# Fi vs Fe!



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

If this is not a duplicate of another thread, I would like to discuss the differences between Fi and Fe. While some of the differences are easier for me to understand, things like "Fi’s inherently know that all humans are connected, believing that they have feelings, and deserve understanding and appreciating no matter what. They do not hastily judge others because they do not know what they have experienced or what they’ve been through..." really seem to fudge the lines a bit in my mind, as I am not sure that functions of this nature are purely Fi, or if they can be related to other functions. I would say that as an INTP I can understand some of the aforementioned ideas about Fi. I might not _feel_ or believe them at all times, but they are not completely foreign or incomprehensible to me.

Thoughts? Help me draw some clearer distinctions between Fe and Fi.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Fi = internal sense of what has worth or value. Internally motivated ideals.
Fe = Worth or value based on established external standards. Ideals are driven by external constructs and consensus.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Fi = internal sense of what has worth or value. Internally motivated ideals.
> Fe = Worth or value based on established external standards. Ideals are driven by external constructs and consensus.


Hmm. I would think that "internal sense of what has worth or value [and] internally motivated ideals" would be existent in types without Fi as well.


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

As I understand it, Fi users will use an intensely individual approach to people and expect such treatment in return. This means that they will see each person as having different needs and desires that should be respected, and that others should figure out what these things are for them too. They take the time to really get to know a person and figure out how best to interact with that person. Fi users see feelings as more of a personal, private thing. As such, they may internalize feelings more often than they show them on the outside.

Fe users take a different approach, a more general one. They're more likely to believe that all people should act a certain way and conform to that standard. They are very concerned with group harmony and are more interested in that than their own feelings. Strong Fe users are known to be more outwardly expressive of their feelings.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

If you thought that something was ethically wrong, and other very venerable and moral people said it was right, would that make you reconsider if it was really wrong?

A "yes" answer seems foreign to me, a fi user.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

Owfin said:


> If you thought that something was ethically wrong, and other very venerable and moral people said it was right, would that make you reconsider if it was really wrong?
> 
> A "yes" answer seems foreign to me, a fi user.


This is a helpful way to look at it. I know definitely (because this has happened) that I will begin to question what I believe in response to a majority's actions or beliefs conflicting with mine. I have actually written and spoke to classmates recently about the fact that _most_ people's morals are entirely (or heavily) dependent upon their environment. If you ask a bunch of San Francisco kids what they think about abortion, they are going to (almost blindly, like repeating without thinking) state that abortion should be the choice of the mother (I believe this as well, for the record, and I am also from San Francisco). However, if that same group of kids grew up in Louisiana (stereotyping here) or grew up two hundred years ago, those very same kids would probably state the opposite belief, that abortion is always wrong. I could go on and on about this idea (trust me, it gets _really_ complex), but I won't. The point is that I think this is largely an INTP, or Fe belief, that most morals are dependent upon the environment, and therefore are fluid to some extent. Although, I think that if I moved elsewhere where the beliefs about such social issues were much different, I probably would maintain my own because they seem infinitely more logical than others, and because I was raised with them. Smaller things though, I see myself conforming to the environment with.

EDIT: This also convinces me that I definitely am not an Fi user. Because, in general I don't give a rat's ass about the more moral concerns of the world. I understand what makes logical sense (when talking about the government, social practices, etc) but I won't get all fired up about it, because... eh. For much of my life I felt that I was reciting what I was fed. I understand it, but what do I actually believe? Really... I don't think I _believe_ in anything! This is sort of a ... cogent thing to realize, actually.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Neurasthenia said:


> Hmm. I would think that "internal sense of what has worth or value [and] internally motivated ideals" would be existent in types without Fi as well.


Well with Feeling as Jung describes it we're talking about judgment (not your emotional reaction to it as is commonly misinterpreted). Specifically value judgments. Are these judgments externally generated or internally generated. 

When we talk about Fe or Fi what we are saying is that person has differentiated a preference for either internal value judgments or external value judgments. Appeals to the self or appeals to the group as @dejavu stated. 

So a real world example of Fi is modern Ayn Rand-style Libertarianism which places a premium on self-governing and self-reliance. It distrusts group consensus (in theory, not so much in practice) in favor of autonomous evaluation. 

The military is probably the ultimate Fe organization wherein the group always takes precedent over the individual. Here, in the extreme is the notion of self-sacrifice, or a caller greater than self, where the overall harmony of the group, or the group's ideals take precedent over the individual. 

_(It should be noted that not all Libertarians are Fi-types and not everyone in the military is a Fe-type, these are just examples of what we're talking about when we talk about external vs. internal evaluation). _



> lthough, I think that if I moved elsewhere where the beliefs about such social issues were much different, I probably would maintain my own because they seem infinitely more logical than others, and because I was raised with them. Smaller things though, I see myself conforming to the environment with.


Yes you are describing Fe. The point to remember is that Fe doesn't just adopt ANY value of the group its around. Just the values that are central to that person's self-conception. So a person from Mississippi who was raised around a conservative paradigm would likely keep that mindset wherever they went, and would probably be very sensitive to Fe-types in Castro District who had conflicting views. A Fi-type is generally more consistent. Think Ron Paul and how he just doesn't fit in with the rest of his party. He's almost certainly a Fi-type.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

> Yes you are describing Fe. The point to remember is that Fe doesn't just adopt ANY value of the group its around. Just the values that are central to that person's self-conception. So a person from Mississippi who was raised around a conservative paradigm would likely keep that mindset wherever they went, and would probably be very sensitive to Fe-types in Castro District who had conflicting views. A Fi-type is generally more consistent. Think Ron Paul and how he just doesn't fit in with the rest of his party. He's almost certainly a Fi-type.


Thank you. This has clarified a lot for me.


----------



## lib (Sep 18, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> So a real world example of Fi is modern Ayn Rand-style Libertarianism which places a premium on self-governing and self-reliance. It distrusts group consensus (in theory, not so much in practice) in favor of autonomous evaluation.
> 
> The military is probably the ultimate Fe organization wherein the group always takes precedent over the individual. Here, in the extreme is the notion of self-sacrifice, or a caller greater than self, where the overall harmony of the group, or the group's ideals take precedent over the individual.
> 
> _(It should be noted that not all Libertarians are Fi-types and not everyone in the military is a Fe-type, these are just examples of what we're talking about when we talk about external vs. internal evaluation). _


This made me think of a thread some time ago posted by an INTP advocating restrictions on advertizing outright forbidding them. Most of the responses were from INTPs (Fe), all supporting restrictions, and INTJs (Fi), all against forbidding/criminalizing advertizing. The few that were neither/nor turned out to all follow the Fe/Fi devide on the topic.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Neurasthenia said:


> If this is not a duplicate of another thread, I would like to discuss the differences between Fi and Fe. While some of the differences are easier for me to understand, things like "Fi’s inherently know that all humans are connected, believing that they have feelings, and deserve understanding and appreciating no matter what. They do not hastily judge others because they do not know what they have experienced or what they’ve been through..." really seem to fudge the lines a bit in my mind, as I am not sure that functions of this nature are purely Fi, or if they can be related to other functions. I would say that as an INTP I can understand some of the aforementioned ideas about Fi. I might not _feel_ or believe them at all times, but they are not completely foreign or incomprehensible to me.
> 
> Thoughts? Help me draw some clearer distinctions between Fe and Fi.


Think of Fi as Ti, just that the focus is not on ideas and logic, but on things that can not be expressed in words like getting the essence of a person or a situation. Empathy. It works very much like Ti when you spot inconsistency in logic, we just spot it in feeling tones. Makes for a good lie detector.

Fi is also not expressed much other then in action or opinions. I am not like a Fe user who is courteous and stuff like that...I can be pretty blunt and to the point antagonistic.

But don't listen to me -.- INFPs are supposed to be "the eternal optimist" and I am kinda downright pessimistic and cynical.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

Rim said:


> Think of Fi as Ti, just that the focus is not on ideas and logic, but on things that can not be expressed in words like getting the essence of a person or a situation. Empathy. It works very much like Ti when you spot inconsistency in logic, we just spot it in feeling tones. Makes for a good lie detector.


This sounds like a superpower to me, ha.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm wondering what Fi users think about the value of what other people tell you? I guess I used to be very gullible. Do you think Fe or Fi users are more prone to being gullible?


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

HandiAce said:


> I'm wondering what Fi users think about the value of what other people tell you? I guess I used to be very gullible. Do you think Fe or Fi users are more prone to being gullible?


I think Fe users are more prone to gullibility.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

Neurasthenia said:


> I think Fe users are more prone to gullibility.


I was thinking the same thing. I imagine Fe users believe that anything a person says has value, no matter what their logic is based on. Of course, as you mature, you make your own judgements yourself based on what people are saying.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

HandiAce said:


> I was thinking the same thing. I imagine Fe users believe that anything a person says has value, no matter what their logic is based on. Of course, as you mature, you make your own judgements yourself based on what people are saying.


I would agree with this. If you're always trying to construct values based on consensus, you have to be able to take in what everyone is saying, and _then_ evaluate it holistically to find common threads. The behavior I witness most frequently in my Fi dominant and auxiliary friends is more often the immediate acceptance or dismissal of an idea, and they are frequently dead-on and are rarely taken in. When they do trip up, it's generally because an idea has been "packaged" in way that the Fi dom/aux has some bias against. They sometimes need to be shown, or take time to discover, the nugget of truth behind the flawed packaging or poor expression.

My Fi friends fear being lulled or fooled into believing what is not in line with their truth, and my Fe self fears that my value system is incomplete because I've missed something. People believe things for a reason, and it's worth taking those reasons into account, even if I reject their ultimate conclusion. But this can create many shades of meaning that it's easy to lose myself inside.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Neurasthenia said:


> I think Fe users are more prone to gullibility.


Actually this would probably only apply to dominant-Fe types (and really only in a theoretical sense). That's why we have four functions two to keep us grounded to ourselves and two to keep us in the world. This is why Fe comes paired with Ti.


----------



## Liontiger (Jun 2, 2009)

HandiAce said:


> I'm wondering what Fi users think about the value of what other people tell you? I guess I used to be very gullible. Do you think Fe or Fi users are more prone to being gullible?


Um, I'm an Fi user and I'm pretty gullible. My friends take advantage of this all the time. They can make something up and string me along without me realizing it. This is because I'm a very trusting person. I like to believe the best of all people, so I naturally assume that they're telling the truth.

Granted, I'm just one person. Obviously there will be variation on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Actually this would probably only apply to dominant-Fe types (and really only in a theoretical sense). That's why we have four functions two to keep us grounded to ourselves and two to keep us in the world. This is why Fe comes paired with Ti.


Indeed. I considered that but didn't bother stating it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Elinor Dashwood said:


> I would agree with this. If you're always trying to construct values based on consensus, you have to be able to take in what everyone is saying, and _then_ evaluate it holistically to find common threads. The behavior I witness most frequently in my Fi dominant and auxiliary friends is more often the immediate acceptance or dismissal of an idea, and they are frequently dead-on and are rarely taken in. When they do trip up, it's generally because an idea has been "packaged" in way that the Fi dom/aux has some bias against. They sometimes need to be shown, or take time to discover, the nugget of truth behind the flawed packaging or poor expression.
> 
> My Fi friends fear being lulled or fooled into believing what is not in line with their truth, and my Fe self fears that my value system is incomplete because I've missed something. People believe things for a reason, and it's worth taking those reasons into account, even if I reject their ultimate conclusion. But this can create many shades of meaning that it's easy to lose myself inside.


This is a beautiful post. I want to frame it. 

It pretty much sums up how I experience Fi, and I like the way you explained your Fe, it's really a helpful angle for me to see Fe motive from.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Owfin said:


> If you thought that something was ethically wrong, and other very venerable and moral people said it was right, would that make you reconsider if it was really wrong?
> 
> A "yes" answer seems foreign to me, a fi user.


Yes, Fi gives you the "Children of the Corn" detector.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> So a real world example of Fi is modern Ayn Rand-style Libertarianism which places a premium on self-governing and self-reliance. It distrusts group consensus (in theory, not so much in practice) in favor of autonomous evaluation.


Please don't ever use Ayn Rand to define Fi ever again. 

Ayn Rand had the crippled immature tertiary (or inferior) Fi of an unhealthy, whacked out TJ. I've noticed that many of her fans I've encountered on-line meet a similar description...

Rand's complete opposition to Fe is more indicative of Te dom/aux. Fi is about much more than utter self-absorption. The woman defended a serial killer as a rugged individual for pete's sake. 

Yes, Ayn Rand had Fi. Yes, her bent toward individualism and thinking for one's self is more indicative of her Fi. 

But please don't ever use her to define Fi again. 

"This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown aside with great force." ~ Dorothy Parker, on _Atlas Shrugged

*This post was brought to you today by Fi*

_


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

fourtines said:


> "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown aside with great force." ~ Dorothy Parker, on _Atlas Shrugged
> 
> *This post was brought to you today by Fi*
> 
> _


Dorothy Parker was so right about so many things.


----------



## Thorgar (Apr 3, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Rand's complete opposition to Fe is more indicative of Te dom/aux. Fi is about much more than utter self-absorption.


Please don't blame Te for Ayn Rand either. Her logic was so reductionist as to be illogical. 

I think it is really interesting to watch the reactions of people to beggars who hold up those cardboard signs with hard luck stories on them. They always claim to be veterans and say "God Bless" at the end. It always seems to me that they are appealing to Fe values of taking care of the community. I actually feel offended that they think I would fall for such blatant emotional manipulation and lies, but I see people giving them money all the time.


----------



## PurpleTree (Nov 3, 2010)

Neurasthenia said:


> Hmm. I would think that "internal sense of what has worth or value [and] internally motivated ideals" would be existent in types without Fi as well.


Just not as concentrated.
The cognitive functions (especially the introverted ones, being so subjective) often seem meager when described as just that - a single, cognitive function. Each cognitive function is a component of a system of functions. The way those functions work together can sometimes undermine or mutilate a particular cognitive function's... well... _function_. 

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Ti+Fe could come up with some pseudo-Fi values. It wouldn't be as inherent as a Fi-user's values, but the product would be extremely similar.

I think this was already implied in this thread, but I wanted to underline it a bit...


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Thorgar said:


> Please don't blame Te for Ayn Rand either. Her logic was so reductionist as to be illogical.
> 
> I think it is really interesting to watch the reactions of people to beggars who hold up those cardboard signs with hard luck stories on them. They always claim to be veterans and say "God Bless" at the end. It always seems to me that they are appealing to Fe values of taking care of the community. I actually feel offended that they think I would fall for such blatant emotional manipulation and lies, but I see people giving them money all the time.


Ayn Rand, in my opinion, was in an Ni/Fi loop, which is why her Te logic was weaker than it should have been. However, despite the Ni/Fi loop, her Fi still wasn't as strong or mature as an FP, because of her Fi being tertiary AND because she was so unhealthy. 

About the beggars - I do feel sorry for them in many cases, and I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Ayn Rand, in my opinion, was in an Ni/Fi loop, which is why her Te logic was weaker than it should have been. However, despite the Ni/Fi loop, her Fi still wasn't as strong or mature as an FP, because of her Fi being tertiary AND because she was so unhealthy.
> 
> About the beggars - I do feel sorry for them in many cases, and I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.


I don't feel anything for the beggars generally, unless I make myself think about it. However, when I was a kid I remember crying after I gave a homeless man some money and he said "God bless you, thank you so much." I felt that what I did meant a lot to him, and I felt so sorry that he was living that way, excitedly taking five dollars from nine-year-olds. So maybe in some ways I have dampened my Fe as the years went on. Although, I think my expression of emotions as a child was largely in response to being raised by people who had feeling-centric values. My adoptive parents were INFJ and ISFJ, and as such they taught me to deal with the world in a largely Fe way.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Please don't ever use Ayn Rand to define Fi ever again.
> 
> Ayn Rand had the crippled immature tertiary (or inferior) Fi of an unhealthy, whacked out TJ. I've noticed that many of her fans I've encountered on-line meet a similar description...
> 
> ...


I really thank you for posting this. To a certain extent Fi is about following what one wants for oneself despite what might be deemed "appropriate" in the external world. Because they are so close to their own deeply held personal desires, goals, etc..., a mature Fi user will be in touch with the basic necessities and freedoms of every individual. This allows them to empathize when these basic necessities and freedoms are threatened for others.


----------



## shedreamt (Nov 7, 2011)

Liontiger said:


> Um, I'm an Fi user and I'm pretty gullible. My friends take advantage of this all the time. They can make something up and string me along without me realizing it. This is because I'm a very trusting person. I like to believe the best of all people, so I naturally assume that they're telling the truth.
> 
> Granted, I'm just one person. Obviously there will be variation on a case-by-case basis.


 I am incredibly gullible too and always believe my friends when they're telling me stuff no matter how crazy it sounds. It's so easy to fool me and get a wide eyed reaction that they don't even get kick out of it any more lol. Maybe it's the pairing of Ne and Fi that makes us too trusting?


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

It depends what you're being gullible or trusting about.

INTP here.

I doubt and question information and arguments people present to me. 
Even if I nod, I don't truly believe what you have to say. I'm always very wary of things I hear and read about.

But here is an example of where I'm susceptible:
In a recent argument with my father, he said that I was a good-for-nothing. I took it to heart and believed I _was _incompetent after all. It was shattering to hear and I truly believed that he meant it. Turns out he didn't, and that I was "silly" to doubt myself just because he said so. I've come to realise that I feel like my worth _is _dependent on others, whether they think I'm attractive or not, clever or not. My own opinion of myself has no weight. Inferior Fe at work? 
I'm glad I have Ti, though. I'd like to think that I'm confident and independent in my thoughts, views and ideas.

Edit: Just realised I wrote "wasn't good for nothing" instead.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

Muser said:


> It depends what you're being gullible or trusting about.
> 
> INTP here.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm the same way.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

It is my understanding that to Fi users, standardizing ethics destroys the point of morality, but in order for there to be moral order to the universe (which is something Fi users strive for right?) don't ethics need to be standardized?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

HandiAce said:


> It is my understanding that to Fi users, standardizing ethics destroys the point of morality, but in order for there to be moral order to the universe (which is something Fi users strive for right?) don't ethics need to be standardized?


But you see, fi users don't strive for moral order in the universe. What does that even mean anyways? Fi users think that morality is subjective. They want moral order in _themselves_, but the concept of moral order in the _universe_ is a bit baffling to fi.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Owfin said:


> But you see, fi users don't strive for moral order in the universe. What does that even mean anyways? Fi users think that morality is subjective. They want moral order in _themselves_, but the concept of moral order in the _universe_ is a bit baffling to fi.


I think you are correct to say that Fi users seek moral order in themselves, but I wouldn't say the idea of moral order in the universe is necessarily baffling. I think it's safer to say that Fi users don't want others interfering with their personal values and their way of going about life. There are definitely Fi users who attach themselves to certain causes in an effort to establish somewhat of a moral order in the universe. I don't mean to bring up the most extreme of examples, but it's likely an Fi user wouldn't support the killing of anybody at random. This certainly appeals to "moral order in the universe", but is also derived from "Live and let live." Fi users want to be happy and able to live out their dreams however they please and in turn might feel it's wrong when the same is not recognized for others. In other words, Fi users "moral order in the universe" concerns itself with individual freedom and individual safety and does not like when it is threatened.


----------

