# Fi and it's job in different function orders?



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because that is what empathy is.....vicarious suffering. You feel it through others. Why would somebody being whipped in front of me, hurt me? Guys like Hitler and Gandhi are like somebody who stub their toe, and want to end the pain. How do they do that? By ending what is causing them pain. Seeing a person get whipped, hurts me. I want to stop it. So I end the stimulus that is causing pain. By alleviating the suffering of others, I am alleviating the suffering of myself. As their suffering, is the cause of mine.
> 
> Like bin Laden, the man himself was fine. He was rich, could have lived an easy life. He really had no personal suffering, but he still suffered, because his "people" were suffering. And Bin Laden was not just a protector of Muslim flesh and bone, but the dignity of Islam. A defender of the collective psyche of his people. Because, again, he can't distinguish himself from it.
> 
> Fe users cannot let things go, that others can. Why? Because they care deeply about those around them. 99 out of 100 people will accept the situation as it is. Bin Laden will not. He was chasing the highest value. He has his eye on it, and it guides him.


An Fe user always have to suffer when someone else does? Am I not able to know how a person feels without feeling it myself?(i think I can only empathize or also sympathize)
And an Fi user would not be hurted by someone getting whipped? would it be"Ah that's someone else.. does not bother me?" Or maybe "i imagine it done to me->pain-> have to stop it"


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But I do feel it..
> 
> I get embarrassed for, and suffer through other people all the time. I think I actually suffer more than they do. I am like a magnifying glass. I suffer for people, when they don't even realize they are suffering themselves. I am suffering, when they SHOULD be. And it is impossible not to sympathize, when you feel that level of empathy.
> 
> I really don't know why this is so confusing. Extroverts clearly feel into things, and become them. They sacrifice themselves to the object. They can get lost, and lose the distinction of subject-object. Not only seeing yourself in others, but BEING others. That is that participation mystique. Extroversion pushes itself into things. That is empathy.


I understand what you're saying regarding Extraversion pushing itself into things. However, even though the process works in the same way, I don't believe that they are both actually the same process. Jung said a differentiated Feeling function doesn't experience feeling as an affect, any more so than Thinking does. 
This would be why you can't help but sympathize, because your Feeling function, being aux, is mixed up with your emotions. It's not pure rational Feeling since it's undifferentiated.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> I understand what you're saying regarding Extraversion pushing itself into things. However, even though the process works in the same way, I don't believe that they are both actually the same process. Jung said a differentiated Feeling function doesn't experience feeling as an affect, any more so than Thinking does.
> This would be why you can't help but sympathize, because your Feeling function, being aux, is mixed up with your emotions. It's not pure rational Feeling since it's undifferentiated.


It becomes one with the object.. Everything is one. That is what consciousness is, stepping back, and realizing you are distinct part of the environment. Abstracting yourself from it. Making the distinction between subject and object. 

This is what most leaders, and prophets try to. Remove that distinction, and let people flow together. So it is all one entity. The participation mystique. That allows objects to be holy. You extract the common, abstract substance of all people, put it into something concrete, and then control the concrete thing. And you control everybody by proxy. Hitler was the concrete thing. He was like Frankenstein. He was created. The suffering of his people is the mold, and the clay. The universe demanded those abstractions manifest themselves into material form.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But I do feel it..
> 
> I get embarrassed for, and suffer through other people all the time. I think I actually suffer more than they do. I am like a magnifying glass. I suffer for people, when they don't even realize they are suffering themselves. I am suffering, when they SHOULD be. And it is impossible not to sympathize, when you feel that level of empathy.
> 
> I really don't know why this is so confusing. Extroverts clearly feel into things, and become them. They sacrifice themselves to the object. They can get lost, and lose the distinction of subject-object. Not only seeing yourself in others, but BEING others. That is that participation mystique. Extroversion pushes itself into things. That is empathy.


I do this too, a lot. I've actually suffered a lot from it because I would get upset too easily so I had to learn to control and shut it out for most of the times. I don't believe Fe and Fi are about sympathy and empathy, those are distinct characteristics that some people have and some don't, regardless of their type, but because we are social animals and have to have that sort of attribute in order to keep our society together. 
Separating them like that seems to me just more fuel to the Fi VS Fe "fight".


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> I do this too, a lot. I've actually suffered a lot from it because I would get upset too easily so I had to learn to control and shut it out for most of the times. I don't believe Fe and Fi are about sympathy and empathy, those are distinct characteristics that some people have and some don't, regardless of their type, but because we are social animals and have to have that sort of attribute in order to keep our society together.
> Separating them like that seems to me just more fuel to the Fi VS Fe "fight".


Maybe. But would still be helpful to know where it's coming from. Would help me with my type.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BlueberryCupcake said:


> Maybe. But would still be helpful to know where it's coming from. Would help me with my type.


There are other easier ways to determine your type than this.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

True thing. It's also very interesting to think about the ways emotions go. Though it can be confusing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> There are other easier ways to determine your type than this.


Yeah, but it's part of the puzzle. INFP are very empathetic and sympathetic, in my experience. Very undemanding as well. I was saying the other day to an INFP buddy, that if some of the higher ups and coworkers, were high all the time, they would be more tolerable, and people wouldn't be so uncomfortable around them. Whereas, INFP rarely make anyone uncomfortable. They don't need to be high. So, I consider it a core trait of theirs. If somebody is lacking sympathy or empathy in a situation, he probably isn't an INFP. There are scales, like E and I. Everyone has SOME empathy or sympathy obviously. But some, significantly more than others.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

But through a different process.
There's so much coming to my mind when thinking about my type. For ex I've only about 1or2 values(moral ones) that I'm aware of.and a lack of sympathy for somebody although I'm often right when it comes to judging people.^^


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Fe is just dealing with people like Te. Fe is with harmony based decision, Te is with efficiency based decision. Fe prefers harmonised role integrity (concern-ethical), Te prefers role effiency (planning, goal-oriented)
Fi is just dealing with issues like Ti. Fi is with value based decision, Ti is with logical decision. Fi prefers role integrity that best works with their values (causal-ethical), Ti prefers role efficiency that works best to their own sense of logical consistency (critical, detail-oriented).

The only difference, ultimately.

If an alternative and more visual explanation helps try watching something like





How the functions work with each other is simple, all the functions work with each other really, it's all to do with task and preference.
N/S perceives and compares information, F/T filters and decides on the information using models. F/T is more fixed though adjustable depending (Judging), N/S more or less simply observant to some sense of reality and comparative meaning (Perceiving).

Certainly Fi can match up in values to Fe and see identical in judging things yet Fe has the communication style of dealing with things that are not mutual values and providing logic to their situation in a similar way to make-do Te; whereas if Fi doesn't share the value it either doesn't help or -has the value to help- (the good samaritan ethic) and tries to simply butter up the person it may even create a permanent exception to their value system (which can cause inconsistency and may well be criticised as unfair by others). This is why Fi is summed as empathetic and Fe is summed as sympathetic.

Note on advocacy/causes, Fi tends to create ethical goals out of how it relates to them and the concerns surrounding that. Fi is going to see some concept they are or used to be a part of as a concern that can well be lifelong. Is more likely driven to support the rights for specific groups that are in regard to personal interests (Fi and Fe can both be regarding to past experience, by the way, it is instinctual). Fi may support marijuana because it likes people who smoke marijuana or likes to get on such things as well.
Fe tends to create ethical goals regarding worldwide consistency. Fe is more likely to put out a general concern for the rights of others and if Ni is a preference then the Ni will lean them towards a specific idealised worldview such as a utopian state or casual worldwide improvement. Si Fe is likely to see harmony in contrast to past convention yet Ni Fe is more future focused and tries to contrast imaginative plans with present harmony, to note. Fe is less picky to what it supports so long as the causes aren't too contrary to each other or some ideal. Fe may support marijuana because it sees most people around them seem to think it as a lacking in any real issue or likes the concept of people being more happy/consistent by being allowed to take it if they want to.

The cognitive reasoning is sort of slightly different, basically.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> I understand what you're saying regarding Extraversion pushing itself into things. However, even though the process works in the same way, I don't believe that they are both actually the same process. Jung said a differentiated Feeling function doesn't experience feeling as an affect, any more so than Thinking does.
> This would be why you can't help but sympathize, because your Feeling function, being aux, is mixed up with your emotions. It's not pure rational Feeling since it's undifferentiated.


I was skimming over some Jungian definitions, and he describes this process as "introjection". The pulling in of a person's pain, into you. I assimilate the feeling. That's exactly it. It's the opposite of projection:

Introjection : This term’ was introduced by Avenarius to correspond with projection. The transveying therewith intended, of a subjective content into an object is, however, just as well expressed by the concept of projection. It would, therefore, be as well to retain the term ‘projection’ for this process. *Ferenczi’ has now defined the concept of introjection as the opposite of ‘projection namely, as an ‘indrawing’ of the object within the subjective circle of interest, while projection means a translation of subjective contents into the object.

** Psychologically, therefore, it is a process of assimilation, while projection is a process of dissimilation. Introjection signifies an adjustment of the object to the subject, while projection involves a discrimination of the object from the subject, by means of a subjective content transveyed into the object.*

*Introjection is an extraverting process, since for this adjustment to the object a feeling-into ‘, or possession of, the object is necessary.*


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

KCfox said:


> Note on advocacy/causes, Fi tends to create ethical goals out of how it relates to them and the concerns surrounding that. Fi is going to see some concept they are or used to be a part of as a concern that can well be lifelong. Is more likely driven to support the rights for specific groups that are in regard to personal interests (Fi and Fe can both be regarding to past experience, by the way, it is instinctual).


I very much agree. Due to how Fi behaves it is easier to leverage it where it concerns empathy when I have been through a situation and can thereby relate through experience to someone else enduring a similar situation. By the same token, I encounter difficulty in empathizing with those in alien circumstances — and I certainly won't pretend that I do possess that empathy because then it would not be genuine.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I just remembered that the now-defunct MBTITruths blog has a page on how each function operates at each level in the hierarchy. I don't know where he got his data, but here's what he wrote:

Introverted Feeling
1. Dominant (IxFP) - Understands one's values, clear sense of good and evil, able to predict own reactions.
2. Auxiliary (ExFP) - Able to influence others, motivated by feelings about people, conveys passion.
3. Tertiary (IxTJ) - Having simply defined but strong values, can identify how they feel about an issue.
4. Inferior (ExTJ) - Spreading goodwill through telling others what to do.
5. Opposing (ExFJ) - Annoyed by abstract moral questions, doesn't want to make ethics unique to oneself.
6. Senex (IxFJ) - Thinks of moral issues as useless and does't see their application to humanity.
7. Trickster (ExTP) - Uses ethical dilemmas to manipulate people, making others feel guilty.
8. Demon (IxTP) - Has a difficult time forming values without any given logical basis.

Personally, some of these I have questions about, but here it is for discussion...


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I just remembered that the now-defunct MBTITruths blog has a page on how each function operates at each level in the hierarchy. I don't know where he got his data, but here's what he wrote:
> 
> Introverted Feeling
> 1. Dominant (IxFP) - Understands one's values, clear sense of good and evil, able to predict own reactions.
> ...


That's not really true entirely.
Reason being is because you develop the naturally enjoyable use of the functions as you get older in phases, though your two most energising and static, everything else well becomes separate egos, really. Think how people act and get energised by different things in certain circumstances (i.e. work vs home) that is the egos coming in to play.

MBTI is all about what energises you (especially in terms of finding the best job), say, just because you're not energised by a certain function doesn't mean you oppose it.
There's a lot of skills that work best under certain functions that another type could wish it was more naturally, cognitively gifted at.

Certainly, you may dislike a certain function's use because you find it hard to apply but the order you use the functions is not fixed, you use all the functions in a balanced minded state yet prefer your natural order still.

I know ExFJ, IxFJ, ExTP and IxTP that are very moral-specific but they take longer to do this than those who more naturally possess Fi.
For the meanwhile they try to keep some sense of status quo via the Fe function, Fe can also absorb ethics from spending time with certain people who make these ethics seem sensible and it becomes a more logical model then. Those more drained by ethical issues tend to actually care on what they care but brush it under the carpet more, otherwise they take it into a career goal somehow and if there's an element of revenge then that's really going to actually power their intellectual drive (it can even make them villainous or like some kind of vigilante due to the inner and draining inconsistency). In general shadow Fi can make you more inconsistent than an in general strong Fi user if the value system is wounded to the core, in a stressed state a shadow Fi user may well start to use Fi a lot more especially when it is welcomed and recommended. By the way, strong unhealthy Fi is more likely to breed bad ethics / exceptions to culture as it's a subjective function, when Fi is entirely broken away ethically from culture it can be far more opposing to others' unique ethics and even antisocial (especially with unhealthy enneagram 4). A person with low Fi usage on the other hand cares more about doing their job than concerning about independent values (i.e. works for material value or doesn't stretch values beyond their own niche of family) so just because someone has low Fi it doesn't mean they're ethical or not it just means it's far less likely to be on their mind (until it comes to something "personal"). In this sense Fi users are more questioners of the system and have a talent of synthesising angles (own and similar) for seeing subjective inconsistencies and is more prone to advocate causes and add more feeling to decisions, and Fe users are more oriented on making sure the environment is agreeable and to work as most people do for mere achievement.

Fi is self-preserving and evolutionary, Fe is simply harmony-preserving and simply preservative. Both can be group-preserving for slightly different reasons. This is the tribal function.

Though on another note, I can say I do influence others on a day to day basis, I could regard that to do with my enthusiasm for life a lot.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Fi dom: care a lot, care a lot, care a lot
Fi aux: more carefree still care a lot but don't hold on as much (can have reactions out of proportion depending on the stats of the dominant function)
Fi tert: will have more objective purposes, since Te comes first, won't care too much and when it does is usually about themselves
Fi inf: is the person's weakness, the thing that they don't like about them so they project onto others


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

KCfox said:


> That's not really true entirely.
> Reason being is because you develop the naturally enjoyable use of the functions as you get older in phases


Just want to ask you about this and why you think it isn't true. I personally prefer seeing functions through function models as opposed to the basic theory of each function developing itself in a strict order through strict phases determined by the maturity brought on by age progression. In function models, every function is used by the person -- only some they accept, some they reject, some they seek help with, some they're self-conscious of, etc. This seems infinitely more plausible than assuming people are only going to be capable of dealing with data from every function by the time they're on their deathbeds :laughing: One could say that time and experience does play a role in function development though, yes. Though the time and experience required is really person-dependent.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

KCfox said:


> That's not really true entirely.
> Reason being is because you develop the naturally enjoyable use of the functions as you get older in phases, though your two most energising and static, everything else well becomes separate egos, really. Think how people act and get energised by different things in certain circumstances (i.e. work vs home) that is the egos coming in to play.





Amaterasu said:


> Just want to ask you about this and why you think it isn't true. I personally prefer seeing functions through function models as opposed to the basic theory of each function developing itself in a strict order through strict phases determined by the maturity brought on by age progression. In function models, every function is used by the person -- only some they accept, some they reject, some they seek help with, some they're self-conscious of, etc. This seems infinitely more plausible than assuming people are only going to be capable of dealing with data from every function by the time they're on their deathbeds :laughing: One could say that time and experience does play a role in function development though, yes. Though the time and experience required is really person-dependent.


I'm just curious where you guys get your theory? I mean, it sounds like theory but a bit disconnected from experience--and certainly doesn't jive (do I date myself using this word?) with my experience. 

I should start by saying that I've lived, probably 20 years or so, a life that Naomi Quenk describes as an extended grip experience (something that is probably far more common than you would imagine). 

As I've been paying attention to these things over the past couple years, I've noticed this in myself and others I pay attention to. The more conscious or natural a function is (in my Fi-Se-Ni-Te), the less consciously I have to use it. It just comes naturally, and I don't have to pay attention to it. This is true for my Fi and Se. I'm very comfortable in that zone. 

My third function, Ni, is kind of weird. It is easy for an introvert to get into what people call an Fi-Ni loop. I know lots of people discount their existence, but how I feel, and what I think sometimes, most certainly could be described as an Fi-Ni loop. This tends to happen when I consciously attempt to use my Ni. The more I consciously attempt to draw from my reserves, the more awkward it is, and the more I will be misled by it. For me, my Ni is best left to work in the background. Over the years, I have developed "strategies" to take advantage of how it works in the background. What's weird is that this is something I shared with others _for years_ before I discovered MBTI, the CF and such. What I find is that it predicts and describes my personal experience to a T. That is my third function. 

My fourth, Te, is a weird function. On the one hand, it is really useful, and I find myself needing it a lot, and, I may also be good with it, but also quite bad--it depends. In any case, I have to "invoke" it quite consciously. It tends to be a rather black and white function. It views things as either right or wrong, and really clashes with my Fi. There is always a struggle between it and my Fi. Since this was my grip function for many years, I have a genuine hate-hate relationship with it. ;-)

Below that, I can say that weirdly enough, among the four (Fe-Si-Ne-Ti), I find Fe and Si the most completely lost on me. OK, Fe I understand at a theoretical level--intellectual level--but it is like poison in my mind. I see why people behave the way they do, and even think that way, and I am also frequently guilty of it, but it feels SO WRONG to me! 

Si, on the other hand, is a function that I sort of envy--but not really. I find it to be a limiting and confining function. When I see it active in others, it sort of grates on me. In fact, the only people I've known who I appreciate it in are in ISFJs, but not every one. I know or have known a couple that really grate on me because of how they wield Si. But when I see Si in other people besides a couple ISFJs, I just have a distaste in my mouth from it. 

Ne, on the other hand, is completely different. I envy/admire Ne at a certain level. I wish I could do what Ne-types are capable of (my wife is Ne-aux), and am blown away by what they can do with it. BUT, on the other hand, I find it very exhausting, and, to be honest, frightful or stressful. I'm not exactly sure how to explain it, other than to use the Socionics description as the point of least resistance. I'm not a big fan of Socionics, but in this one point, I can completely agree with. Ne is my nemesis... ;-)

The last one, Ti is the most weird one to me. On the one hand, I am quite functional with it. But on the other, it requires utmost effort, and is quite mentally exhausting to me. Also, it frequently clashes with my Fi, too. But I get the impression that I find Ti easier on me than Te. I'm not exactly sure why, but I suspect that this is because Ti and Fi are actually very similar functions, and rather than being opposites (like Fi and Fe or even Fi and Te), they are parallel functions--both are subjective, rational functions, but where they clash is in the realm of values. Fi is like values-added Ti, and Ti like values-free Fi. But, like I said, it is mentally exhausting--more so than Te, but also, IMO, less "controversial." I have a feeling that it is so exhausting because I have to "turn off" my feeling judgment to make it work, and that is very difficult. ;-) 

And I can say that, other than my grip experiences, this pretty much describes my entire adult life, for the past 30 years. These are observations that include a long time not looking at things through the lens of cognitive functions, but observing differences between myself and others; and then later, recollecting on these things through this lens. Things that used to confuse me now make sense, and things that I used to simply wonder about why my ISFJ friend did things like he did, or why my wife or kids did, or others that I know--it all just fits like pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle... But one thing I've observed is that people don't really change. ;-) Their weaker functions don't improve in the way we might like to think they do. 

I would describe it thusly. Yeah, I could try to use Si--but why? I have a terrible memory--like someone else described, it's like a tattered and torn photo that is fading and wearing out over time. I am better served letting my Ni operate, but in the background. If I must use Si, it is tricksy. Ne even more so. 

I honestly think that there is a limit to which we can develop our weaker and unconscious functions. Let me illustrate it this way...

If you are right-handed, try throwing a ball with your left hand. How hard would you have to practice to be able to throw competently with your left hand? Now suppose you were a baseball player. You want to be able to throw with your left hand for some reason. So, you practice and practice it. The problem is, the more you practice with your off hand, the less you can practice with your strong hand. Since your time is limited, you will become weaker with your right hand. You make a trade-off when you choose to strengthen your weaker hand. I think that the same holds true for our cognitive functions. If you wish to "strengthen" a weaker function, you will struggle, and you will also be more likely to unbalance yourself...

I little further, I'd like to proffer this thought. When we are young, our functions are undifferentiated. This is why we can't really tell a young child's type. It is only as a child matures that the functions begin to differentiate. This means that we are using our dominant functions more, and are getting better at them. This is not a bad thing, but a good thing. Our strong points are what make us us. That is where you improve the most, but improving that, you improve yourself across the board. That has been my experience, and I'm not alone in thinking this.


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I'm just curious where you guys get your theory? I mean, it sounds like theory but a bit disconnected from experience--and certainly doesn't jive *(do I date myself using this word?) *with my experience.


A little yeah Haha



> Below that, I can say that weirdly enough, among the four (Fe-Si-Ne-Ti), I find Fe and Si the most completely lost on me. OK, Fe I understand at a theoretical level--intellectual level--but it is like poison in my mind. I see why people behave the way they do, and even think that way, and I am also frequently guilty of it, but it feels SO WRONG to me!


Maybe Fe and Si are harder to use as it's almost the opposite from Fi and Se, Fe being focused on others and Fi on the user.



> The last one, Ti is the most weird one to me. On the one hand, I am quite functional with it. But on the other, it requires utmost effort, and is quite mentally exhausting to me. Also, it frequently clashes with my Fi, too. But I get the impression that I find Ti easier on me than Te. I'm not exactly sure why, but I suspect that this is because Ti and Fi are actually very similar functions, and rather than being opposites (like Fi and Fe or even Fi and Te), they are parallel functions--both are subjective, rational functions, but where they clash is in the realm of values. Fi is like values-added Ti, and Ti like values-free Fi. But, like I said, it is mentally exhausting--more so than Te, but also, IMO, less "controversial." I have a feeling that it is so exhausting because I have to "turn off" my feeling judgment to make it work, and that is very difficult. ;-)


That makes sense, I think Fi and Ti are judging functions based purely on what you want with no other external data to sway your decision, Fi is decisions based from values and Ti is based on logical thinking, so maybe if you get rid of those values, technically it's Ti (?) Which would make Ti for Fi doms easier to access than Te...although it would be difficult to disconnect from your values as an Fi user, well that's what I take from it anyway..



> I honestly think that there is a limit to which we can develop our weaker and unconscious functions. Let me illustrate it this way...
> 
> If you are right-handed, try throwing a ball with your left hand. How hard would you have to practice to be able to throw competently with your left hand? Now suppose you were a baseball player. You want to be able to throw with your left hand for some reason. So, you practice and practice it. The problem is, the more you practice with your off hand, the less you can practice with your strong hand. Since your time is limited, you will become weaker with your right hand. You make a trade-off when you choose to strengthen your weaker hand. I think that the same holds true for our cognitive functions. If you wish to "strengthen" a weaker function, you will struggle, and you will also be more likely to unbalance yourself...
> 
> I little further, I'd like to proffer this thought. When we are young, our functions are undifferentiated. This is why we can't really tell a young child's type. It is only as a child matures that the functions begin to differentiate. This means that we are using our dominant functions more, and are getting better at them. This is not a bad thing, but a good thing. Our strong points are what make us us. That is where you improve the most, but improving that, you improve yourself across the board. That has been my experience, and I'm not alone in thinking this.


Yeah as a childs brain grows and matures into an adult's I assume the functions do too..but still you'd be able to tell their dominant function right? It's kind of like a defult setting, still though, I'm not an adult but I still find myself using functions an ENFP or INFP would (Ne, Fi, Te and Si) though not very well developed..

It was interesting to read your post by the way, cognitive functions from another person's perspective


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Fi has a "job" to limit stupidity in Fe. Fe is VERY USEFUL and I see its purpose, but it's fucking retarded when unchecked. Fe shames things for utterly irrational reasons just because it keeps the group happy.

Even as an Fi type I see the.value in connection of people to value one another. As an Fi dom raised in an Fe culture (the American South) I find it difficult to value humans who disvalue other humans.

On the other hand, Fe is ridiculous when carried away, killings of women for flirting with boys, lynching black people for being.black, Fe can be accused of some of the worst garbage on the planet until the 21st century, when Te took more pride in its arrogant sin against humanity (corporate capitalists, efficiency at the expense of humanity, Ayn Rand).

No Fi and Ti are more responsible for.individual sin and silly rebellion.

When they do their "job" they correct mass social stupidity, culturally and logically, respectively.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

AddictiveMuse said:


> Yeah as a childs brain grows and matures into an adult's I assume the functions do too..but still you'd be able to tell their dominant function right? It's kind of like a defult setting, still though, I'm not an adult but I still find myself using functions an ENFP or INFP would (Ne, Fi, Te and Si) though not very well developed..
> 
> It was interesting to read your post by the way, cognitive functions from another person's perspective


Children are difficult. There have been several theories and web sites. Most seem to say that you can tell only their dominant function, but I have my own suspicion that that may be a bit simplistic. I think you can tell the dominant extroverted function. I.e. extroverts are possibly easier to catch than introverts. We have three extroverted children, and one introvert. Our introvert was a mystery... If you had asked me when she was younger, and if I knew then what I know now, I would have called her an IFP, but she's not. She's quite a J--INFJ. But that I did know. I think it depends on the type, but some are easier than others to type. Our youngest, I'd call and ESP. She's certainly an Se--but if dom or aux, we really can't tell. I suspect she is an ESP, but she can be quite introverted--spend hours focusing on something. And in some ways, she seems very ISTP, and nothing like her older ESTP brother was at her age. She is very non-verbal, and makes lots of Ni-type blunders, just like me--mixing words up, spoonerisms, etc. especially as she gets older, and she develops more. So, in some ways, she's very ISTP, but other ways, very ESFP, but she is not really people oriented either. She wants others to play with her, but her games, and then, she mostly ignores them, and plays on her own--with them trying to follow along until they get frustrated and go away. She'll just shrug, and go on in her own little world. Our son always had to have his entourage, and was always leading... not like her at all, so it's really hard for me to tell. Also, her older sister, from a very young age was able to get people to do what she wanted--she was obviously, looking back, an ENFJ, and from all I've read, ENFJs show their talents at a very young age--she was 4, and was the queen bee, even getting her brother and sister to go along with her plans--either by hook or by crook... 

But in any case, I think that most practitioners say the dom function is all we see, so you'd have ISJ, INJ, IFP, ITP, EFJ, ETJ, ESP, ENP (I think), but I think it's not so simple as that. On the other hand, my primary experience with children is my own... I haven't really tried delving into the lives of our friends' children. ;-)

Oh, and thanks for the kind words.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I just remembered that the now-defunct MBTITruths blog has a page on how each function operates at each level in the hierarchy. I don't know where he got his data, but here's what he wrote:
> 
> Introverted Feeling
> 1. Dominant (IxFP) - Understands one's values, clear sense of good and evil, able to predict own reactions.
> ...


Thanks so much. Everyone should notice this post. I osscilate between IxFP and ExFP and wonder why people with "simply defined but strong values" are allowed to rule politics. I know these moral simpletons at the.very least control our Republican party. Liberals are currently controlled more I think by ExFPs.

My ESFP wrote one night on his Facebook, quoting a song "id love to change the world but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you." I am like thanks, great, leave it up to me, angel/asshole.

I honestly prefer that attitude to the IXTJ who presumes they know more about ethics than they do. That defines pretty much why I hate the Republican party.

I am sure you are offended, but I am truthin.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Thanks so much. Everyone should notice this post. I osscilate between IxFP and ExFP and wonder why people with "simply defined but strong values" are allowed to rule politics. I know these moral simpletons at the.very least control our Republican party. Liberals are currently controlled more I think by ExFPs.


My personal take is that political correctness is a very SJ doctrine, in particular, SFJ, and you see that a lot in the Dems. Lockstep socialism. That's the left today. They are no more tolerant than the right is, and, in fact, are frequently less so. Socialism, we cannot forget, is all about subsuming the individual for the sake of the whole. Sorry, but that's terrifying to this guy...

The right, i.e. Republican party is not much different--at least in Washington, and probably at the state level as well. Like my wife says, it doesn't matter what the cookie cutter looks like (elephant or donkey), they are both cut from the same dough. 

The thing is, politics is all about forcing people to one's will--or at least, it has become that. But that's been going on for a long time. 

[/quote]I am sure you are offended, but I am truthin.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think you are holding back. You need to let go, and really tell us what you think. ;-)

I may not agree 100% with you, but I certainly see where you are coming from.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Chest said:


> Fi dom: care a lot, care a lot, care a lot
> Fi aux: more carefree still care a lot but don't hold on as much (can have reactions out of proportion depending on the stats of the dominant function)
> Fi tert: will have more objective purposes, since Te comes first, won't care too much and when it does is usually about themselves
> Fi inf: is the person's weakness, the thing that they don't like about them so they project onto others





BlueberryCupcake said:


> An Fe user always have to suffer when someone else does? Am I not able to know how a person feels without feeling it myself?(i think I can only empathize or also sympathize)
> And an Fi user would not be hurted by someone getting whipped? would it be"Ah that's someone else.. does not bother me?" Or maybe "i imagine it done to me->pain-> have to stop it"


I swear I remember my ISFJ sister turning to me when we were kids, watching Bob Barker on The Price is Right, saying she felt sorry for some old man who didn't win. I shit you not. She was like...six?

I can't abide animals suffering.

I think your estimates are sort of right. Fi we feel pain by horribly imagining it done to ourselves, or distance ourselves through "not me."

My ESFJ friend swears she feels other people and their feelings, and could even "feel" the deep intense emo connection between me and her son (she could not respect our relationship until she physically stood between us arguing and saw him cry, how ESFJ is that)...but yet she is HORRIBLE in telling other people what to feel, and if she decides it's "not right" she likes bansishes it from the earth. Fe isn't always nice. It can be obliterai like an atomic bomb.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Chest said:


> Fi dom: care a lot, care a lot, care a lot
> Fi aux: more carefree still care a lot but don't hold on as much (can have reactions out of proportion depending on the stats of the dominant function)
> Fi tert: will have more objective purposes, since Te comes first, won't care too much and when it does is usually about themselves
> Fi inf: is the person's weakness, the thing that they don't like about them so they project onto others





ferroequinologist said:


> My personal take is that political correctness is a very SJ doctrine, in particular, SFJ, and you see that a lot in the Dems. Lockstep socialism. That's the left today. They are no more tolerant than the right is, and, in fact, are frequently less so. Socialism, we cannot forget, is all about subsuming the individual for the sake of the whole. Sorry, but that's terrifying to this guy...
> 
> The right, i.e. Republican party is not much different--at least in Washington, and probably at the state level as well. Like my wife says, it doesn't matter what the cookie cutter looks like (elephant or donkey), they are both cut from the same dough.
> 
> The thing is, politics is all about forcing people to one's will--or at least, it has become that. But that's been going on for a long time.


I am sure you are offended, but I am truthin.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think you are holding back. You need to let go, and really tell us what you think. ;-)

I may not agree 100% with you, but I certainly see where you are coming from. [/QUOTE]

Oh no there is a definite SFJ vibe to."dogmatic" liberalism...I agree. Tolerance for tolerance sake. It's rape even if you enjoy it (not bothering to ask who enjoys rape), and the entire city of San Francisco. But I think most liberal pundits are still ExFP. Even though my my ESFJ friend listened to a liberal pundit nightly in the shower, and lectures me on tolerating Muslims, I think the pundits themselves are ExFP.

Opponents of right wing ideology. SFJs may soldier it out, but IxTJs seem to CREATE IT.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I do this too, a lot. I've actually suffered a lot from it because I would get upset too easily so I had to learn to control and shut it out for most of the times. I don't believe Fe and Fi are about sympathy and empathy, those are distinct characteristics that some people have and some don't, regardless of their type, but because we are social animals and have to have that sort of attribute in order to keep our society together.
> Separating them like that seems to me just more fuel to the Fi VS Fe "fight".


My ESFJ friend said she felt sorry even as a child for people, but I noticed it was issues of her day. She was born in 63. She felt sorry for black people. Then homosexuality. She absorbed the ethos of her epoch and opposed her ST parents. I am sure it helped to live in 1970s Los Angeles. 

She then bullied her peers for not being fashionable in high school, and later in life made arbitrary ageist commands.

Fe types are only as "good" as their generation.

Don't let them fool you.

Just like Fi types are only as "good" as what they identify with.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

fourtines said:


> Fi has a "job" to limit stupidity in Fe. Fe is VERY USEFUL and I see its purpose, but it's fucking retarded when unchecked. Fe shames things for utterly irrational reasons just because it keeps the group happy.
> 
> Even as an Fi type I see the.value in connection of people to value one another. As an Fi dom raised in an Fe culture (the American South) I find it difficult to value humans who disvalue other humans.
> 
> ...



yeah I know there can be a huge gap between Fi and Fe, but not all Fe are like Umbridge


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I just remembered that the now-defunct MBTITruths blog has a page on how each function operates at each level in the hierarchy. I don't know where he got his data, but here's what he wrote:
> 
> Introverted Feeling
> 1. Dominant (IxFP) - Understands one's values, clear sense of good and evil, able to predict own reactions.
> ...


I believe he may have gotten it from this source: Lectures on Jungian Typology by Marie-Louise von Franz and James Hillman | thephilosophicalboy maybe just maybe


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> Just want to ask you about this and why you think it isn't true. I personally prefer seeing functions through function models as opposed to the basic theory of each function developing itself in a strict order through strict phases determined by the maturity brought on by age progression. In function models, every function is used by the person -- only some they accept, some they reject, some they seek help with, some they're self-conscious of, etc. This seems infinitely more plausible than assuming people are only going to be capable of dealing with data from every function by the time they're on their deathbeds :laughing: One could say that time and experience does play a role in function development though, yes. Though the time and experience required is really person-dependent.


The psych doesn't automatically reject certain functions just because it's not energised. The model seems to imply that for example if you have low Fi you're not going to be ethical, that is not true it is instinct to have values and if you don't take to these via Fi then you will via Fe. Fe seeks objective harmony (temporarily submits to a group's ways) as a function and prefers to find the group with common values, Fi seeks subjective harmony (would rather not submit) as a function and prefers to change the group to agree with their own values. You have to read about Ti and Te and it makes better sense as to the contrast between Fi and Fe. If you lack the facilitation of F functions in general then you are lacking in the ability neurologically or have some psychological disorder or think it is social convention you think is implanted and should be rebelled against. To be more energised by using logic it doesn't mean you are uninterested in ethics, in fact logic and Ni/Si play a big role in finding personal ethics and goals (Si queries and compares the past, Ni generates a strong inner worldview), all the rest is determined by upbringing. The only times a person is disinterested in ethics is when they realise holding them makes them more vulnerable/sensitive to conflict (a trait of F doms/aux) and when their personal upbringing taught that holding ethics was a bad thing or they simply didn't get taught personal perspective beyond indulging in and heading for what you want.

So really being Fi or Fe isn't enough to determine whether you are ethical or not, there's way too many variables. If you study tribes then you will notice ethics is something created instinctually out of conflict and indirect psychological preference, if this was not the case then all cultures would be more the same and no one would have their own unique opinions. You have to see it from a perspective without cultural distortions if you want to determine natural functions.

T is an ethical/judging function, too:
T vs F, T prefers to see ethics from a logical perspective (ultimately subjective like any perception); F gets ethics through others (empathy/sympathy) regardless of logic. "Everyone" has some value system, hey even androids need them to have "personality", whether it be measured in objectives or personal principles.
i vs e, i seeks depth (introversion) and wants to change others to see their own point, e seeks breadth (extroversion) and wants to deal with the task preferring to be doing said tasks with others' with a common cause but dissociates to get the problem solved. i functions create energy by going deep and converting mental energy akin to how physical exercise creates physical relief/rush, e functions get energy by dissociating from the psych and entering a more timeless mental state and gets its rush more in the present and more fearless experience (thus the outgoing stereotype). I remind that the low level functionality of the mind is a biological process through which is traced in psychology.

Please read Jung's original functional descriptions to understand this better.
There was not even a care for stacks because your dominant function affects you throughout your life.

Also the order is not strict really, like for example N becomes introverted or extroverted then there's the complimentary function that plug into this like if Ne then Ti or Fi and if Ni then Te or Fe. The next stage is the natural functional compliments, then the alternative egos take shape as stressed much better in Socionics, one for the primary and one for the secondary to switch. Just think how people act differently in different environments, that's the egos in play, though it takes discipline to not return to the primary mode of thought not just a clean switch of egos.

This is why it is said your MBTI type never changes, you cannot change your type, you can only change how you act as your type (distortion).


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

KCfox said:


> Fi seeks subjective harmony (would rather not submit) as a function and prefers to change the group to agree with their own values.


I'm not sure where you came up with that. I'd like to know where you got that...


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@_KCfox_ 
Uh. I have no idea how you think I'm implying lower order F is going to make anyone unethical. F =/= being an ethical person, and I'm not even perpetrating the opposite so stop using a gigantic example to imply I have a simplistic understanding of the functions. By rejecting the input of a certain function I mean thinking that it isn't valuable or finding it stressful and annoying to use and encounter. And since you mention Socionics and are aware of it, then you should be familiar with this sort of function role as well.

@_ferroequinologist_ 

I'm talking about function models which describe eight different roles for functions to play instead of just having them plainly grow weaker and weaker in a 12345678 order. Socionics describes this in its Model A and I think the MBTI equivalent is a model by Beebe?

Also, it's funny how your descriptions of how the functions work for you fit the roles exactly, lol. So yeah, worth reading.



ferroequinologist said:


> I honestly think that there is a limit to which we can develop our weaker and unconscious functions. Let me illustrate it this way...
> 
> If you are right-handed, try throwing a ball with your left hand. How hard would you have to practice to be able to throw competently with your left hand? Now suppose you were a baseball player. You want to be able to throw with your left hand for some reason. So, you practice and practice it. The problem is, the more you practice with your off hand, the less you can practice with your strong hand. Since your time is limited, you will become weaker with your right hand. You make a trade-off when you choose to strengthen your weaker hand. I think that the same holds true for our cognitive functions. If you wish to "strengthen" a weaker function, you will struggle, and you will also be more likely to unbalance yourself...


Yeah I know. In Socionics this is put forth as follows; the superego functions are those we use consciously and suffer in the usage of (because it's tiring and stressful and makes us feel incompetent -- in your case, Ti and Ne) and there's no point in forcing their development because beyond a point, it's just not going to happen all the way to perfection. Hence this is counterbalanced by the healthy development of the superid (in your case, Te and Ni), functions you actually have good potential in and which can assist your primary/ego functions well. Usually it is said that meeting your dual (the one with same functions as you but in opposite order -- ENTJ) is what assists in this development, but it's not like that's an absolute prerequisite; time and experience, as well maturity in general, can lead to growth this way.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I'm just curious where you guys get your theory? I mean, it sounds like theory but a bit disconnected from experience--and certainly doesn't jive (do I date myself using this word?) with my experience.
> 
> I should start by saying that I've lived, probably 20 years or so, a life that Naomi Quenk describes as an extended grip experience (something that is probably far more common than you would imagine).
> 
> ...


Your natural functions come to you more easier just like things you're skilled at doing, all else becomes challenging but not impossible. Speaking as someone who used to be left handed, by the way. Which hand you use is primarily a cultural thing because historically hand grips in many cultures tended to be on one side for that culture, though I won't deny that there is a neurological aspect.
Limit? I wouldn't say limit, certainly it is rare to entirely overwhelm your functions because you're not so energised by the lesser ones. When you're developing there comes your natural order and it is that time you are most vulnerable to psychological disturbances that can be lifelong in regards to the functions.

Consciousness is a complex matter that is best described as matter observing itself and remembering that it is in the sciences. It is the realisation of the self and its surroundings. To be conscious of what functions you use requires knowledge of what you're looking for which is what typology helps with, it is a matter regarding enhancing and improving our consciousness in regards to our personalities and overall cognitive preference.

And speaking of consciousness it requires a conscious thought of what is subjectively good or bad to stress something as "opposing" as opposition is the conflict of subjective state. Plus saying you dislike Fe is basically to hold a value against the stereotype of Fe, that is a very conscious thing, to be opposed like such is very individualistic and Fe can be used for compromise and while that may regard more effort just like a new skill it doesn't mean it can't become easier in time. Fi and Fe can also easily emulate each other when connected to another function. An Fi user will actually find an Fe user complimentary, that's because the different styles of thought with the same objective is like metal is to a magnet. Fe and Fi can be equally ugly or attractive to someone, functions as much as they have stereotypical use do not determine the behaviour of a person but rather what the behaviour is most likely to be given the use in everyday culture (hence MBTI descriptions exist). As someone who was raised on quite an unusual culture to the standardised western norm around me now I can say culture changes how you use your functions in ways so intense that there is a clear essence of forer effect in the assessment of MBTI typings (especially on quizzes).
@ferroequinologist:
Fi vs Fe is sheer matter of depth vs breadth. Fi is more opinionated like Ti and more debating. e functions are more logical and on the surface of more immediate matters. Depth is more conpetitive, it is holds many more arguments, it is prone to lecture. Breadth is more sociable and just wants to get on. Si (past vs present) and Ni (present vs future) are also more opinionated, of course but more to do with observation on its own, until it works with a judging function.
To understand this you must understand introversion vs extroversion theory.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> @_KCfox_
> Uh. I have no idea how you think I'm implying lower order F is going to make anyone unethical. F =/= being an ethical person, and I'm not even perpetrating the opposite so stop using a gigantic example to imply I have a simplistic understanding of the functions. By rejecting the input of a certain function I mean thinking that it isn't valuable or finding it stressful and annoying to use and encounter. And since you mention Socionics and are aware of it, then you should be familiar with this sort of function role as well.
> 
> @_ferroequinologist_
> ...


I didn't say that lower order F is unethical, please reread.
What it means is that lower order F is less likely to be so concerned for ethical matters in the sense it is not energised by such. It is a stereotype that T types are unethical and evil so I am clarifying this is -not- the case, as mentioned in a more recent post.
This is what T vs F preference is all about, exactly that, preference.

Just because you are less likely to be concerned it doesn't mean you can't be.
Lower order means lower preference, lower preference means exactly that.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

KCfox said:


> I didn't say that lower order F is unethical, please reread.
> What it means is that lower order F is less likely to be so concerned for ethical matters in the sense it is not energised by such. It is a stereotype that T types are unethical and evil so I am clarifying this is -not- the case, as mentioned in a more recent post.
> This is what T vs F preference is all about, exactly that, preference.
> 
> ...


Jeez. I think you're the one who needs to reread. I repeat; I want you to stop implying that _*I *_think there is a strong connection between F and being an ethical, morally virtuous person. Anyone can be a good person or have a moral code. Also, lower order F means being more hyperconscious when using that function, so no surprise that those people want to be competent in it too.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> Jeez. I think you're the one who needs to reread. I repeat; I want you to stop implying that _*I *_think there is a strong connection between F and being an ethical, morally virtuous person. Anyone can be a good person or have a moral code. Also, lower order F means being more hyperconscious when using that function, so no surprise that those people want to be competent in it too.


F refers to ethics in MBTI and is even best highlighted in say iPersoni as the E there is literally shortened from ethical to make better sense. What do you think else it does? It is nothing to do with emotion if that's what you're regarding.
I = Introverted, E = Extroverted, N = Intuitive, S = Sensing, F = Ethical, T = Rational, P = Perceiving, J = Judging.

Indeed anything can be good, even rocks, now do they need to have ethical functions? No, because being absent minded to ethics doesn't make you unethical or evil, that is personification or should I say stereotyping.
Of course T types can be ethical, but they deal with ethics more logically or directly with the issues. F is more concerned with how one feels and that can be less rational hence F is irrational to T as N is irrational to S.

You seem to think I am implying something I am clearly not given clear context use, and I'm saying that's not what I mean. In fact, I'm deliberately highlighting the facts that make it clear that T can be ethical.

Also being ethical isn't always a set moral thing.
For example, ethics are opposable and are frequently debated, especially by strong Fi users who aren't hyper sensitive. You may also hold the ethics that a crime is acceptable which may be regarded as negative or "unethical" by certain others, universally beyond the relations of rules there is no good or evil, it's all to do with perspective. This is why politics change, convention is seldom entirely static.

By the way consciousness is measured from the Dom to the Inferior in MBTI and listed in roman numerals in the articles I have research as I to IV, your higher functions are more conscious as their influence is more visible in everyday life (where they are allowed to be). Yet again consciousness is realisation and MBTI doesn't stress how intellectually sentient one is to one's actions. The functions we find more energising are the ones we gravitate to more naturally and are thus more evident in our everyday lives, again this is why MBTI profiling exists with quite some accuracy, but culture can distort certain people from not corresponding to the stereotypes. This is after all pseudoscience.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

KCfox said:


> @_ferroequinologist_:
> Fi vs Fe is sheer matter of depth vs breadth. Fi is more opinionated like Ti and more debating. e functions are more logical and on the surface of more immediate matters. Depth is more conpetitive, it is holds many more arguments, it is prone to lecture. Breadth is more sociable and just wants to get on. Si (past vs present) and Ni (present vs future) are also more opinionated, of course but more to do with observation on its own, until it works with a judging function.
> To understand this you must understand introversion vs extroversion theory.


You actually haven't answered my question... Where do you get that Fi wants to change the group to agree to its values.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> You actually haven't answered my question... Where do you get that Fi wants to change the group to agree to its values.


It's not so much the case that Fi wants to change a group's values per se but it is far more opposing and potentially domineering. Ti and Fi alike are critical. e functions are social and immediate, i functions are more antisocial and comparative. Fe just wants to contribute and get on, Fi wants to advocate something ignored and change that. When I say group I am not referring as everyday use so much as -when- that function is being directly used.

Say someone is being punched up for no reason among a group.
Fi: that's bad because I feel it's bad! I wouldn't want to be hurt like that person! This must stop!
Fe: that's bad because it upsets the group harmony and that person is hurting, the person is a part of the group so perhaps I should stop it

If Fi holds in the reaction it is out of self preservation.
If Fe holds in the reaction it is in fear of bigger group mayhem.

Fi is personifying, empathetic.
Fe is consolidating, sympathetic.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

KCfox said:


> F refers to ethics in MBTI and is even best highlighted in say iPersoni as the E there is literally shortened from ethical to make better sense. What do you think else it does? It is nothing to do with emotion if that's what you're regarding.
> I = Introverted, E = Extroverted, N = Intuitive, S = Sensing, F = Ethical, T = Rational, P = Perceiving, J = Judging.
> 
> Indeed anything can be good, even rocks, now do they need to have ethical functions? No, because being absent minded to ethics doesn't make you unethical or evil, that is personification or should I say stereotyping.
> ...


Omfg. _I _do NOT think Feeling has anything to do with emotion. _I_ do NOT think Feeling has anything to do with being a good and ethical person. _You_ are making it seem like _I_ am an idiot who believes in these stereotypes. Stop making it seem like I am. I don't need the patronization. 

Fyi Feeling is a judgment function that judges by value. Emotions and "how one feels" aren't strictly the realm of Feeling. Anyone who is receptive and experienced in this area can be good at understanding and dealing with emotions. 



> Also being ethical isn't always a set moral thing.
> For example, ethics are opposable and are frequently debated, especially by strong Fi users who aren't hyper sensitive. You may also hold the ethics that a crime is acceptable which may be regarded as negative or "unethical" by certain others, universally beyond the relations of rules there is no good or evil, it's all to do with perspective. This is why politics change, convention is seldom entirely static.


So...? Doesn't answer my question.



> By the way consciousness is measured from the Dom to the Inferior in MBTI and listed in roman numerals in the articles I have research as I to IV, your higher functions are more conscious as their influence is more visible in everyday life (where they are allowed to be). Yet again consciousness is realisation and MBTI doesn't stress how intellectually sentient one is to one's actions. The functions we find more energising are the ones we gravitate to more naturally and are thus more evident in our everyday lives, again this is why MBTI profiling exists with quite some accuracy, but culture can distort certain people from not corresponding to the stereotypes. This is after all pseudoscience.


You feel more engaged while using functions you're less competent with because you're more acutely aware of your attempts to express them correctly and fully. Whereas with functions you are familiar with and are a natural at, you don't have to "obsess" over their usage; it happens on its own and it is how you deal with life automatically. This is what I mean by conscious and engaged usage of a function.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Amaterasu said:


> Omfg. _I _do NOT think Feeling has anything to do with emotion. _I_ do NOT think Feeling has anything to do with being a good and ethical person. _You_ are making it seem like _I_ am an idiot who believes in these stereotypes. Stop making it seem like I am. I don't need the patronization.
> 
> Fyi Feeling is a judgment function that judges by value. Emotions and "how one feels" aren't strictly the realm of Feeling. Anyone who is receptive and experienced in this area can be good at understanding and dealing with emotions.


I'd say that being F has little to do with emotions and everything to do with feeling. We have to separate feeling from emotion, because they aren't the same yet a lot of the time Fi decisions are accompanied by emotion, because emotion is fuel you burn when acting upon a Fi decision....at least I see my emotions as fuel/energy.

I agree that Fi is not necessarily ethical in an objective sense, more so because its based on the relationship between me (the subject) and the object. For me as someone who prefers Fi my evaluation of the object is what matters and the value I give the relationship can be rather unethical by objective standards, but it will be mine.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> I'd say that being F has little to do with emotions and everything to do with feeling. We have to separate feeling from emotion, because they aren't the same yet a lot of the time Fi decisions are accompanied by emotion, because emotion is fuel you burn when acting upon a Fi decision....at least I see my emotions as fuel/energy.


Sure, but it matters only when the difference is made clear. It's easy to misconstrue and generalize that "feeling" has to do with the emotional states we find ourselves undergoing and that tends to the stereotype that "thinkers can't feel blah blah". Since Fi has to do with subjective relationships to object, like you say, those internal states of like-dislike may be accompanied by strong feeling ties that are entirely subject-determined.

The problem with using emotions and feelings as a standard though, is that every normal person is subject to these and most people make emotional decisions and face the heart vs. head dilemma. If the strength of Feeling was determined by how much a person is subject to emotional rationalization then everyone who falls in love is going to change type to an F type for a while. As an example. Therefore I have issues with sweeping statements like "F is all about how one feels", which is what fueled the argument. 



> I agree that Fi is not necessarily ethical in an objective sense, more so because its based on the relationship between me (the subject) and the object. For me as someone who prefers Fi my evaluation of the object is what matters and the value I give the relationship can be rather unethical by objective standards, but it will be mine.


Yeah I relate lol. I was (and still do) wonder why the poster thinks T types dissect ethics with logic, however. That's like saying a Ti/Te type who cares deeply about animals would want to save them because it makes logical sense. Isn't every mature person at least mentally capable of formulating an ethical code (if they want to have one)?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> The problem with using emotions and feelings as a standard though, is that every normal person is subject to these and most people make emotional decisions and face the heart vs. head dilemma. If the strength of Feeling was determined by how much a personas subject to emotional rationalization then everyone who falls in love is going to change type to an F type for a while. As an example. Therefore I have issues with sweeping statements like "F is all about how one feels", which is what fueled the argument.


It is actually quite complicated, and not so easy to use simple statements to generalize. For instance, anger is an emotion, but resentment is a feeling. Jealousy is an emotion, but envy is a feeling. What is the difference? The emotions are fleeting, but also more self-centric. The feelings are the result of a judgment--I resent you for something you did to me, and I will act upon it (either internally or externally). It has an object for its behavior or attitude. The same for jealousy and envy. Jealousy is fleeting, and directed more inwards. I am jealous over my wife, for instance. That means that maybe some other guy, or even our kids could come between us, and at that moment, that is where the emotion arises, but it is not directed towards her, it is an inner reaction to outside stimulii. Envy, on the other hand, is more of a decision or action. You have something or were able to do something I wasn't and now, it has come between us. I have acted upon it--again, either externally with action, or internally, such that it changes my attitude towards you. 

To illustrate a bit differently. You are driving, and some guy cuts you off. You get angry. That's emotion, but when you decide to do something about it--chase him down and cut him off, for instance, or call the police, or whatever--that decision to act is a judging function, and it is no longer simple anger, but a response--a decision. Yes, I'm using baser feelings, but this works pretty much across the board.

IMO, the difference between a feeling type and a thinking type is that for a feeling type, these things are far more nuanced, faceted, and also cover a broader range of feelings, but more importantly, a feeling type will feel comfortable acting upon his feelings--more comfortable, for instance, than acting upon logic alone. Logic might tell you to just spit out what you are thinking, but feeling would say that now is not the time, and you are not the person. On the other hand, logic might say that now is not the time, or you ought not, but feelings tell you to do it.

Since all people have both feeling and logic judging functions, and all of us experience emotions, I think it's safe to say that all of us act upon emotions. I think, though, that thinking types may not realize how often they are responding to emotions. I know my Ti wife does not. Others I know can be convinced they are thinking logically, but they are still responding to emotions or feelings. They just find ways to think it through logically in their minds, and are less aware that feelings (or emotions) are what are driving them. That's my observation, or if they are, they feel very awkward doing it. In any case, that's my take. 

And since the ostensible topic of this thread is Fi and its job in different places in the order of functions, I'd say that's the main difference between Te and Fi types. ;-)


----------

