# fi vs fe, gut feeling vs heart feeling



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Hello, i've read that fi feelings are felt in the gut while fe feelings are felt in the heart, personally my feelings are in the belly and the intestiines lol is this considered heart or gut? what is the difference between them btw?


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

Something about your post reminds me of that physicist who bashed string theory by saying it's so far off base that it's not even wrong.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

I associate gut feelings with Ne for some reason. Not that that is accurate.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ach said:


> Hello, i've read that fi feelings are felt in the gut while fe feelings are felt in the heart, personally my feelings are in the belly and the intestiines lol is this considered heart or gut? what is the difference between them btw?


Frankly, the question doesn't really have an answer. The functions don't cause bodily sensations. The real difference between Fe and Fi is from where it derives it's standard of evaluation. Both are judging functions, so they make personal judgments, things like assigning value, meaning, or ethical decisions. The difference is in orientation. Fe derives it's standard from outside, Fi from within. Fe directs it's evaluation of emotion outward on others, Fi is oriented towards it's own emotions. Fe adheres to accepted social standards, Fi hates to have its own experience standardized. Fe makes value judgments based on a standard outside itself, Fi derives it's values from the self. Frankly, neither Feeling function has a lot to do with emotions.


----------



## salt (Jun 22, 2015)

i dont even know what the hell is "heart feeling"
fi users naturally dont take social norms for granted ever since they were born. people around them are like "girls need to be ladylike and blahh.." and the fe users are like "roger that" while fi being unaffected like "why? that makes no sense?? being ladylike is uncomfortable af, also i feel like its not fair". if the fi users dont complain about/question social norms its likely they want to fit in or they just stop caring


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

salt said:


> i dont even know what the hell is "heart feeling"
> fi users naturally dont take social norms for granted ever since they were born. people around them are like "girls need to be ladylike and blahh.." and the fe users are like "roger that" while fi being unaffected like "why? that makes no sense?? being ladylike is uncomfortable af, also i feel like its not fair". if the fi users dont complain about/question social norms its likely they want to fit in or they just stop caring


I'm curious, how fi internal values form? is it just an internal sense of right and wrong or it involves alot of thought?


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Frankly, the question doesn't really have an answer. The functions don't cause bodily sensations. The real difference between Fe and Fi is from where it derives it's standard of evaluation. Both are judging functions, so they make personal judgments, things like assigning value, meaning, or ethical decisions. The difference is in orientation. Fe derives it's standard from outside, Fi from within. Fe directs it's evaluation of emotion outward on others, Fi is oriented towards it's own emotions. Fe adheres to accepted social standards, Fi hates to have its own experience standardized. Fe makes value judgments based on a standard outside itself, Fi derives it's values from the self. Frankly, neither Feeling function has a lot to do with emotions.


i've read that, but then how the are enfps called inspirers? aren't they supposed to be individualists?


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Frankly, the question doesn't really have an answer. The functions don't cause bodily sensations. The real difference between Fe and Fi is from where it derives it's standard of evaluation. Both are judging functions, so they make personal judgments, things like assigning value, meaning, or ethical decisions. The difference is in orientation. Fe derives it's standard from outside, Fi from within. Fe directs it's evaluation of emotion outward on others, Fi is oriented towards it's own emotions. Fe adheres to accepted social standards, Fi hates to have its own experience standardized. Fe makes value judgments based on a standard outside itself, Fi derives it's values from the self. Frankly, neither Feeling function has a lot to do with emotions.


i've read that, but then how are enfps called inspirers? aren't they supposed to be individualists?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ach said:


> i've read that, but then how the are enfps called inspirers? aren't they supposed to be individualists?


I wouldn't put too much stock in the nicknames that people come up for the types; they're usually pretty shallow. Fi types can be just as inspirational as Fe types, and I'd even go so far as to say that they might have an easier time doing so. (Not saying that Fe types can't, but when Fi believes something they _believe_ something wholeheartedly, whereas Fe is more likely to fall into the trapping of "well, everybody believes it, so...". I guess you could say that Fi is a little more selective.) In essence though, ENFPs are uniquely capable of externalizing (Ne) their inner passions (Fi), which people often perceive as inspirational. However, networking and promoting like that does seem to be a quality of ExxPs in general, although each of them goes about it in their own way. I'm hesitant to make any real claims about this, though; being inspiring isn't something that can be classified into cognitive psychology, which was Jung's field of study. Things like this fall a little too far into behaviorism for my taste.


----------



## astrolamb (Dec 14, 2015)

ach said:


> I'm curious, how fi internal values form? is it just an internal sense of right and wrong or it involves alot of thought?


This is a good question. Our internal values have to come from somewhere and they don't grow from nothing. Some of it comes from external sources like following the beliefs of people we respect and trust, but I think a lot of the basics of our values manifest when we evaluate how things make us feel.


----------



## CrudeAsAButton (Feb 18, 2015)

ach said:


> I'm curious, how fi internal values form? is it just an internal sense of right and wrong or it involves alot of thought?


It's a little bit of both. For example, like most people, many of my original values were taught to me by my parents, and when I was young, I believed them wholeheartedly. Little by little, many of these moral concepts changed as they were challenged or as I received new information or a new personal experience. 

For example: I've always grown up near or in urban areas where in general, there are more homeless people. I was always taught not to give them money "because they'll just spend it on drugs or alcohol." Then I went through a severe bout of depression. And dear God, did I cling to alcohol like it was my only saving grace. Was it a bad, bad habit? Fuck yes. Did it get me through another day because I could drink for solace instead of committing suicide? Fuck yes. So of course, now that I am well, I have to wonder: who I am to judge what a homeless man, probably looking for that same small bit of solace I was, does with a bit of cash you give him? And how do I know that he's going to spend it on drugs/booze anyway? Maybe he'll just buy himself a sandwich. I realized the excuse I was given for not giving homeless people money all this time was other people's ways of rationalizing being selfish. They allow themselves to judge someone's actions, without actually knowing what they'll be, so they can feel less shit about being selfish. That was one long moral lesson learned.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

CrudeAsAButton said:


> It's a little bit of both. For example, like most people, many of my original values were taught to me by my parents, and when I was young, I believed them wholeheartedly. Little by little, many of these moral concepts changed as they were challenged or as I received new information or a new personal experience.
> 
> For example: I've always grown up near or in urban areas where in general, there are more homeless people. I was always taught not to give them money "because they'll just spend it on drugs or alcohol." Then I went through a severe bout of depression. And dear God, did I cling to alcohol like it was my only saving grace. Was it a bad, bad habit? Fuck yes. Did it get me through another day because I could drink for solace instead of committing suicide? Fuck yes. So of course, now that I am well, I have to wonder: who I am to judge what a homeless man, probably looking for that same small bit of solace I was, does with a bit of cash you give him? And how do I know that he's going to spend it on drugs/booze anyway? Maybe he'll just buy himself a sandwich. I realized the excuse I was given for not giving homeless people money all this time was other people's ways of rationalizing being selfish. They allow themselves to judge someone's actions, without actually knowing what they'll be, so they can feel less shit about being selfish. That was one long moral lesson learned.



I've always wondered about this issue specifficaly, but what hold me back is knowing that the man is healthy and he can work, maybe giving him money like that can encourage him to be dependent on people


----------



## CrudeAsAButton (Feb 18, 2015)

ach said:


> I've always wondered about this issue specifficaly, but what hold me back is knowing that the man is healthy and he can work, maybe giving him money like that can encourage him to be dependent on people


This isn't always the case... I live in NYC now and there's a burn victim who comes on my commute train regularly asking for money. His face is horribly disfigured and he's blind. I've seen a man with a bloody hole in his stomach. A woman with a tennis ball sized tumor in her face. A man with a huge swollen leg and bloody bandages on his foot. Oh, and limbless people in wheelchairs are just commonplace. 

And all this isn't including the multitude of "invisible" illnesses: be it psychological, neurological, immunological, or something else. There used to be a man who lived on the street about a block away from where I used to work. He would regularly be sitting in a pool of his own urine. If you managed to catch him on a day he wasn't, you might think he was healthy.

And let's not forget that being "able to work" doesn't guarantee you a job, especially when you can't fill out the address part of a job application. Or if you have nowhere to take a shower, how do you expect to get hired smelling like 5-week-old shrimp left in a hot car? There are a lot of problems homeless people face that people who have never been in that situation are just clueless about. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.

Edited to add: I'm no paragon of philanthropy myself. Living in New York City is expensive and I live paycheck to paycheck. However, I can still acknowledge that a homeless person needs $1 more than I do. And every dollar I don't give to someone who needs it more is selfish. I just believe in acknowledging my own selfish actions rather than trying to justify it by making them look like the bad guy so I can look like the good guy.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

CrudeAsAButton said:


> This isn't always the case... I live in NYC now and there's a burn victim who comes on my commute train regularly asking for money. His face is horribly disfigured and he's blind. I've seen a man with a bloody hole in his stomach. A woman with a tennis ball sized tumor in her face. A man with a huge swollen leg and bloody bandages on his foot. Oh, and limbless people in wheelchairs are just commonplace.
> 
> And all this isn't including the multitude of "invisible" illnesses: be it psychological, neurological, immunological, or something else. There used to be a man who lived on the street about a block away from where I used to work. He would regularly be sitting in a pool of his own urine. If you managed to catch him on a day he wasn't, you might think he was healthy.
> 
> ...


Ohh i didn't immagine the situation of homeless people in the us is that bad! even in 2015!
Here in western europe countries in general specifically France, Germany "to not be givving inaccurate info" such situations are very difficult to find


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Fi si Finn from The Force Awakens. Do notice how he went against all regulations(taking off the helmet when nobody allowed him to and consequentially being reprimended by Phasma and his whole rebelious streak). In fact, an Fe user would just shut up and shoot the villagers in the start because "everyone does it so it's ok".

Fi is against that and that's why Fi and Fe users tend to clash. Because Fi is "this is wrong, use your head, sense etc" and Fe is "everyone does it, so it's ok /herpderp". Fi just knows that something's wrong. I link it to the fact that most Fi users use the Golden Rule, willingly or not. And then subjectivise the question, like(in Finn's case):

"What have those villagers ever done to me? Would I want to be so callously executed? That's not ok / not moral / not honourable"

Or, even better, Luke Skywalker. He is one big Fi(Ne) :happy:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Or, even better, Luke Skywalker. He is one big Fi(Ne) :happy:


Sorry to hijack, but where do people get Ne with Luke? I just now sat through ep 4 with my daughter, and it is very fresh in my mind. There is none of that with him. He is very concrete in action and thinking. And the excellent pilot thing... just like his dad.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Sorry to hijack, but where do people get Ne with Luke? I just now sat through ep 4 with my daughter, and it is very fresh in my mind. There is none of that with him. He is very concrete in action and thinking. And the excellent pilot thing... just like his dad.


I actually don't know. That's why I put it in nice little brackets (). He could be FiSe sure.

Or maybe something else entirely, but ennea 47x(primary being either 4 or 7)?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

salt said:


> i dont even know what the hell is "heart feeling"
> fi users naturally dont take social norms for granted ever since they were born. people around them are like "girls need to be ladylike and blahh.." and the fe users are like "roger that" while fi being unaffected like "*why? that makes no sense??* being ladylike is uncomfortable af, also i feel like its not fair". if the fi users dont complain about/question social norms its likely they want to fit in or they just stop caring


Ti > Fe is going to question the hell out of social norms that do not make any sense to Ti. (Can't speak for Fe > Ti types)
I've found I'll accept some social norms that do not make sense to Ti as long as they do not hurt people, but I will question the social norm enough to know that it does not make sense even if I still accept it.

I find it very hard to accept social norms that truly fly in the face of logic, but do not have a hard time accepting social norms that operate _outside_ of logic (much like I can operate decently in situations where the logical approach is not the best one, but not nearly as well in situations where I have to do things that are blatantly illogical).

ETA: To the OP's question, IDK what a heart feeling is either; I think I experience emotions in my...head? lol. Maybe this is my Enneagram type speaking (I'm a 7, head type). I have a strong tendency to intellectualize emotions until they are really just thoughts.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

You're mistaken, I haven't been eating dem beans


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

ach said:


> I'm curious, how fi internal values form? is it just an internal sense of right and wrong or it involves alot of thought?


It just what makes sense on personal- human level. As an introvert It's hard to explain really.
Like @salt said Fe cares more about social harmony, while fi cares about whether something makes sense rather than to create harmony. There is nothing derive morals from. It just whats most truthful to one's self. The goal is to be true to one's self which already have been made up through memories, and staying true to that.
Like questioning whether all women should act feminine, Fi cares about its own harmony rather than external harmony. For instance the fi doesn't feel like they are a feminine person, why should they be girly then? Like that.


----------

