helps you get inside of what it might be like to be of a different psychological type but was not intended to be systematic the way the type indicator became used for things like corporate motivation, or career counseling - later on.


----------



## Kynx

@Old Intern A lot of the later information doesn't add up, which is why I looked into Jung's theory in the first place. It helps to understand what's been changed and why so that you're not going by a theory that actually invalidates itself. What parts of Jung do you see as being 'out there'?


----------



## Old Intern

Main thing is that Jung was only working with eight types and I get what he means generally about those. 
It is probably Ne dom of me that collective unconscious, and long winded descriptions of these eight types, seems not that useful. I'm also aware of lame websites out there, putting too much into how they think a certain type is. So I'm like you in a way, that I wouldn't want to get too far away from the original. The type indicator was not assembled by scientists but it was put together in the 40's with collaboration coming from a statistics business perspective, published early sixties, and still gets used today so that makes it something I may want to use for something I'm working on.

Are you a Jung Student then? or just curious?


----------



## Abraxas

A useful way, at least for me, to understand introverted feeling versus extraverted feeling is by examining the Kantian notion of deontology and his _categorical imperative_, and comparing it against it's main ethical competitor, _utilitarianism_.

If we look at these two completely opposite schools of moral thought I think it becomes quickly obvious precisely what the core and essential nature of this strong divide between a Fi mentality and a Fe mentality, with Fi most closely resembling something deontological versus Fe being very obviously utilitarian.

But that is just one lens through which to see them.

One can also see the two opposing moral perspectives at work within people via direct observation when, as one develops stronger and more complex moral judgment with age, there begins to manifest two very distinct way of reasoning about the justification for some kind of behavior. One way of justifying behavior is by making an appeal to authority, either by appealing to the law itself, or to the sense of justice in other people. The other way is to provide some kind of fundamental principle by which an act can be shown to be moral objectionable that doesn't depend upon an appeal to anything other than one's own sense of right and wrong. This second justification, then, must _necessarily_ be a subjective kind of empathy and moral reasoning, and is sharply seen when contrasted against it's opposite, which is by necessity objective because it is grounded within some pre-existing judgment that was already there.

There's actually been a tremendous amount of empirical research and observation done to confirm that this is indeed how moral reasoning develops, so what Jung is pointing out is something that others had already pointed out or noticed long before him, back when things were still getting started in the late 1800's.


----------



## Old Intern

I have read a lot about a lot of things, Freud, as a background of character styles, or the beginning of the concept of ego, id, superego, Not big on scanning the internet because almost any bozo can make a website now. I mean I do use the net a lot but I've been in business, worked with entrepreneurs, and sub-contactors, pretty good judge of character and when people ARE just pulling something out of their ass, or bloggers who say things waaay to obvious and you just ask why did they bother.
Metaphysical? no thank you, Jung had a lot to say about religion, doesn't mean it it worth my time to read all that.


----------



## Kynx

Old Intern said:


> Main thing is that Jung was only working with eight types and I get what he means generally about those.
> It is probably Ne dom of me that collective unconscious, and long winded descriptions of these eight types, seems not that useful. I'm also aware of lame websites out there, putting too much into how they think a certain type is. So I'm like you in a way, that I wouldn't want to get too far away from the original. The type indicator was not assembled by scientists but it was put together in the 40's with collaboration coming from a statistics business perspective, published early sixties, and still gets used today so that makes it something I may want to use for something I'm working on.
> 
> Are you a Jung Student then? or just curious?


Ah, you see if there's no collective unconscious then there's no introverted function attitude which leaves only functions, without i or e attitudes. Then the theory doesn't really account for anything. 
I don't see why the collective unconscious is 'out there', our physical make-up is genetically inherited, our bodies have a predisposition to develop in a particular way, which is only partly influenced by environmental factors. I see no reason why the psyche wouldn't also have such genetically inherited predispositions.


----------



## Old Intern

I just don't need the details about it, read some of that, maybe 20 years ago?
What I am really loving is the demonstration in "real life" about types and communication issues that happen predictably on this site. Sure, some people are going to be just jumping on a band wagon, but you can see so much about people just by being here.
The best thing is the contrasts and what happens about certain topics, and how people can refine their own understandings of things. I want to end up with a good working theory to use to help entrepreneurial people in some kind of - business model, management, and creative management way.

*Abraxas* Ayn Rand had the suggestion that morality should be able to be arrived at from the standpoint of what works, and what contributes to the on-going development of human kind.
There is a recent book, forgot the guys name, about psychopathy having some of the same elements we value in heroes and the main difference is what side of history they end up on.
There are all kinds of things now about what we can see in brain scans, and DNA, I don't mind knowing something about philosophy but there are tons of other things to consider too.

Not saying any of this is new to you, just saying it's too big a world to get too detailed about a lot of it. But that's me, maybe you teach this stuff, or want to?


----------



## amanda32

Aquarian said:


> This illustrates what I don't like about Fi or at least Fi-dom: Its capacity to just _erase_ the possible needs and subjectivity of the other being(s) in the room, and to do it as if it's the most normal and natural and even ethical thing in the world.



I wouldn't blame this on Fi-dom as I'm an Fi and I'm shocked that someone thinks this is okay. Actually, come to think of it, I have an INFP friend who puts one headphone in her ear when we're out as a group and says the same thing: "I can hear you". But yeah, I think it's completely rude and it's not something I'd ever do. Maybe it's just that some have better manners than others. Our mutual ENFP friend also thinks this is rude. I don't get angry with my INFP friend for doing this though, I just find it annoying.

Bottom line: someone is saying they don't feel heard or they don't feel like they have your full attention. Obviously that's because they want to discuss something they feel is important with you. It's just rude to disregard that, even if you_ can _hear them.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I kind of think with Fi, you might get the person whose outward appearance looks genuine, but the reason it does actually has nothing to do with the current data of the outside world affecting them in a direct way, LOL. I swear that's been the case with me before, where I'll feel something that has 0 to do with what's going on, and then, compensate by finding ways to, through thinking, appeal to the conversation around me in a way that supports the inner feeling state however I feel will work - believe me, it's uber unintelligible to explain my reasoning around here, but it usually works. That's why these types need Te (especially if they're Fi dom or inferior) - their feelings really don't have anything to directly do with any outside data they may be engaging with at all - they can only abstractly be related to outside data in a way that the person will understand. It's like, if the mood is good around me, it tends to not mean much to me unless I can relate it to some subjective feeling I'm having that may not have anything to do with it, but still helps me to deal with the situation anyway the way I want to embody ideals I have about myself or preferences. Like, with Fe, you might get one of those people whose mood depends entirely on the literal state of affairs and behavior/moods of others around them, while with Fi, their mood depends on what ideals they have about any old thing are doing to their subjective ideas going on in the forefront or background of their conscious comfort from within (it's not like they're unaware of the outside world in terms of feeling, but they do not naturally have a need to orient themselves toward it for their own sake at all - if someone ends up getting them to, they will, but it's not influential to their decisions consciously).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Now that I think about it, Jung more-or-less acknowledged what I said in my first sentence above with his take on describing the manifestation of Fe. I think here he did (Ch. 10 PTs):


> As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.


There's another in there on this, but I'll have to look for it. It just jumped out at me recently.


----------



## Kynx

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Now that I think about it, Jung more-or-less acknowledged what I said in my first sentence above with his take on describing the manifestation of Fe. I think here he did (Ch. 10 PTs):
> 
> There's another in there on this, but I'll have to look for it. It just jumped out at me recently.


He's saying that to an observer Fe may seem fake, but it's actually genuine. It's because an observer may witness values changing back and forth and therefore doubt the sincerity of Fe judgement. Not because one attitude is more or less genuine than the other. He also describes how Fi, to an observer, may seem cold even though it actually isn't.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Neverontime said:


> He's saying that to an observer Fe may seem fake, but it's actually genuine. It's because an observer may witness values changing back and forth and therefore doubt the sincerity of Fe judgement. Not because one attitude is more or less genuine than the other. He also describes how Fi, to an observer, may seem cold even though it actually isn't.


Well, that's part of it. But I think he literally meant that all of the feeling you get from these types is purely their feelings - they aren't keeping anything hidden within, the way an Fi type would. I never said genuine had anything to do with either, really. He's being descriptive. I mean, honestly, one can argue that everyone is genuine with their feelings - how can you actually fake feelings (even if they seem fake relative to the actual scenario, they're still representing your real responses to it anyhow - you can't take back an adaptation and call it something it isn't - if you've made the final move, you've made the final move - it's forever recorded and forever a determining influence on your future actions).


----------



## VoodooDolls

"When an Fi user cries, it's usually because we feel guilty (we "hurt" someone in some small way)."

I can't say how much i relate to this man. I hate feeling this but at the same time it's almost like i get some weird kind of pleasure out of it.


----------



## Kabosu

I could think of one Fi user I've known that had a major crush on me, despite each and every odd there is between us. Knew the person from a friend and this person is okay and we have more common interests than you'd expect from the surface, but wow.

I regret seeming prying and invasive on Fi users. Some of them aren't quite so inanimate and blank on the surface so that doesn't affect the situation much.


----------



## Coburn

I knew an INFJ and INFP that dated for awhile. The INFP male was somewhat insecure about the relationship. When they would go to social settings and the INFJ would branch off to meet new people without checking in with him, the INFP would get sullen and quiet. The INFJ would come back later and immediately pick up on the change in mood and demand to know what was wrong. The INFP would insist on being alone until he felt better; the INFJ would chase after him insisting they "talk out" his feelings.

Needless to say, the relationship ended disastrously. But I thought it was a good example of a Fe/Fi conflict. The INFJ (whom I was closer with) always insisted on discussing emotions together. This approach often offended the INFP, who wondered why the INFJ couldn't just give him some privacy to work things out on his own.


----------



## Thalassa

I think this is a wonderful post, but on the other hand it's batshit crazy to think an Fi type never cries over loss of connecting. Fi wants relationship too, we just want it to be authentic. I definitely relate to the self convictions and feeling of being bad when told to stop it with the Fi questioning, but that doesn't mean I don't cry over a feeling of loss of a loved one or a group of friends.


----------



## kwarling

Fi user reporting in: I read when people try to talk to me sometimes, and it gives off the impression I don't want them around. Even when I'm not reading, but I'm looking around awkwardly and flipping an object in my hands because I have nothing to say, even if I don't hate their presence. That awkwardness is uncontrollable, but the first part definitely is. And I can stop talking with someone in the middle of a conversation and feel no uneasiness at all. Fe users are so concerned and easily made uncomfortable sometimes.


----------

