# Deathly confused Fi vs. Fe



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Yes, I understand that one is external and one is internal. Yes I have read some Jungarian function descriptions, but I still find the differences to be a tad bit nebulous. 

Especially,

How does Fi/Fe play in non-aux/non-dom users.

For example, how does Fi play in INTJs; what 'traits' or 'attributes' would be associated with such
Same for INTP
Same for ENTJ 
Same for ENTP 

And how does Fi process differently than Fe. Are Fi-doms more naturally emphathetic or is it selfish due to its introverted nature. If this is so, it would make little sense to call ENFPs empaths as their feeling function would be introverted?

Explain plz :frustrating:


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

The http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/131331-what-does-fe-do.html thread might help you understand things a little better. 

INTPs don't have Fi, they have Fe and it is their inferior function.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> The http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/131331-what-does-fe-do.html thread might help you understand things a little better.
> 
> INTPs don't have Fi, they have Fe and it is their inferior function.


ty yeah; I was wondering how Fe/Fi would appear in those non-dom types.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Instead of making the comparison as generally done here that Fe/Fi are similar since they share the same name, it will be easier to understand why they are vastly different by appreciating that function-attitudes (or cognitive functions) are based on attitude first. As pointed out by Marie Louise vonFranz over a century ago, Fi has more in common with Te than with Fe. But most cannot get past that since they are both feeling functions, they must have something in common. 

As for how any function-attitude will work at different levels, it also works different in the same type. Two INTJs are not going to develop their Ni at the same level. Function-attitudes are not static as theorized by MBTI. They are dynamic and fluid. Some INTJs will have a better use of the Se than others, resulting in a less differentiated Ni. Differentiated doesn't equate to always being used, it simply means that over time it becomes habitual to a point of being second-nature. I have no doubt there are probably some ETP and IFJ types that may have a more developed Ti than I.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> As pointed out by Marie Louise vonFranz over a century ago, Fi has more in common with Te than with Fe. But most cannot get past that since they are both feeling functions, they must have something in common.



Do you have a source for this? I'm interested in reading more. I googled her name, but can't find any public information. Thanks.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

This to me is the easiest function distinction to make, since feeling isn't abstract like the rest to begin with. Introverted feeling marks a difference in origin of a person's feeling - that directed toward the self, rather than the appropriate bounds of outer conditions (extraverted feeling). The way they (Fi) evaluate is toward inner ideals, rather than universal standards or expectations from experience (Fe), even though both types of feeling regard the outer world anyhow - it's just a difference in processes of regarding it - Fi regards it indirectly, Fe regards it directly - it "accommodates" the object/person - the object is it's aim, not a kind of benchmark that they extract from to further their independence from it.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 1, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> And how does Fi process differently than Fe. Are Fi-doms more naturally emphathetic or is it selfish due to its introverted nature. If this is so, it would make little sense to call ENFPs empaths as their feeling function would be introverted?


I think Fi can be selfish. I noticed that Fi dom/aux people intend to be empathetic, but the end results of their actions aren't always harmless. One really good example is Fi dom/aux not wishing to "reject others". Some of them are aware enough that they even know that by not rejecting someone out right, they are stringing these poor people along, but at the end of the day, they will say, "I don't care, it's not my problem, I cannot reject anybody!!!".

As an INTJ, with Fi in the tertiary, behind Te, even though I know rejection hurts, I know that a quick rejection hurts much less than a long drawn out one. At the very least, I am not wasting the other person's time. I guess that's the Te (or maybe Ni) suppressing the Fi.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

surgery said:


> Do you have a source for this? I'm interested in reading more. I googled her name, but can't find any public information. Thanks.


She's probably the foremost Jungian out there besides Jung at least up until her death a few years back. Her book Psychotherapy is a must read, in my opinion especially her lecture on the Inferior Function and on Fairy Tales. Psychotherapy and Lectures on Jung's Typology (shared with James Hillman who does a lecture on the Feeling function specifically) are both available for pretty cheap on Amazon. Definitely worth reading and both are fairly easy reads. Von Franz is amazingly good and breaking really complex down into easy to digest pieces. Additionally if you do a search on youtube for Way of the Dream with Marie Von Franz there were a series of videos made by Jungian Fraser Boa that are interviews with Von Franz back in the 80s that are insightful and amazing.


----------



## Coldspot (Nov 7, 2011)

For those that think Fi is selfish, it's more self-centred. Some people are selfish and some aren't, but when it comes down to the end, the Fi dom will think about everything in relation to his/herself.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Forms I notice my Fi in as an INTJ:

- Mood consistency (I like getting caught up in certain moods/feelings and letting myself ride them out - I get irritated if these moods are disrupted by factors that are outside of my control)

- Moral compass (I have a strong sense of what I feel is right and wrong, when I feel I've made/broken an implicit social contract, etc.)

- The principle of the thing takes precedence over personal biases (e.g. in a situation where some people would immediately prioritize friends over someone lesser known, I might be bothered by doing so and feel a strong need to adhere to whatever values are involved, without bias toward my friend)

- Internal warmth/emotion (as opposed to projecting warmth/emotion)


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

Disclaimer: this is not something I've read, but my own conclusion based on what I've read.

You could say that extroverted judgement deals with what is *right*, while introverted judgement deals with what is *true*.
Based on that perspective, you can decide either that something is right because it's acceptable (Fe), or because it's effective (Te). You can decide something is true because it fits your inner landscape (Fi), or because it's consistent (Ti). For ENTJs with a dominant Te and inferior Fi, decisions will be made on effectiveness, unless they are felt to be unfitting with our inner landscape - for example, if I'm told I'm worthless, there is no way I'll keep listening, because automatically everything you say is false until Fi calms down. So everything grey is acceptable if it works, but if it's black, I'm out.


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

Here's another way to put it.

While Ti is dichotomous (it's either true, or false), Fi can tell if it's true, false, or neither. If it's neither, the person's behavior will depend on the context.

Let's suppose A is an ENFJ, and B is an INFP. Both of them are offered the choice to be in an open relationship. Neither is strongly against open relationships.
A feels strongly that she has to pick one. She thinks of her family's values, of the risk that her partner will be hurt, of the impact it could have on her reputation, and decides that it's not right. Or else it is, if she lives in an environment that wouldn't suffer from it.
B feels like it depends on the context. She's interested in hearing what exactly her SO has in mind, but if she doesn't feel strongly for or against it (as specified for that example), she's not sure how to make that decision. She'll be more likely to hold her judgement, or try it out and learn from the experience. In the future, if she gets into that kind of situation again, she'll have a more informed Fi and might have decided that's it's not right for her after all.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Sinthemoon said:


> Disclaimer: this is not something I've read, but my own conclusion based on what I've read.
> 
> You could say that extroverted judgement deals with what is *right*, while introverted judgement deals with what is *true*.
> Based on that perspective, you can decide either that something is right because it's acceptable (Fe), or because it's effective (Te). You can decide something is true because it fits your inner landscape (Fi), or because it's consistent (Ti). For ENTJs with a dominant Te and inferior Fi, decisions will be made on effectiveness, unless they are felt to be unfitting with our inner landscape - for example, if I'm told I'm worthless, there is no way I'll keep listening, because automatically everything you say is false until Fi calms down. So everything grey is acceptable if it works, but if it's black, I'm out.


Well I think it depends on how you define truth. If we are talking about it in an empirical sense (as in fact) then really only extraverted functions deal with truth because they, by nature, take the subject or personal out of the equations. Something either is factual or not regardless of how the person themselves sees it. Again the feeling function deals with how you evaluate, in a sense something like truth would exist outside of the feeling function because truth can be derived logically (you don't know 1+1=2 because you feel it to be true, you know it because it is logical and empirical which relates more to things like sensation and thinking). I'm not entirely sure you can evaluate truth, either something is true or it is not. Now you can evaluate how you feel about that truth, which the feeling function would certainly deal with, and perhaps this is where 'right' might come into play in sense (though lets not go to far because that is often largely driven more by a person's moral complex not a function). But on the most primitive level the feeling function deals with evaluative aspects such as like or dislike and not necessarily right/wrong, which has other associations attached to it. We cannot say that dominant Feeling types are 'more right' than other types this is clearly not so, or more just, or more moral, or more truthful or anything to that effect.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Okay, just gotta say, I'm terribly fed up with this "tertiary Fi is like this, while inferior is like this" talk. Uhm, no, feeling is feeling is feeling - it's just how positively, negatively, or inconsequentially that it's played up to the ego's awareness of it that makes it a representation of "type" (let alone, how is can be abstracted - does the person fully own it or not - is it rife with projections, overly defensive stances against collective ideas, etc.) - NOT this shit about personal morality or trying to consult it like a robot - no functions are consulted mechanically anyway - they just manifest in line with the will (or motives if you wish) of the person - they represent a personal sense of knowing toward what the person feels is necessary to be aware of to defend his/her ego.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

surgery said:


> Do you have a source for this? I'm interested in reading more. I googled her name, but can't find any public information. Thanks.


*Dr. von Franz and James Hillman's seminar in Zurich*. But let me be clear not imply that Fi and Te have much in common. Dr. von Franz alluded to where Fi and Te have little in common, Fi and Fe have less in common. In their book, "Jung's Typology", von Franz writes on how the inferior Te affects the Fi dominant type, which further removes this type from appearing like someone using Fe.


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

LiquidLight said:


> Well I think it depends on how you define truth. If we are talking about it in an empirical sense (as in fact) then really only extraverted functions deal with truth because they, by nature, take the subject or personal out of the equations. Something either is factual or not regardless of how the person themselves sees it. Again the feeling function deals with how you evaluate, in a sense something like truth would exist outside of the feeling function because truth can be derived logically (you don't know 1+1=2 because you feel it to be true, you know it because it is logical and empirical which relates more to things like sensation and thinking). I'm not entirely sure you can evaluate truth, either something is true or it is not. Now you can evaluate how you feel about that truth, which the feeling function would certainly deal with, and perhaps this is where 'right' might come into play in sense (though lets not go to far because that is often largely driven more by a person's moral complex not a function). But on the most primitive level the feeling function deals with evaluative aspects such as like or dislike and not necessarily right/wrong, which has other associations attached to it. We cannot say that dominant Feeling types are 'more right' than other types this is clearly not so, or more just, or more moral, or more truthful or anything to that effect.


What I was trying to deal with is in fact how people get the _impression_ that something is right or true. How they define what is true or right for themselves, in a sense. I strongly disagree that objectivity and the impression that something is true go together. What you said about 1+1=2 being logical and empirical is a good example. Why would you believe it's true? Because it's consistent, and always works (Ti). The Te way to deal with that dilemma might be: 1+1=2 because it's defined that way. The strong feeling that something is true is never objective, it's always a very personnal experience, like hunger or pain. It doesn't necessarily have an impact on action per se, because it's subjective. Being right, on the contrary, commands to have an impact on behavior. If something is false, it doesn't affect you; if something is _wrong_, it needs to be corrected. That's why I used true and right to qualify introverted and extroverted judgement, respectively. So, Fi-Te might say that 1+1=2 is right, because it always works; and Ti-Fe might say that 1+1=2 is true, because that's logical and nobody will ever contradict that. The difference of process is slight when we deal with mathematics, but it can make quite a difference when there's a misunderstanding about some morality question.

(I want to remember any reader that this is speculative and philosophical in a certain way, so you have to accept my definitions as valid to follow my reasonning. If you have any objections to some words I use, I'll be glad to hear them.)


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Fi and Te are similar since they are more definite in how they focus on producing conclusions - they both consider ideals, one considers intellectual ideals, while the other considers evaluative ideals, so you get someone who tends to cut-to-the-chase pretty quickly in terms of making judgments - the person who tends to know the relevant objectives and relevant variables of likes/dislikes, to focus on in making decisions - they might look like they arrive at conclusions very quickly and are good at summarizing theoretical implications almost down to a few words, or even a word if feeling is being played up, at best (this is a stretch, but it can be seen in these types when under fire). They might be able to influence thought with a mere consideration of objective ideals favoring their personal ideals and sense of self-direction - maybe the person who asks a lot of questions that reference logical deductions, but don't really spell them out, but instead, imply the person has already understood something schematically ("in the grand scheme of things"), so now, they're wondering, against some kind of other external facts and ideas conjured by a topic, why something might be assumed to be reasonable or important - these types might be the people who demonstrate their understanding of something through their conclusions rather than through an analytic breakdown of their thought-processes (knowledge and their take on it). The feelings of these types tend to appear like the person has already pre-judged something, even though really, they might just be evaluating them against inner variables of ideals based on what they would want for themselves - they might look more "objective" with feelings than Fe types, since they kind of "feel" the ideals of their thinking, but their approach is more subjective than Fe.


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Fi and Te are similar since they are more definite in how they focus on producing conclusions - they both consider ideals, one considers intellectual ideals, while the other considers evaluative ideals, so you get someone who tends to cut-to-the-chase pretty quickly in terms of making judgments - the person who tends to know the relevant objectives and relevant variables of likes/dislikes, to focus on in making decisions - they might look like they arrive at conclusions very quickly and are good at summarizing theoretical implications almost down to a few words, or even a word if feeling is being played up, at best (this is a stretch, but it can be seen in these types when under fire). They might be able to influence thought with a mere consideration of objective ideals favoring their personal ideals and sense of self-direction - maybe the person who asks a lot of questions that reference logical deductions, but don't really spell them out, but instead, imply the person has already understood something schematically ("in the grand scheme of things"), so now, they're wondering, against some kind of other external facts and ideas conjured by a topic, why something might be assumed to be reasonable or important - these types might be the people who demonstrate their understanding of something through their conclusions rather than through an analytic breakdown of their thought-processes (knowledge and their take on it). The feelings of these types tend to appear like the person has already pre-judged something, even though really, they might just be evaluating them against inner variables of ideals based on what they would want for themselves - they might look more "objective" with feelings than Fe types, since they kind of "feel" the ideals of their thinking, but their approach is more subjective than Fe.


It took me some time to understand your post, but I think I got the essential.

Subjectivity vs objectivity is a complicated philosophical dilemma. Yes, Fi is subjective, in that it refers to the subject's values. But Ti is as subjective, it just uses principles instead of values (for example, mathematic principles, causality, consistency, etc.). Yes, Te is subjective, as it deals with an individual's understanding of the data, which always ought to be incomplete; but Fe is as subjective, as data about impact of one's actions on others and perception of normality have to be assessed by an individual with senses. I believe none of these strategies can be deemed more objective. What makes something objective, is how other people agree with the premises and conclusions. You can expect people using one of both strategy to judge as more sound their own strategy than the other one. That's also subjective.

If you're not convinced, how do you see Fe as being more objective?


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I was wondering how Fe/Fi would appear in those non-dom types.


It would appear similar to dominant types except that they primarily process information in the opposite orientation I believe. This is why INFJ's and ENFJ's seem really alike. There are differences however, that's why these distinctions were made I believe.

For INFJ's for example, Introverted Intuition dominates more than it would for an ENFJ. To note that it is an introverted activity, the internal information that may be taken from, and related to, but remains separated from the real world is how the Introverted activity is most weighted, prioritized. It results in great suppression against the information processed by Extroverted Sensation, to allow for more operation of Introverted Intuition. 

Thinking for example is suppressed more to make way for Extroverted Feeling, or so MBTI theory goes, but the theory notes that the activity of the secondary function is less than the dominant function, and that the suppression of it's opposing function (in this case Thinking against feeling) is also less than it would be for the inferior function.

I'm currently in the process of learning, and I would appreciate more information too, even corrections. One interesting fact I've found in the difference between dominant Extroverted Feeling for ENFJ's and it's ocurrence as an auxilliary Feeling for INFJ's is that ENFJ's report that they do not like to be alone, which is something the INFJ may even find pleasurable and necessary. I can't fully understand why this is so, but INFJ's also do not like the feeling of loneliness or being abandoned too, but it's the perception of being lonely that is undesirable, in comparison to the fact that one is alone. It may go this way for an ENFJ too. More data is required for conclusions to be drawn.

I have not read that Jung has mentioned Extroverted Feelers (dominant ones) necessitate the company of other people. This is something I would want to understand more in terms of Extroverted Feelers.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Here's how one typologist describes the Feeling functions:

*Fe*

"When we use this function, we aren't organizing data sequentially and logically, by way of principles. We're organizing data by relatedness to ourselves. The categories of relationships we maintain in the external world--and the way we maintain them--reflect our values" (318). 

"'Family', 'friend,' and 'coworker' aren't states of emotion. They're categories of human alliance, organized by degree of relatedness. What we're doing, when we use these categories, is accommodating our specific experiences of people to the conceptual shapes the terms offer. This is rational process, not a sentimental one" (319). 


*Fi*

"It encourages a _personal_ relationship with an evolving pattern, a will to gauge the situation by an experiential ideal" (367). 

"To invoke Introverted Feeling, however, we have to know the difference between a good outcome and a bad one—know with our senses, in our bones” (367).

“Introverted Feeling works in the background of awareness, very much like Introverted Thinking. It moves us to adjust rationally to a situation while it’s happening" (373). 

___________

This makes me wonder if people with an expressed preference for Fe tend to empathize with by people anticipating others' reactions and by guessing their feelings. In their heads, it might sound a lot like, "I bet x is feeling pretty bad about x, I'd better do x to show that we're still on good terms." A lot of people on the forums have made it pretty clear that the Feeling functions are not emotions. However for many (most?) people with a preference for Fe, I imagine that they have an emotional _investment_ in the expected reactions and behaviors that allow us to maintain relationships--an awareness of which is prompted by Fe.

Fi users, on the other hand, might be more likely to empathize by imagining themselves in someone else's place, as if the situation was happening to them. It's self-oriented, but not necessarily selfish. In fact, it can lead to actions that are completely unselfish. Again, Fi itself isn't emotions. Rather a person's emotions are _tied_ to the process of evaluating a situation by its direct effect on a person. 

Personally, I think I tend to do the latter a lot, but it doesn't always occur consciously. When prompted to figure out why I hold a certain opinion, the process that Fi silently carried out tends to translate as thought such as, "Well, If I was such and such, I'd feel x." The thing is, I have no idea how x is actually feeling, only how I would feel in x's situation. Perhaps Fe users may or may not how they personally feel, but they can quickly figure out that when situations has an unintended result, negative emotions arise, and visa versa. In those situations, they know what needs to be done in order to rectify (or celebrate) whatever is going on. 

So, yeah, idk...just a theory


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> You're also assuming that the JCF are functions in the colloquial sense and not in the Jungian sense. They are "lenses" that you look through to see the world. So sure, if a stereotypical Te-dom is in charge of a project they may need to do some "Fe stuff" as part of their job. That doesn't mean they're using Fe, they see the world from a Te point of view.
> 
> In the reverse you may have a strong, charismatic, Fe user who has to use "Te stuff" in order to organize their vision. They don't value Te in and of itself, they're not participating in Te behavior because they think it's important, they're doing it be cause they absolutely have to. But from your perspective, "using" function 1 in the service of function 2 doesn't count as "using" function 1.


interesting; so if used in a sole utilitarian way, it's really just an outside thing, not really attributed to the persons psyche because they do not prefer it intrinsically?


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> interesting; so if used in a sole utilitarian way, it's really just an outside thing, not really attributed to the persons psyche because they do not prefer it intrinsically?


Right, because everyone needs to do things associated with every function. That doesn't mean your world view has changed. So if you look at it, Fe and Fi are competing world views, it's impossible to feel strongly in favor of both. Maybe if it's at the bottom of your stack and you're an undeveloped person then you might be equally indifferent. That doesn't mean that an Fe user doesn't do "Fi stuff" sometimes, they do, but it's in service of Fe and done in an Fe way. It's all about intent.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Coldspot said:


> And yet, I do put myself in others' shoes. I do so in a way that I use everything that I know about the person as a basis and makes judgements about them through that.


I try to do that as well, but as a last resort. My reflex is Ne-Fi. My Te makes sure that I can stay detached and more objective. If I have reached that mode of detachment and objectivity (Fi is subjective of course), than I will try to walk a mile in his/her shoes if the situation demands for it, but meanwhile so many processes have preceded this, that I can't say that that I always insta-put myself in others' shoes as you call it.


----------

