# Fi vs. Fe In Real Life or Visual I.D.



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I think one of the most helpful things a person can learn by actually reading Jung is that Fi dom is defined by a childish or banal mask, or even outright unexpressive seeming coldness that hides deep feeling. Things I've heard in my life: you're a snob, you're cold, you have a great poker face for lying. I also wondered in school why some of my female friends were so demonstrative, and I appreciated their affection but never felt comfortable initiating it, and wondered where these nurturing, outreaching women came from. They came from Fe!

When you see Fi, you may feel anything from offended or intimidated to bored and underwhelmed. Fi dominance is not engaging unless you're attracted to quiet intensity, mystery, or what seems unavailable. IxTJs can present a similar emotional appearance, in fact seeming even less capable of emotional expression. My ESFPs ISTJ sister constantly gets accused of not liking anyone. Why? She doesn't smile on command, ever. She's only smiling in greeting if she really likes you, she seems at times to be made of pure ice. It's to the point that I had a hard time determining if her older sister was INFJ or INFP because nothing could match ISTJs cool, unemotive gaze. 

If you see someone whose M.O. seems to be a poker face, they're not an IxFJ, I can assure you. Even the introverted Fe types delicately show expressive emotion in their faces and voices. It's one of their strengths, they wouldn't downplay it by pretending to be an ice queen unless they were guarding themselves for a specific reason to detract attention (because Fe knows when to engage and when to disengage).

I really think this may help a lot of people, because it's right there in Jung, but some people seem to miss it entirely.


----------



## Skum (Jun 27, 2010)

This always confused me. I realize that individual difference can account for this but I always found I'm very demonstrative. When people are telling me stories, I make some sort of face. When I tell stories, I'm expressive. I suppose when it comes down to it I can really mute it down and display a poker face but for the most part that is reserved for special purposes and requires concerted effort. 

What about male xxFJs? I've seen several INFJ men on this forum express that they have a very reserved public persona. Anyone want to chime in?


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

My SO is an IxFJ male (leaning towards INFJ, but sometimes...). He is usually reserved in a crowd. If he knows and likes a couple of the people, he's expressive toward them but blatantly ignores everyone else. In a small group of friends, he's usually the clown and counselor rolled into one. One-on-one, the conversation usually ends up in the realm of relationship counseling.

Contrast that with my behavior as an INTJ. In a crowd I'm either very reserved or I'm deliberately performing for everyone. I don't single out anyone. In small groups, I'm still the reserved one. I usually only speak up when I have something unique to offer to the conversation or unless someone asks me a direct question. One-on-one, I prefer anything BUT relationships and emotions (even with him).


----------



## cosmia (Jan 9, 2011)

I find, as a likely Fi-user, I have a larger problem with not knowing what emotions I'm expressing, instead of not expressing them at all. I can be very expressive, but I have little control over my face and how I come across to others, honestly. Or, rather, I don't think about it. I've realized this more and more in spending time with my boyfriend who, much to my annoyance (you know, the general kind of, "You don't know what I'm feeling!!" Fi-stuff), likes to often point out what emotion I'm expressing. The other day when he said he had to go, apparently I looked sad and forlorn, though I initially thought I was smiling/amused. Sometimes I think I'm being completely neutral and he says I'm smiling. And then I realize - yes, I am making X expression - how did I not realize?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I completely agree that this has to be the most obvious part of Jung that totally gets ignored by everyone (I've noticed it a lot IRL before reading about it in PTs). The Fe types (especially dom. and tert. - aux. and inferior tend to be more tolerant, although they tend to have this wavering in their voices when trying to seek your emotions and might get reactive) at worst are like energy vampires to me in the realm of demonstrating evaluative responses, although I've gotten away with it before. Fi for me is very calculated, so I'm sure this gets on the nerves of some of the Fe types I know IRL, where they don't like to be left predicting what feasible response I might convey (and whether or not I even will).


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I think one of the most helpful things a person can learn by actually reading Jung is that Fi dom is defined by a childish or banal mask, or even outright unexpressive seeming coldness that hides deep feeling. Things I've heard in my life: you're a snob, you're cold, you have a great poker face for lying. I also wondered in school why some of my female friends were so demonstrative, and I appreciated their affection but never felt comfortable initiating it, and wondered where these nurturing, outreaching women came from. They came from Fe!
> 
> When you see Fi, you may feel anything from offended or intimidated to bored and underwhelmed. Fi dominance is not engaging unless you're attracted to quiet intensity, mystery, or what seems unavailable. IxTJs can present a similar emotional appearance, in fact seeming even less capable of emotional expression. My ESFPs ISTJ sister constantly gets accused of not liking anyone. Why? She doesn't smile on command, ever. She's only smiling in greeting if she really likes you, she seems at times to be made of pure ice. It's to the point that I had a hard time determining if her older sister was INFJ or INFP because nothing could match ISTJs cool, unemotive gaze.
> 
> ...


 The idea in poker is to trick the other person into thinking you are thinking/feeling something you are not. Bluffing is not stoic.. It's deceptive.. In that respect, Fe _is_ the poker face.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Arclight said:


> The idea in poker is to trick the other person into thinking you are thinking/feeling something you are not. Bluffing is not stoic.. It's deceptive.. In that respect, Fe _is_ the poker face.


It is stoic. I'm referring to being stoic, not fake smiles.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

fourtines said:


> It is stoic. I'm referring to being stoic, not fake smiles.


 Yes.. I am aware.. But stoicism is not the only type of poker face and Fi does not monopolize the poker face concept. 
Your statement of saying and Fe can't have a Poker face as it's MO is simply inaccurate and I needed to point that out.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Skum said:


> This always confused me. I realize that individual difference can account for this but I always found I'm very demonstrative. When people are telling me stories, I make some sort of face. When I tell stories, I'm expressive. I suppose when it comes down to it I can really mute it down and display a poker face but for the most part that is reserved for special purposes and requires concerted effort.
> 
> What about male xxFJs? I've seen several INFJ men on this forum express that they have a very reserved public persona. Anyone want to chime in?


Do you really believe that everyone who says they're an INFJ really is one?

Fe can be "reserved" in the sense of being "appropriate" to the occasion, for example. Pi doms don't necessarily go around Fe-ing the way Fe doms (ExFJs) do. They prefer Pi first.

However, if you look at Fi doms like M.I.A., Eminem, PJ Harvey, Nick Cave, and Robert Smith from the Cure as performers, for example, you can see that even as performers they tend to have less emotive faces. The other option is the "childish or banal mask" which is the big eyed child-like IxFP stereotype, which funnily enough gets categorized more on to Fi aux/ExFPs...the childish/banal mask. 

I'm not talking about Socionics facial I.D. by things like body type, facial features, or any of that non-sense, but something that Jung plainly names in his descriptions of the Fi and Fe types. 

However, some people follow Keirsey and say P or J is the deciding factor in terms of things like organization or spontaneity. I'm speaking strictly of Fi versus Fe types from the Jungian perspective.

Fi tends to mask a deep well of emotion, which can come out very expressively privately or if a person gets very offended (their Fi is violated either in terms of their personal ethics, or they take something as a personal attack), or maybe even during a particularly heavy bout of drinking. 



@_ChanceyRose_

I know an ISTJ who will use his Te to basically "yeah yeah yeah" people because it's more efficient. I've seen scores of people say INTJs also do this, they basically use Te/Fi to accomplish goals more effectively by giving people what they want; but they don't feel it on the inside. ISTJ talks about how much he hates people and how much energy it can take from him to do this at times. It's actually quite difficult for him to express his real inner feelings which are quite deep and fairly fragile, unless he's pushed into a really emotional state during an argument (I've been taken aback with his sudden random feeling spurts because he's usually so stoic) ...this is his version of the Fi dom/aux having their Fi crossed and suddenly becoming a force to be reckoned with. He's also more likely to express feelings when he feels it's "too late"...again because he's been pushed into it by loss or fear of loss. He's more likely to express feelings through music, acts of loyalty or service, etc. 

I express feelings a lot more openly in writing or on-line, or when upset. Otherwise I don't even see the need to, unless I'm with someone I trust intimately, and I can even get irritated with someone I don't know well expecting any kind of sympathetic emotional response from me, like when strange men tell me to smile or when anything expects much of anything from me in that department, because I feel it's none of their business.

I think a lot of people who know me from on-line only would be shocked to know that friends I've had for nearly three years for a long time thought of me as quiet, sweet, and almost entirely non-expressive, and were surprised when they found just how strongly I'll express emotion when crossed or my Fi is violated. And this is where the Fi type can make the Fe type uncomfortable; the feelings may be inconvenient, inappropriate, or puzzling to the overall feeling of the group, so viewed as shocking, confusing, or even wrong or "bad." And this is when the Fi type feels misunderstood and expected to pretend to feel something they don't, and I think this is when these clashes are at their worst, in group settings where there are numerous Fe types vibing off of each other and Fi walks into the room. The Fi type may be accepted as a non-intrusive, quietly empathetic member of the group, only to be rejected once they feel a need to express their true feelings. 

In my experience Fe doms are the most offended, as they themselves often try to "set the tone" for the group, so they feel like it's some kind of rude or hurtful rebellion on the Fi users part. Like, it's fine that you feel that way, but seriously you need to go bite a towel or keep it to yourself until a more appropriate time kind of thing. Funnily enough the Fi type USUALLY does this simply because they don't want or need to express, but when crossed or violated, all bets are off and the Fe/Fi IRL clash emerges.

I tend to have less problems with Fe-ers one-on-one, I've noticed. I've even let Fe doms "have their way" just because I feel no need not to unless they cross my personal Fi lines. 

However, I've even had IxFJs subtly "call me out" in group settings, even in a chat room, like hey let's play nice kind of a thing. Unlike the ENFP bitch slap though, their calling out, they seem to feel, is still polite and appropriate and for the good of all concerned.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Arclight said:


> Yes.. I am aware.. But stoicism is not the only type of poker face and Fi does not monopolize the poker face concept.
> Your statement of saying and Fe can't have a Poker face as it's MO is simply inaccurate and I needed to point that out.


Ah semantics. You say poTAYto I say poTAHto.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

I read somewhere that Fe is much more outward expressive. I don't have the link although i did read it not long ago. I also read that Fi isn`t easy to read, i know as an Fi user people can never tell exactly what i'm feeling at any given moment just by looking at me. Kind of makes sense, it isn't called introverted feeling for nothing .


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

fourtines said:


> If you see someone whose M.O. seems to be a poker face, they're not an IxFJ, I can assure you. Even the introverted Fe types delicately show expressive emotion in their faces and voices.* It's one of their strengths, they wouldn't downplay it by pretending to be an ice queen unless they were guarding themselves for a specific reason to detract attention (because Fe knows when to engage and when to disengage).
> *
> I really think this may help a lot of people, because it's right there in Jung, but some people seem to miss it entirely.


I think the bold part is key, because there are definitely times when I'm disengaged and don't feel like committing to a conversation. In those cases, people do think that I'm very unemotional or detached. So there are times when Fe does cut off happy social vibes.

However, I do think you're right that when Fe users are engaged, we tend to want people to feel happy...so we'll sometimes act nicer and warmer than we truly feel inside.

For example, if someone says something I disagree with...unless it's something I feel a particular need to correct them about, oftentimes I'll simply nod. This nodding doesn't mean that I agree with them....for me, it means that I understand where they're coming from. However, they might interpret this as me agreeing with them. An Fi user might interpret this as dishonesty, but for me, it's a way of showing a person respect without having to start what I view as an unnecessary conflict.

Or, if someone tells a joke that I don't find funny, I think I tend to naturally smile just to make them feel better. I'll only speak up if I really feel like it's offensive. But if it's just a joke that I find kind of dumb, I'll usually still smile just so they don't feel dumb for telling it.

So basically, I tend to do things to make people feel better, even if my true feelings don't line up with theirs.



fourtines said:


> I express feelings a lot more openly in writing or on-line, or when upset. Otherwise I don't even see the need to, unless I'm with someone I trust intimately, and I can even get irritated with someone I don't know well expecting any kind of sympathetic emotional response from me, like when strange men tell me to smile or when anything expects much of anything from me in that department, because I feel it's none of their business.


I tend to feel the same as you do in this regard, though. If someone tells me to feel something that I don't, I'm also going to get irritated. 




fourtines said:


> Fe can be "reserved" in the sense of being "appropriate" to the occasion, for example. Pi doms don't necessarily go around Fe-ing the way Fe doms (ExFJs) do. They prefer Pi first.
> 
> Fi tends to mask a deep well of emotion, which can come out very expressively privately or if a person gets very offended (their Fi is violated either in terms of their personal ethics, or they take something as a personal attack), or maybe even during a particularly heavy bout of drinking.
> 
> ...



I think in group settings, the Fe/Fi clash may be the strongest. I think for Fe users...we tend to want to avoid what we view as unnecessary conflict. I think we don't like people arguing over something...it stresses us out a lot, especially in a group setting when we want people to be celebrating something.

So in that regard I do think that Fe users strive for harmony.

I think what a lot of it is down to is that introverted functions are "deep" and tend to have more of an "all or nothing" approach. I know my Si is like this, and it sounds like your Fi is kind of like this. You either want to keep everything held back, or you want to express everything.

For Fe, I think we're kind of the opposite...we let out little bits of ourselves more easily, but we also are more comfortable holding back our feelings for the sake of the group.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I think one of the most helpful things a person can learn by actually reading Jung is that Fi dom is defined by a childish or banal mask, or even outright unexpressive seeming coldness that hides deep feeling. Things I've heard in my life: you're a snob, you're cold, you have a great poker face for lying. I also wondered in school why some of my female friends were so demonstrative, and I appreciated their affection but never felt comfortable initiating it, and wondered where these nurturing, outreaching women came from. They came from Fe! ...
> 
> If you see someone whose M.O. seems to be a poker face, they're not an IxFJ, I can assure you. Even the introverted Fe types delicately show expressive emotion in their faces and voices. It's one of their strengths, they wouldn't downplay it by pretending to be an ice queen unless they were guarding themselves for a specific reason to detract attention (because Fe knows when to engage and when to disengage).
> 
> I really think this may help a lot of people, because it's right there in Jung, but some people seem to miss it entirely.


Jung thought being emotionally expressive vs. emotionally reserved was first and foremost an extravert/introvert thing.



Jung said:


> The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. ... The introvert, on the other hand, who reacts almost entirely within, cannot as a rule discharge his reactions except in explosions of affect. He suppresses them, though they may be just as quick as those of the extravert. They do not appear on the surface, hence the introvert may easily give the impression of slowness. Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality. But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object. ... As a rule one is badly informed about the introvert because his real self is not visible. His incapacity for immediate outward reaction keeps his personality hidden. ...
> 
> Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of _enthusiasm_. What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips.


As further discussed in this post, it's questionable whether Jung even thought that the auxiliary function of an introvert would be extraverted rather than introverted, and Myers acknowledged that that view ran counter to the majority of Jung scholars. But in any event, Jung would not have expected an INFJ to be outwardly expressive. He thought the "banal mask" in his Fi-dom description was pretty much characteristic of _all_ introverts.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> He thought the "banal mask" in his Fi-dom description was pretty much characteristic of _all introverts._


This is 100% your circumstantial interpretation of Jung. The "banal mask" stuff has nothing to do with general "discharges of energy" from an introverted to extraverted state. That's Jung being more general about introversion. The Fi stuff is Fi specific - more about what it looks like, rather than it's general processes. This will relate to how the Fi type already rationalizes their feelings in relation to the outside world - not a process imperative.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I've noticed that Fe types, down to the inferior ones who are certainly as Fe as any Fe type, but it's very shadowy in them (like, they wouldn't be able to tell you why reacting from an Fe perspective makes sense to them, even though it does subconsciously anyway to them), tend to get shocked by any kind of lack of consensus from Fi types, as if they feel like they're being considered "objectively wrong" in their opinionated conclusions (or in however they might've chosen to state something, etc.). My twin (INTP) can be like this, where if she thinks I do something "embarrassing," it's coming from me not considering what "the group" would likely give a crap about - I think my ISFJ mom is a lot more tolerant of personal dissent, but still has trouble generally wrapping her head around it. It's important to note that these types are also Ti types, so on a personal level, Fi will probably seem a bit irrational/perplexing to them (on the objective Fe level, they might try to attribute objective reasoning to it).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is 100% your circumstantial interpretation of Jung. The "banal mask" stuff has nothing to do with general "discharges of energy" from an introverted to extraverted state. That's Jung being more general about introversion. The Fi stuff is Fi specific - more about what it looks like, rather than it's general processes. This will relate to how the Fi type already rationalizes their feelings in relation to the outside world - not a process imperative.


100% my circumstantial interpretation of Jung? On the contrary. Although the specific "banal mask" reference comes from Jung's Fi-dom description, numerous descriptions by Jung of introverts make it clear that Jung viewed a "banal mask, or even outright unexpressive seeming coldness that hides deep feeling" (to quote the OP) as characteristic of all introverts — INFPs and INFJs alike.

Since the Jung quote in my first post (did you even read it?) apparently wasn't enough for you, here he is again, talking about _all introverts_ (not just Fi-doms) — including INFJs:



Jung said:


> This negative relation to the object, ranging from indifference to aversion, characterizes every introvert and makes a description of the type exceedingly difficult. *Everything about him tends to disappear and get concealed.* *His judgment appears cold*, inflexible, arbitrary, and ruthless, because it relates far less to the object than to the subject. ... He may be polite, amiable, and kind, but one is constantly aware of a certain uneasiness betraying an ulterior motive — the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and placated lest he prove himself a nuisance. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but if he is at all sensitive [the object] will feel himself repulsed, and even belittled.


And here he is describing _all Pi-doms_ — including, again, INFJs (assuming you view INFJs as Ni-doms):



Jung said:


> [Pi-doms] are almost inaccessible to judgment from outside. Being introverted, and having in consequence little capacity or desire for expression, they offer but a frail handle in this respect. As their main activity is directed inwards, *nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarrassment*. When anything does come to the surface, it is generally an indirect manifestation of the inferior and relatively unconscious functions.


And here's a heaping helping of Jung from 1936 — 15 years after Psychological Types was first published — in an article later included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. Here again, Jung is describing _all introverts_ — including INFJs:



Jung said:


> The introvert is not forthcoming, he is as though in continual retreat before the object. ... What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. *His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them*. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. *He confronts the world with an elaborate defensive system compounded of scrupulosity, pedantry, frugality, cautiousness, painful conscientiousness, stiff-lipped rectitude, politeness, and open-eyed distrust*. His picture of the world lacks rosy hues, as he is over-critical and finds a hair in every soup. ...
> 
> For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. ... *His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.* Thus the psychic life of this type is played out wholly within. Should any difficulties and conflicts arise in this inner world, all doors and windows are shut tight. The introvert shuts himself up with his complexes until he ends in complete isolation.
> 
> In spite of these peculiarities the introvert is by no means a social loss. His retreat into himself is not a final renunciation of the world, but a search for quietude, where alone it is possible for him to make his contribution to the life of the community. This type of person is the victim of numerous misunderstandings — not unjustly, for he actually invites them. Nor can he be acquitted of the charge of taking a secret delight in mystification, and that being misunderstood gives him a certain satisfaction, since it reaffirms his pessimistic outlook. That being so, *it is easy to see why he is accused of being cold, proud, obstinate, selfish, conceited, cranky, and what not*, and why he is constantly admonished that devotion to the goals of society, clubbableness, imperturbable urbanity, and selfless trust in the powers-that-be are true virtues and the marks of a sound and vigorous life.


And finally and, again, describing _all_ introverts:



Jung said:


> The [introvert's] *personality seems inhibited*, absorbed or distracted, 'sunk in thought,' intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is *only a meagre participation in external life* and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ... [T]his type has a decided tendency to fight shy of external stimuli, to keep out of the way of change, to stop the steady flow of life until all is amalgamated within. ...
> 
> udden explosions [of affect], alternating with defensiveness and periods of taciturnity, can give the [introvert's] personality such a bizarre appearance that such people become an enigma to everyone in their vicinity. Their absorption in themselves leaves them at a loss when presence of mind or swift action is demanded. Embarrassing situations often arise from which there seems no way out—one reason the more for shunning society. ... Their affective inner life is very intense, and the manifold emotional reverberations linger on as an extremely fine gradation and perception of feeling-tones. They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as *a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli*, and in all situations that might evoke them. *This touchiness is directed primarily against the emotional conditions in their environment. All brusque expressions of opinion, emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion*, which in turn might start off a reverberating impression he might not be able to master. This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Although the specific "banal mask" reference comes from Jung's Fi-dom description, numerous descriptions by Jung of introverts make it clear that Jung viewed a "banal mask, or even outright unexpressive seeming coldness that hides deep feeling" (to quote the OP) as characteristic of all introverts — INFPs and INFJs alike.


Dude, you just can't read stuff into Jung that he never said. He's doing a *visual* analysis of Fi types and more of an analysis of the *mentalities* of introverts in general (which does not extent to presenting themselves with a banal mask over their feeling). Emotions and feeling are not the same thing. Feeling is rational evaluation - emotions are what underly all of the functions in general. The "banal mask" stuff is moreso what characterizes Fi types - his observations weren't actually characterizations of introverts though (he was describing their actions from a more psychological point of view).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is 100% your circumstantial interpretation of Jung. The "banal mask" stuff has nothing to do with general "discharges of energy" from an introverted to extraverted state. That's Jung being more general about introversion. The Fi stuff is Fi specific - more about what it looks like, rather than it's general processes. This will relate to how the Fi type already rationalizes their feelings in relation to the outside world - not a process imperative.


That is because the subjective and the objective have to continuously correct each other as he pointed out in the Te description. @_reckful_ you forgot to point out that.

My instinct is always right when logic sounds clean and dandy, that's how I can easily tell undeveloped Ti types apart; I notice that its most commonly with lead Ti folks. It personally frustrates me a lot when a person is trying to force me to swallow their argument when its like that. Even though I like Richard Dawkins, he is quite obnoxious at times when he is in his bulldoze mode saying he right swallow my views else you are an idiot; people are irrational and have to be allowed to come to their own senses thinking for themselves, respect lessens the antagonism they would be prone to have.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I know an ISTJ who will use his Te to basically "yeah yeah yeah" people because it's more efficient. I've seen scores of people say INTJs also do this, they basically use Te/Fi to accomplish goals more effectively by giving people what they want; but they don't feel it on the inside.
> 
> [...]
> 
> However, I've even had IxFJs subtly "call me out" in group settings, even in a chat room, like hey let's play nice kind of a thing. Unlike the ENFP bitch slap though, their calling out, they seem to feel, is still polite and appropriate and for the good of all concerned.


Yes, 110% yes.

Every time I express strong _negative_ emotion, people act as though I've suddenly become a monster because I rarely express the bad stuff. I think it may also be because, those who know me, know that I'm more likely to act on the bad stuff -- to remedy a situation -- than they are. My fixes usually result in someone getting butthurt.

And, yeah, my SO thinks nothing of correcting my tactless, selfish, morally ambiguous ways. My little Jiminy Cricket. :dry:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Dude, you just can't read stuff into Jung that he never said. He's doing a *visual* analysis of Fi types and more of an analysis of the *mentalities* of introverts ...


I dunno. I wouldn't say I'm the one with reading comprehension problems. The OP said she's been told "you're a snob, you're cold, you have a great poker face for lying," and she contrasted that with "female friends" who "were so demonstrative." And she went on to explain that I_FJs are definitely _not_ "poker faces," since they "show expressive emotion in their faces and voices. It's one of their strengths," and she explained that this distinction between I_FPs and I_FJs is "right there in Jung," who she thinks attributed "unexpressive seeming coldness that hides deep feeling" to I_FPs but _not_ to I_FJs.

Without taking any position on what I_FPs and I_FJs may actually be like in this regard, I pointed out that _Jung's view_ (contrary to the OP's understanding of Jung) was that it was characteristic of _all_ introverts that their emotions tended to be of the deep/turbulent variety and that they tended to conceal those emotions behind an unexpressive exterior. That's really not _my interpretation_ of Jung; it's what Jung explicitly said, repeatedly, in Psychological Types.

Just to recap a few highlights from the quotations I've already posted, Jung said that introverts "cannot as a rule discharge" their emotional reactions," so "they do not appear on the surface. ... Empathy is not his aim ... [and] his incapacity for outward reaction keeps his personality hidden." "In every case," Jung said, "there is only a meagre participation in external life." He said an introvert's "judgment appears cold," and that people talking to introverts, if they were "at all sensitive," might well end up feeling "repulsed, and even belittled." Jung said an introvert "keeps [his better qualities] to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them," while "confront[ing] the world with an elaborate defensive system compounded of scrupulosity, pedantry, frugality, cautiousness, painful conscientiousness, stiff-lipped rectitude, politeness, and open-eyed distrust." Jung said it was "easy to see why [the introvert] is accused of being cold, proud, obstinate, selfish, conceited, cranky, and what not." Although an introvert's "affective inner life is very intense," this leads to "a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them," with the result that "all ... emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion." Speaking of all Pi-doms (which include I_FJs if you assume they're Ni-Fe types), Jung said: "Being introverted, and having in consequence little capacity or desire for expression, ... nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarrassment."

Your assertion that Jung's Fi-dom description is a "visual analysis" while these quoted passages on introverts are about "mentalities" rather than what's outwardly visible is, not to put too fine a point on it, just silly.

Again, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on how accurate Jung's conception of introversion was. My point was simply that the OP was incorrect to suggest that Jung would have expected any introvert (including an INFJ) to be outwardly emotionally expressive as a result of an Fe auxiliary function. For one thing, it's unclear whether Jung would have expected any introvert to have an extraverted auxiliary. But more importantly, the emotional expressiveness in Jung's Fe descriptions were Jung's view of how Fe would manifest itself _in an extravert_. The deep-feeling-hidden-behind-an-unexpressive-exterior aspect of Jung's Fi-dom description — which the OP was understandably struck by — is a quality Jung repeatedly described as being characteristic of _introverts generally_ (not just "Fi types").


----------

