# Fe from the Outside



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I think I've experienced this first-hand. I'm not sure of my Jungian type, but I suspect I'm (in order of probability) either an INFJ, ENTP, INTP, INTJ, INFP and ENFP. The last 2 or 3 being very unlikely. 

The first three have either auxiliary, tertiary, or inferior extroverted ethics. I have experienced the things you described with the unhealthy Fe users and I still do. I think it was one of the main sources of my social anxiety and my general hatred toward people today.


----------



## Texas (Mar 24, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> There are no "introverted Fe types."


I meant Introverted type, as in INFJ rather than ENFJ.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

EclecticTeal said:


> I meant Introverted type, as in INFJ rather than ENFJ.


Okay, fair enough.

... Still, I - as well as many other psychologists (not that I'm a psychologist mind you) - disagree with the MBTI translation of Jung to mean that the auxiliary function has the opposite attitude of the dominant function.

In many people's opinion, the true "Jungian" types are as follows:

Ni - Ti
Ni - Fi

Ne - Te
Ne - Fe

Si - Ti
Si - Fi

Se - Te
Se - Fe.

And vica versa for rational types.

So in my opinion, someone who strongly identifies with Ne as their leading function is either going to rely mostly on Fe or Te as their primary source of judgment and discernment.

When I see people who believe they identify with Ne, but are even more strongly convinced that their auxiliary is something like Ti or Fi, and because of that, have doubts about being a Ne-type, I want to facepalm into infinity, as @_LeaT_ put it fairly well.

Honestly, what is probably the case is that you have a person who is either a rational type, and thus either Fi or Ti, with _introverted intuition_ as their _auxiliary function_ - and just because this makes it something not as familiar to them as their sense of right and wrong, we can be sure that it is at least _possible_ because after all, they themselves seem to be unable to _differentiate_ between Ne and Ni.

You never get that with someone who is _actually_ a type. They never doubt the attitude of their own cognition. This, precisely _because_ that function - and it's attitude - _just are_ the basis of their ego, as that is where their psychic libido flows to and from, and thus where they are _most consciously aware and active_. And just since Jung _defined consciousness itself as the ability to differentiate between one thing and another, to "tell the difference" between X and Y_ - thus, someone strongly conscious of a function would have a _far better developed grasp of just all the fine complexity and nuances regarding that function in both a practical AND a philosophical way;_ the former because it grounds their experience, the latter because it grounds their imagination.


----------



## Texas (Mar 24, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> In many people's opinion, the true "Jungian" types are as follows:
> 
> Ni - Ti
> Ni - Fi
> ...


You may have lost me completely. As an INTJ with Ni Te, are you saying I would actually operate with Ne? Because my daughter - INFP - is Ne and I don't understand her in the least. I honestly couldn't even begin to understand an extroverted intuition or how it operates. 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

EclecticTeal said:


> You may have lost me completely. As an INTJ with Ni Te, are you saying I would actually operate with Ne? Because my daughter - INFP - is Ne and I don't understand her in the least. I honestly couldn't even begin to understand an extroverted intuition or how it operates.
> 
> I may have misunderstood.


I probably did.

Hence I did not label those types with MBTI labels.

I think MBTI is bullshit unless you understand it in the right context, but you won't unless you're very well-versed in Jungian psychology first - and since most people are not, I feel as if MBTI is almost _deliberately deceiving everyone in order to sell copies of it's books and make money_ - since, it doesn't present itself in the context I'm saying it needs to be taken in. Instead, it makes grandiose claims that it falls far short of, and in the process distorts a lot of the concepts Jung conceived of, that it claims to be based on.

But yes, basically you may operate with Ne.

Or you may be a Te-type with Ne being your auxiliary, hence you can't really tell the difference between Ne and Ni very well.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_EclecticTeal_: 

He's actually just saying that the Jungian system of dominant function/type suggests a different dynamic from MBTI. In Jungian world, it seems that a dominant Ni might be so severely introverted-intuitive that their other functions may be neglected, inferior, and extroverted in character, or at least I saw that for Ti and I can't imagine it being specific to that.

So it would just mean that the MBTI INTJ isn't really a Jungian type. And indeed, that makes sense -- the classic INTJ is known for sharp Ni-Te personality, whereas a Jungian Ni-dominant might be so focused on the subjective that Te might even be ignored. 



In going along with this, some (incl. I think @_Abraxas_) would say a true Jungian Ni-dominant would be, depending on T vs. F preference, nonetheless always inclined to_ access the introverted perspective _on the auxiliary T or F.




So basically a seamless Ni-Te isn't really the intended classic Jungian Ni-type.

But to be honest, this is why I don't subscribe to any particular system more than another - I think the Jungian theory is rich and wonderful, but that very few really have a Jungian type, although I personally am a good example of someone with a Jungian type, but possibly no good MBTI fit. 

Correspondingly, I'm a bit of the opposite of functional!


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I should also say, maybe I'd be a bit more bitter about the bastardizations of the Jungian theory if I weren't so ridiculous with just making up my understanding as I go, so ultimately I hardly know what MBTI even is, I only know what it _must mean_ to make sense.

I pretty much arrived at my view of how to interpret MBTI because while ruminating my type, I realized the roadblocks I reached were fundamental, and I found no other way to interpret MBTI type sensibly. 

The only question is, I'm not sure if I'm a Ti-Ni or a Ti-Si type. It seems that overwhelming preference for T + not perfect differentiation on the N/S front is probably the closest answer for me.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

bearotter said:


> But to be honest, this is why I don't subscribe to any particular system more than another - I think the Jungian theory is rich and wonderful, but that very few really have a Jungian type, although I personally am a good example of someone with a Jungian type, but possibly no good MBTI fit.


This is a good attitude in my opinion, and one I am slowly trying to cultivate.

Most of my initial disgust of MBTI is due to how caught up in it I was, and partially reflects the disillusionment I felt once I started to explore Jungian psychology and became more aware of myself as a result. I'm partially projecting that negativity onto MBTI, because in a small part I feel I was deceived, also by the community here on PerC (not that I imagine it was intentional on their part, but just reflecting the overall level of ignorance everyone has regarding Jungian psychology, which is what MBTI is based on.)

I'm _trying_ to come back around, and eventually I'm sure I'll probably adopt the perspective you show here.

More or less, I apply both to two different aspects of my own identity now.

I use MBTI to identify the characteristics of people's _personas_ and how that interacts with their ego-complex, and even more importantly, their unconscious. I use Jungian psychology in a more personal way, to understand myself in a holistic sense, and to understand all of reality. Jungian psychology is quite a bit more mystical than MBTI aims to be, reflecting Jung's strong spiritual beliefs, and that resonates with me just fine since I'm an introvert and I'm pretty much the same way.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I use MBTI to identify the characteristics of people's _personas and how that interacts with their ego-complex, and even more importantly, their unconscious. I use Jungian psychology in a more personal way, to understand myself in a holistic sense, and to understand all of reality. Jungian psychology is quite a bit more mystical than MBTI aims to be, reflecting Jung's strong spiritual beliefs, and that resonates with me just fine since I'm an introvert and I'm pretty much the same way.
> 
> 
> _


Yes, precisely same with me. 

I had a lot of trouble because I'm not really Ne-valuing, and so the closest fits seemed to be ISFJ, INFJ, my Se being utterly horrible. In my original type-me it ended roughly with my deciding INFJ fits, with ISFJ as another close option. Obviously something was fishy. A true Introverted P dominant would probably have some clear differentiation there (N v. S). 
As I read more, I could see why I'm really a Ti > Introverted-Perceiving type. But ultimately I decided there was actually some value in finding my MBTI type. It is indeed a rough INTP. If I had to describe my patterns of extroverting, when I _must_, they're mostly Ne-Si -- that is, I'm certainly a classic case of a P type in the MBTI sense, and my relationship with the objective is "static" in socionics terms, and clearly Se was inaccessible to me, roughly as bad as Fi I'd say (obvious if I even at all gave off an Si-dom vibe at any time).
I think it would be amazing to read more into Ni and Si actually. That would probably be the richest next step to understand my inner reality better.


also EDIT: Yes, I do think the community on PerC can do with some flexibility. I mean, is it really right to write off someone as a certain dominant type based on not detecting their MBTI-auxiliary? I'm glad I understood what my dominant perspective really means, because that was the only point I really got to realizing how it colors my life so strongly.

One of the most e_gregious_ instances of this is the Si v. Ni thing. Almost everyone who feels like they don't just take and stockpile facts will consider himself/herself an Ni dom over an Si-dom when this is totally against the full spirit of what introverted perceiving really is. The objective fact hardly even matters to the Si-dom, it merely means they're hyper-aware of the registering of sensation phenomena in the unconscious, or as the Jungian language utilized, "innervation" hah.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Okay, fair enough.
> 
> ... Still, I - as well as many other psychologists (not that I'm a psychologist mind you) - disagree with the MBTI translation of Jung to mean that the auxiliary function has the opposite attitude of the dominant function.
> 
> ...


How do you reconcile this with Augusta and her associates coming up with socionics behind the iron curtain independently of MBTI yet using the same approach of opposite attitudes?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> How do you reconcile this with Augusta and her associates coming up with socionics behind the iron curtain independently of MBTI yet using the same approach of opposite attitudes?


Human nature.

I don't see it as a coincidence.



> "The idea of synchronicity is that the conceptual relationship of minds, defined as the relationship between ideas, is intricately structured in its own logical way and gives rise to relationships that are not causal in nature. These relationships can manifest themselves as simultaneous occurrences that are meaningfully related...
> 
> ... It was a principle that Jung felt gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious,[SUP][7][/SUP] in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlies the whole of human experience and history — social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. Concurrent events that first appear to be coincidental but later turn out to be causally related are termed _incoincident._"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Human nature.
> 
> I don't see it as a coincidence.
> 
> ...


That doesn't really answer the question so much as evades it. My point was in regards to how two people, operating completely independently of one another, using the same sources, made the exact same mistake. Sonchronicity may doesn't really sate my curiosity as to the probably of it.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Scelerat_: I have a possible answer to that. I have I think a legitimate socionics type as well, just as I think I have a legitimate Jungian type, even if not a legitimate MBTI type. That all depends from person to person - not a virtue of socionics or Jung necessarily I guess.

The answer is that socionics itself suggests LII is a strong Ti-Ni type, with an Ne "creative function" and Te "ignoring" ... so in effect a socionics LII is one of those types @_Abraxas_ wrote about, i.e. a sort of Ti-Ni type. The difference is they distinguish strength and consciousness. The dominant is both strong and conscious. The reason for this distinction could be varied. One acceptable reason I can see is for instance that if a LII is closest to Ne-valuing when it comes to extroverting, then it is unlikely they'll display even semi-conscious interaction with the objective from an Se-Ni perspective. Furthermore, a Ti type is static, hence again, their interaction with the objective will be in socionics terms static. But their access of the Ni perspective isn't limited by this. In particular, if we _forget_ about extroversion and examine an introverted type from the Jungian perspective, then effectively all this becomes moot, and so a Ti-Si or Ti-Ni type becomes roughly possible, or at least, certainly Jung endorsed the idea of a Ti introvert who almost ignores all other outlooks.

In short, the answer is they're all modeling slightly different things, with certain commonalities. I don't discount MBTI or socionics. They have their merits when interpreted properly of course.

At least what my example should illustrate is that in one sense, socionics did _not_ make the exact same mistake as MBTI, but a slightly different one, and one which is conceptually enlightening as to how other interpretations of Jung can emphasize other things {see my long mumbo jumbo if you want to know more about what I think about that}.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> That doesn't really answer the question so much as evades it. My point was in regards to how two people, operating completely independently of one another, using the same sources, made the exact same mistake. Sonchronicity may doesn't really sate my curiosity as to the probably of it.


You're assuming that two people can't make the same mistake due to human nature because you're thinking in terms of statistical probability.

I'm not.

Synchronicity _is_ my answer to your question.

I don't care how "unlikely" you think it is that they're both wrong in their initial formation.

I don't agree with Socionics much either for the same reasons I don't agree with MBTI. Both focus far too much on who we are in the presence of others and by contrasting people against others, instead of who we are as individuals, taken on our own, as we are, apart from all that.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Also, I should say, I clearly think there's a difference between the Jungian and socionics types on some level, since I think my relation to socionics Si is roughly exactly what an LII's should be, but my relation to Jungian Si is much stronger and it could legitimately be an "auxiliary" to me.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_Scelerat_: I have a possible answer to that. I have I think a legitimate socionics type as well, just as I think I have a legitimate Jungian type, even if not a legitimate MBTI type. That all depends from person to person - not a virtue of socionics or Jung necessarily I guess.


That's not what I'm arguing with him about. Socionics requires 1 introverted and 1 extroverted function in each pair according to model A, just like the MBTI setup works with opposites. I'm questioning the probability of two people, separated by the iron curtain, working from the same source materials, and coming up with models that are quite similar making the same exact mistake in regards to the E-I placement.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Scelerat_: it seems to be relevant to what you're arguing about though, because it depends _what pair_. Like I wrote, a socionics LII accesses Ti-Ne, yet it makes special note that Ni is a strong function for LII, that is, _two introverted_ functions. Many descriptions of socionics will say that the demonstrative (Ni for the Ti-dom LII) is the next easiest to use. 

It depends what you're modeling is all I'm saying, how you group things depends a lot on what sort of interaction you want to see between the constituents of your group.


Very honestly, I don't even see a legitimate argument ensuing here because simply put, socionics and MBTI are two systems founded with a view to some ideas of Jung, but if I'm not much mistaken, their theories are not both identical, and thus there's no way they could both be identical to Jungian theory.

To put it very straightforwardly, I don't think MBTI's model is any more wrong than is that of @Abraxas, that simply they're not describing the same thing, and that not everyone fits neatly into either of these scenarios.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

bearotter said:


> @_Scelerat_: it seems to be relevant to what you're arguing about though, because it depends _what pair_. Like I wrote, a socionics LII accesses Ti-Ne, yet it makes special note that Ni is a strong function for LII, that is, _two introverted_ functions. Many descriptions of socionics will say that the demonstrative (Ni for the Ti-dom LII) is the next easiest to use.
> 
> It depends what you're modeling is all I'm saying, how you group things depends a lot on what sort of interaction you want to see between the constituents of your group.
> 
> ...


This is actually a good point as well.

I have _somewhat less_ of a problem with Socionics, if only because I actually like the way it doesn't assign any kind of an over-all preference to each function the way MBTI does - at least, outside of the role/leading function. All the other functions are described as _serving a very specific purpose in relation to the leading function that has nothing to do with a "heirarchy of values" the way MBTI does._

That is, within Socionics, we do not have the so called "auxiliary function" really. You just have eight functions filling in eight "roles" - I actually kind of like that about Socionics, even if I disagree with the whole thing fundamentally if only because, like MBTI, it focuses far too much on who we are around other people. Still, if only it could get out of that paradigm, I think Socionics would be a very viable and useful system for self-exploration.

I see it as kind of the "lesser of evils". At least Socionics has some good ideas and seems to be more in line with Jungian psychology. I'm not at all convinced of the so-called "V.I." method of visually identifying types, but I can at least see where this kind of reasoning is coming from - since Jung firmly established that he believed in a biological origin for everything he depicted in his work. So, of course, it's no stretch of the imagination to assume then that there might be a relationship between certain outward features of a person and their type. Unfortunately I don't agree, because I think there are just too many other factors that would need to be considered and explicitly differentiated that, as far as I can tell, are not even mentioned.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

A person could easily make Jung fit what makes themselves feel good about themselves. Some have said interpretations are as many as the Bible. An introvert in some cases, may like to believe that Fe could not possibly relate to them with empathy from their own experience, because Fe could not possibly have their own experience. But this doesn't line up with most adult's real life view does it? We all have our clashes, but I've known more than a few Fe dom's who share empathy from their own experiences.

My concern is that someone relatively new to functions could easily take Jung's statements as an excuse to believe that Fe is about the same as a trained monkey conditioned to rules of etiquette. I think it is important to point out some context of history, and perspectives of interpretation, and biases. While Fe is not a strong point for me, I can appreciate how the awareness of relationship dynamics and one's social context today, can have benefits far beyond what Jung observed in his patients. Politics, marketing, real estate, and media, are a few places where Fe flourishes, with far more than compliance, etiquette, or mothering.

For the Op, looking into Fe, and Fi, has been a lively debate that circles and cycles around PerC. 
Introversion and extroversion plays a big part and I guess we all need to find answers that resonate, or work for us. I know way back when, with having an ESFJ roommate, I would sometimes just need to "get, my space or quiet time".


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I just posted this in another section, and this is the best line on Fe I can really find to dispel all the false notions. There are those like me who cannot imagine evoking feeling reasoning in a subjective form, and those who are precisely the opposite. F, S, T are three functions where I'm _very_​ confident of my orientation as extrovert v. introvert. 






> _Feeling in the extraverted attitude is oriented by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling.
> _


_

_


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Both focus far too much on who we are in the presence of others


While I agree neither adequately explains people in their entirety, I must say we are who we are because of the presence of others. You can't evolve on your own.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Crono91 said:


> While I agree neither adequately explains people in their entirety, I must say we are who we are because of the presence of others. You can't evolve on your own.


I disagree.

For one thing, this notion that we even _need_ to evolve.

For another, just what you define as "others" is totally arbitrary and thus meaningless.

I don't think _anything_ can adequately describe people in their entirety besides people themselves, but I think Jung comes a lot closer than either MBTI or Socionics, let's leave it at that shall we?


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> @_Old Intern_
> 
> Yes, all extraverts mimic.
> 
> ...


Innacurrate descriptions. And I get the feeling that you really disconsider extraverts. 
I say it's innacurate because in essence you are corect, but the way you describe the extravert vs introvert: extraverts can't think for themselves so they do whathever the other people do, the introvert is the smart guy who does only what he thinks is right. And this is just wrong........


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

^The essence isn't even correct.
That I know how to pull my head out of my ass to see what other people care about as a cognitive function, Helps me to make sales calls, or negotiate, or design something for someone that fits in with their vision. I naturally see the people around me, in the sense that I am learning what they are about. This means I am not full of myself, expressing meeeee and defending meeeee. And the idealized eeeego image.

But this has nothing to do with the ability to experience original feelings or make choices that are unique.
Being aware and engaged, because it is your nature, does not make one a robot. That's why the four function model makes sense.We all have to do some level of internal management and external coordinating. We can't be operating in opposing functions in the same instant, but people use more than one function, even more than two functions for something as simple as a post.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung's greatest merits are probably not in his types (although his descriptions of attitudes are definitely a high spot), but in his conception of the shadow (I mean, the extent to which you can type your shadow is very theoretical, something he probably didn't consider important at all and something people probably use to frankly misinterpret their own shadows as "oh, so-and-so function acting up," even though anything you experience from the shadow is probably just going to be random content and not really a type of anything - at best, the inferior function is the archetype that gets inflated around the shadow, but he probably would've technically considered people to have more than one inferior function in most cases - the aux/terts would probably count for most people as well under the specific conditions he was describing, regardless of a person's strengths there). The question of personality development to him was far more important than anything else (I mean, if we were to transport Jung's conceptions into different contexts, like that of reaction formation, you might wonder if there is indeed a reason people develop along the lines they do - he best explained this as potentially reaching back to archetypes).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

In most cases, Jung didn't seem to think that you could really "see" a function type in people (not without a ton of inference), although he did think you might in some (the archetypal few he tried to represent in his descriptions) - the person elevating themselves to some kind of authority (although I'm sure you can get people who live out of the shadow side as well and still put themselves in authority positions). He definitely never considered anyone a pure type (he thought anyone who behaved with too much poise probably had a correspondingly rough shadow - any pure type to him probably would be pretty dysfunctional/destructive). Just his theory of opposites.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> He definitely never considered anyone a pure type (he thought anyone who behaved with too much poise probably had a correspondingly rough shadow - any pure type to him probably would be pretty dysfunctional/destructive). Just his theory of opposites.


Well said @JungyesMBTIno, this fits with my experience; the extent of closeness I can profess (high, but of course not perfectly) to a pure Jungian Ti type only ever seems reflective of being nearly dysfunctional in some ways.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

bearotter said:


> Well said @_JungyesMBTIno_, this fits with my experience; the extent of closeness I can profess (high, but of course not perfectly) to a pure Jungian Ti type only ever seems reflective of being nearly dysfunctional in some ways.


Yea, I mean, his description of the person who turns into a thinking process sounds like some pretty extreme intellectualization going on. I mean, I would guess Ni dom for myself sounds like me in the extremes, although I'm not 100% sure what he is getting at with certain things he says in the realm of inferior Se (compulsive pleasure-seeking - like what, do Ni doms not have fun or something? Really makes me question what's up with such a defense to begin with - I have my guesses, but just found his description utterly vague).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

TheRevaN said:


> Innacurrate descriptions. And I get the feeling that you really disconsider extraverts.
> I say it's innacurate because in essence you are corect, but the way you describe the extravert vs introvert: extraverts can't think for themselves so they do whathever the other people do, the introvert is the smart guy who does only what he thinks is right. And this is just wrong........





Old Intern said:


> ^The essence isn't even correct.
> That I know how to pull my head out of my ass to see what other people care about as a cognitive function, Helps me to make sales calls, or negotiate, or design something for someone that fits in with their vision. I naturally see the people around me, in the sense that I am learning what they are about. This means I am not full of myself, expressing meeeee and defending meeeee. And the idealized eeeego image.
> 
> But this has nothing to do with the ability to experience original feelings or make choices that are unique.
> Being aware and engaged, because it is your nature, does not make one a robot. That's why the four function model makes sense.We all have to do some level of internal management and external coordinating. We can't be operating in opposing functions in the same instant, but people use more than one function, even more than two functions for something as simple as a post.


Wrong.

Look, this is just getting ridiculous.

Nowhere do I insinuate that extraverts are mindless zombies, so what the fuck?

Now stop and think about what I just said right now until you accept that I am not insinuating that extraverts are mindless zombies. Repeat it into your dense skulls until the inertia driving your emotions right now, as you are reading these very words, slows the fuck down and calms itself enough to be clear and rational for one goddamn minute.

I am not insinuating that, because I have just now, openly declared explicitly for the record that your personal interpretation, specifically, is not what I intended, and now that I have declared that fact, you both should understand that _I must've meant something else which neither of you caught on to._

Rather, you are both reacting emotionally to what I said because it was itself written emotionally, and reacting to those emotions instead of addressing the very intellectual structure of my statements and their appropriate essences.

This, because of the inertia of past conversations we have had, and it is nothing more than the continuing of that hostility. Don't pretend that's not how society and debates work, you know precisely that's what this is all about but we can't admit that now can we, otherwise it makes all of this look as petty and childish as it actually is.

Because nobody for one second is going to read what I, or you have written at this point and, from their neutral perspective, assume that all of us are genuinely inflamed at each other _for the benefit of mankind_ or anything other than the defense of our own egos, which clearly reflects how desperately lacking self-awareness each of us is in fact.

At any rate, I'm going to be the first to admit everything I just did and humble myself, and I will even explain myself all over again to make it perfectly clear how I conceptualize the experience of reality from an extraverted subjective perspective.

Extraverts _repress_ their introversion. This means that, _they just are_ unconsciously introverted, and unconsciously there are thought processes, feeling processes, intuitions, sensations, all happening and influencing the psyche. Just as consciously, they are trying to repress all of that in order to _align their consciousness with the external world._ Thus, of course they are thinking - the question is _about what, and for what purpose_ - the same is true of their intuitions, sensations, feelings - sensations of what? Intuitions about what? When these are directed _outward at the world outside_ and furthermore they also _*originate from an objective source such as biology, physics, or society, whatever*_ - not from something _subjective and personal_.

I've met so many extraverts who _*don't even acknowledge this division at all*_ because they are so unconscious of it, being _*so extraverted*_.

What I was referring to was only that, and nothing more or less.

Extraverts are not _mind-less_ simply because they seek to emulate or learn to mimic.

*Go out and learn a sport you have never played before.*

Extraverts play the game by following a set of instructions that they learned - their minds are an empty toolkit that gets filled with tools as they grow older. Every idea they _assimilate from outside_ becomes a new tool that can be applied in some way, to something else - either another idea/tool, or reality itself.

This applies to feelings, sensations, intuitions - _all of these are seen as being part of an external system, and having a context within that system, and having a function within that system._

Introverts _don't follow a set of instructions or assimilate new ideas as tools like this._

Instead, introverts _create their own tools from scratch_, inventing them using the process _hereditarily built into their brains_ to come up with reality _subjectively_ instead of assimilating it from the outside. They _project_ reality, because their reality is subjective, reflecting not itself, but _their own nature._

If I have not, by this point, ended this stupid dispute that has transcended just one topic now and invaded every thread I seem to participate in at this point - _and made myself perfectly clear,_ then I have no interest in replying to anything more you two have to say on these forums, as you would seem to have some kind of a _vendetta_ otherwise, if you continue to blatantly ignore what I have _just now said quite plainly and succinctly._

And _of course_ I have a problem with extraversion, if I didn't, I wouldn't be an introvert.

Stop being so damn politically correct and just accept that Jung wrote some controversial stuff. It was written before women even had the right to vote. Maybe that gives it some perspective and context you're not getting.

When I say I agree with Jung, I'm saying I agree with a man who was a religious mystic that studied under Freud, who studied Darwin. I'm throwing my name in with a lot of people who could easily be seen as arrogant bastards and elitist white assholes, as that was generally the attitude of scientists and philosophers back then. So, yeah, a lot of this stuff has clear prejudices and presumptions about certain types of people, all of which reflect Jung's own biases as an introvert himself, which is exactly why I gravitate towards his work, and similar works.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung's greatest merits are probably not in his types (although his descriptions of attitudes are definitely a high spot), but in his conception of the shadow (I mean, the extent to which you can type your shadow is very theoretical, something he probably didn't consider important at all and something people probably use to frankly misinterpret their own shadows as "oh, so-and-so function acting up," even though anything you experience from the shadow is probably just going to be random content and not really a type of anything - at best, the inferior function is the archetype that gets inflated around the shadow, but he probably would've technically considered people to have more than one inferior function in most cases - the aux/terts would probably count for most people as well under the specific conditions he was describing, regardless of a person's strengths there). The question of personality development to him was far more important than anything else (I mean, if we were to transport Jung's conceptions into different contexts, like that of reaction formation, you might wonder if there is indeed a reason people develop along the lines they do - he best explained this as potentially reaching back to archetypes).


I really think Jung's best contribution, and the one that everyone ought to really pay more attention to, is just the way he maps out the unconscious, to include "complexes" and "archetypes" - and yes, the shadow, probably the most important archetype of all.

It's really his archetypes which fascinate me, along with his theory about introversion and extraversion.

The functions have become so second-nature and familiar to me at this point that they hardly seem that important by comparison to his other ideas, right?

Like synchronicity for example, or his formulation of the theory of personas.

Really, there is just so much he contributed to modern psychology that has nothing to do with the functions themselves. I'm finding myself less and less interested in the whole topic as a result.

Like, for instance, when I'm analyzing someone I've just met or someone I've known for awhile, I'm not even that interested in their functions, as that's pretty obvious - and if it's not, then it doesn't matter. Rather, first I'm interested in the attitude of their ego, introverted or extraverted, and then the attitude of their persona - which is interestingly almost always extraverted, and so I find it is strictly more difficult to distinguish the true ego-type of extraverts for that very reason, since their own ego tends to blend into their personas so much.

Thus, I look instead at their unconscious - all the interests they lack, everything that disgusts them, everything they hate, everything they fear, all that they don't care about or ignore, what doesn't matter to them, and just whatever it is they don't know about. I look for patterns of what they habitually ignore and repress to indicate something about their shadow type, which is always going to be their weakest aspects and where they feel the most insecure. These are going to be the areas and subjects you have to watch out for when trying to earn a rapport with them.

What's a fact is that _everyone is mostly unconscious of everything._ The ego-complex of most people is actually quite small isn't it? When you compare it to the vast potential of information that we exist within, just all the cumulative conscious memories, experiences, and wisdom of a single human ego seems like a _drop in the bucket._ So, I often like to probe and explore just how unconscious a person is, by trying to trigger their complexes and see if I can accurately predict how they are going to react, like if I can get them to believe whatever I want, or agree with nearly anything.

The Jungian psyche is truly fascinating.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Yeah... I don't remeber ever arguing with you but whatever... Your second post is much more transparent and does justice to the theory so no more complaining. 

On a side note: I think you are the one who needs to clam down because I am not trying to destroy you or anything...... So chill; I don't even know you.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think it's common for Fe types to misread Fi types as "wanting to be left alone" or what have you, when in fact, you might often get Fi types just trying to convey the essence of their inner experiences and personal inner reality to the outer world (it's a really beautiful thing when and/or if this succeeds with an Fi type, which is no easy task - honestly, I think you might sometimes get this in music, where a singer's inner reality sort of takes on their style and even voice, emotions, etc.).


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

Yeah, I have to say that Fe can be a pain to live with. I do agree that Fi users seem much more emotionally _consisten_t. However, Fe emotionality is more _predictable_ because it is based on external valuation. Fe is going to be very volatile, because it is extra sensitive to external changes. It is like situational emotionality. The degree of Fi's emotional volatility is more dependent on the individual.

Unless my environment or circumstances are tranquil, my emotions will be mirroring the instability in everything. It sucks that I am both very emotionally driven, and that my locus of control with this is external, and so it's not particularly beneficial to myself.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l know shit about Fe, really. l'm just starting to get into cognitive functions.

But l think mine is likely...well developed by now? Decently? Sufficiently? l don't know.

l've heard types with tertiary pr inferior Fi or Fi can really be awful at "handling" it too, actually for the very reason being that they aren't accustomed to doing so. Sometimes l can actually be very reactive to another person's emotional state. lt's less about the words they say and more about the vibes l get.

But it hasn't sent me to a therapist so far lol.


----------



## Serak (Jul 26, 2012)

Well this little thread really took off!
There have been a lot of really interesting posts as well.

I'm actually surprised at the mixed opinions. I had honestly expected a pretty united front against my personally observed trend in those with Fe. It's interesting that a few others have noticed the same thing in their personal experiences. Really seems like this thread has taken on a life and direction of its own.

It was also nice to hear that many others didn't see this trend at all.

Many widely variant interpretations of the functions in here too. So many unique perspectives to examine.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@Serak,

I just want to say I appreciate that kind of enthusiasm.

If you'd ever like to talk to me personally or need me to explain something I might've said that was confusing feel free to post on my wall or send me a PM, or even add me on Skype or something.

I wish everyone was as polite as you sound, good sir!


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

It would be helpful, to have common language, even labels for the purpose of discussion, that help us to separate the content of a persons life, from the preferred methods (cognitive functions) used. One thing that comes up as a barrier, is common use of words and emotional associations that readers make, vs psychoanalytic term, vs dictionary definition. I personally have some concern right now, that knowledgeable people can be deliberately misleading, while working out their own issues. This should be recognized as an acceptable risk as opposed to censoring that defeats the whole purpose of discussion. I simply thought this needed mentioning.

What I referred to with a link to Jung's description further up in the thread was not with intent to discard his theories, but to point out that we need to look at his observations in relevant, and relative context. The content of a woman's life in the 1920's has much to do with Jung's observations and it is upon those of us who want understanding, to and sift through it for transcendent principles.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

_Feeling in the extraverted attitude is oriented by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling.
(Jung excerpt) As mentioned by @_*bearotter
*
*I happened to think about this particular (above) quote, because of a TV commercial this past weekend, with regard to separating common life experience from a function*. This is just a question, since Fe and Fi are not predominant in my life, as a rule in general; my motive is curiosity. Knowing we could be talking to people everywhere in the world I found a link in case you want it. GEICO 'Laughing Fit' | Framestore

*The animated Gecko advertising for Geico insurance*, appears to be portrayed here in the form of bloopers or out-takes where the gecko character is *laughing, which made me laugh quite a bit.* This made me think about how seeing someone else laugh is contagious. Does a person really have to be using Fe to be made to laugh this way? Consequently, does a person need to be using Fi in order to dislike something or choose counter to preference of the group? Could it be said that Fe and Fi are favored context choices only? Physiology which Jung refers to as affect is biological and not in the (knowing) mind, cognitive sense. Could it be said that Fe simply lives in a state more aware, and therefore more responsive to these contagions?

My own Fe being lower in priority, I know that Fe dominants will get depressed if isolated for too long, only based on my observation of a few people. So then is the object absolutely indispensable, or a preference? Are we speaking of human objects excluding happiness about a condition like nice weather, (perceiving nice weather, vs judgement or actions based on it). Does Fi need objects other than human, in order to produce affect? Are Fi moods completely untraceable to any cause?

Participation in the extroverted or external sense is only rarely about emulation in my case.
I choose to blend in on a few levels, or negotiables, in order to have authority or opportunities on other levels. I can only imagine that everyone does this but that introverts want less involvement or a smaller circle. They want more time with internal processing. 

One last thing, My experiences lean toward believing that any type can be reactive to insecurities, and that everybody has some. Fi demonstrations can be seen on other threads. Interpretations of the difference of expression for insecure Fi . . . ?.


----------

