# Jung's description of Fe is lacking to say the least



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

So, in this thread I am going to go through Jung's very own description of Extroverted Feeling and add comments and personal viewpoints. Feel free to discuss the content!


I will cut out parts from the text, the full description can be read here: http://personalitycafe.com/enfj-art...ion-extraverted-feeling-type-fe-dominant.html




> Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.


This isn't a great start. Basically, Fe is here described as merely acts of accommodation and impersonal. "I Think it's beautiful because it's expensive and has a famous name under it!!"



> In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective [p. 447] trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking. But this salutary effect is lost as soon as the object gains an exaggerated influence. For, when this happens, extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person, whereupon the personal character of the feeling, which constitutes its principal charm, is lost. Feeling then becomes cold, material, untrustworthy. It betrays a secret aim, or at least arouses the suspicion of it in an impartial observer. No longer does it make that welcome and refreshing impression the invariable accompaniment of genuine feeling; instead, one scents a pose or affectation, although the egocentric motive may be entirely unconscious.


What? What does this "exaggerated influence" even mean? HOW does it become cold?!? Like it's theatrical and manipulative?



> Such overstressed, extraverted feeling certainly fulfils æsthetic expectations, but no longer does it speak to the heart; it merely appeals to the senses, or -- worse still -- to the reason. Doubtless it can provide æsthetic padding for a situation, but there it stops, and beyond that its effect is nil. It has become sterile. Should this process go further, a strangely contradictory dissociation of feeling develops; every object is seized upon with feeling- [p. 448] valuations, and numerous relationships are made which are inherently and mutually incompatible. Since such aberrations would be quite impossible if a sufficiently emphasized subject were present, the last vestige of a real personal standpoint also becomes suppressed. The subject becomes so swallowed up in individual feeling processes that to the observer it seems as though there were no longer a subject of feeling but merely a feeling process. In such a condition feeling has entirely forfeited its original human warmth, it gives an impression of pose, inconstancy, unreliability, and in the worst cases appears definitely hysterical.


Is this another way to say that Fe is manipulative?



> n so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling.


Misogyny.



> As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values.


Just wow. Women need education in order to be able to consciously control their feelings... Yeah, maybe the Fe types actually react emotionally somewhat appropriately, unlike some. *cough, cough*



> Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured. Such 'reasonable' marriages exist without number, and they are by no means the worst. Such women are good comrades to their husbands and excellent mothers, so long as husbands or children possess the conventional psychic constitution.



* *



















> One can feel 'correctly', however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible.


Hahaha, I seriously can't stop laughing. Women shouldn't make sense on purpose. Quote Jung on that instead! xD



> This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never sui generis; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.


So rejected logic isn't logic? Great logic there, Mr Logic. Making judgments based on anything but logic seems very incomprehensible for Jung himself, it can't be easy to be that emotionally retarded.



> But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible.


This basically says "I cannot understand it so therefor it cannot be a personality". Otherwise, my interpretation is that Fe is described as volatile, expressing a wide range of feelings and can have great difficulties understanding ones own internal feelings. 



> The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object.


An eccentric mother is all it takes apparently, and she didn't seem to be at a particularly good mental health judging from this.



> The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.


Mood swings happens not only to Fe types or women, though. This snowballed fast into painting Fe as emotional monsters.



> We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.


It's really hard to take this seriously at all. Because he was afraid of his own emotions it doesn't mean that an Fe is afraid of their own thinking.



> So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object.
> 
> 
> Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. This negative thinking avails itself of every infantile prejudice or parallel that is calculated to breed doubt in the feeling-value, and it tows every primitive instinct along with it, in the effort to make 'a nothing but' interpretation of the feeling. At this point, it is perhaps in the nature of a side-remark to observe that the collective unconscious, i.e. the totality of the primordial images, also becomes enlisted in the same manner, and from the elaboration and development of these images there dawns the possibility of a regeneration of the attitude upon another basis.
> ...


The way that I interpret this... Is that this is an episode of someone suffering from mental illness. Mental illness has no place trying to describe what this type is.

[HR][/HR]

The conclusion I draw about Fe from this description now is this; personal values are flexible and adaptable to the situation, emotions are strongly felt yet may lack understanding for what the internal feeling is, these feelings are displayed in a very visual way, excitable as in naturally performing well at creating good atmospheres. What I do disagree with is the suggested adherence to tradition and chose to interpret it as a kind of awareness that makes the objective feeling adept at navigating through interpersonal dynamics, which to an emotional retard as Jung easily is to be interpreted as sheep mentality.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well its extraverted feeling not extroverted. That being said, I think you slightly misread how Jung conceptualized the feeling function.

In the http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/149310-intij-4.html thread I quoted Hillman and Von Franz (two people who worked very directly with Jung over many years) who I think do a much better job of explaining it.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Allow me to paraphrase..

"Jung isn't telling me what I want to hear and/or I don't get it.. Jung is a moron and I know better"

And more seriously.. No function stands alone so trying to understand it on it's own can make it seem weird and incomplete.. If Fe is present then Ti is present. What Fe is lacking Ti counters and balances. 
This stuff is simply about polar positions .. It's not quantum physics.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Arclight said:


> And more seriously.. *No function stands alone so trying to understand it on it's own can make it seem weird and incomplete.. If Fe is present then Ti is present. What Fe is lacking Ti counters and balances.*
> This stuff is simply about polar positions .. It's not quantum physics.


Did you read Jung's description? It's not about Fe in isolation. It's about both Fe and the repressed, unconscious Ti. But Jung hardly says the Ti "counters and balances" the Fe. It would be more accurate to say he characterizes Ti as Fe's bitch. In any case, you can't very well say that Inguz is reacting to an incomplete picture because Ti is left out. Here's Jung again (as already quoted by Inguz):

One can feel "correctly," however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never _sui generis_; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. "But I can't think what I don't feel," such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.​
What's more, Jung says the enslavement of Ti (Jung describes it as T with "its backbone broken") is only effective if the repression of Ti is not too great. If the Fe becomes too one-sided, what Jung says is likely to happen next is described in the final paragraphs Inguz quoted. And again, it's nothing anybody could reasonably describe as Ti "countering and balancing" Fe in some sort of psychic harmony. It's Ti wreaking havoc, and causing such women to become obsessive and negative and "infantile." 

Honestly, Arclight, if you're incapable of acknowledging that Jung's portraits include a lot of fairly cartoonish and condescending stuff, you either haven't read Jung with any care or you're treating him with a misplaced reverence that Jung himself would probably disapprove of. If you want to disagree with Inguz's criticism by defending what Jung actually said, go to it, but don't pretend Jung didn't say it.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

reckful said:


> Did you read Jung's description? It's not about Fe in isolation. It's about both Fe and the repressed, unconscious Ti. But Jung hardly says the Ti "counters and balances" the Fe. It would be more accurate to say he characterizes Ti as Fe's bitch. In any case, you can't very well say that Inguz is reacting to an incomplete picture because Ti is left out. Here's Jung again (as already quoted by Inguz):One can feel "correctly," however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never _sui generis_; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. "But I can't think what I don't feel," such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.​
> What's more, Jung says the enslavement of Ti (Jung describes it as T with "its backbone broken") is only effective if the repression of Ti is not too great. If the Fe becomes too one-sided, what Jung says is likely to happen next is described in the final paragraphs Inguz quoted. And again, it's nothing anybody could reasonably describe as Ti "countering and balancing" Fe in some sort of psychic harmony. It's Ti wreaking havoc, and causing such women to become obsessive and negative and "infantile."
> 
> Honestly, Arclight, if you're incapable of acknowledging that Jung's portraits include a lot of fairly cartoonish and condescending stuff, you either haven't read Jung with any care or you're treating him with a misplaced reverence that Jung himself would probably disapprove of. If you want to disagree with Inguz's criticism by defending what Jung actually said, go to it, but don't pretend Jung didn't say it.


 Yeah.. Jung's use of language is not so palatable.. Psychological Types was written in a Swiss regional German dialect using 1930s scientific terminology and that Jung was "on his own planet" so to speak.. and it doesn't always translate well into modern English.
Jung was not trying to invent typology or personality typing he was trying to explain the differences in perceptions between himself ,Freud and Adler.
Jung's work was not complete in the context we are discussing.. Typology today.. He provided a foundation.. SO much work has been done since.. He is not the only source of empirical data and information on Functions. 

Here are some more quotes from his _Bible_.



> The scientific tendency in both is to reduce everything to their own principle, from which their deductions in turn proceed. In the case of fantasies this operation is particularly easy to accomplish because ... they ... express purely instinctive as well as pure ego-tendencies. Anyone who adopts the standpoint of instinct will have no difficulty in discovering in them the "wish-fulfillment," the "infantile wish," the "repressed sexuality." And the man who adopts the standpoint of the ego can just as easily discover those elementary aims concerned with the security and differentiation of the ego, since fantasies are mediating products between the ego and the instincts. Accordingly they contain elements of both sides. Interpretation from either side is always somewhat forced and arbitrary, because one side is always suppressed
> Nevertheless, a demonstrable truth does on the whole emerge; but it is only a partial truth that can lay no claim to general validity. Its validity extends only so far as the range of its principle. But in the domain of the other principle it is invalid


The rest of what you wrote is psycho babble presented in quite a scornful manner and might pertain to feelings of insecurity manifested as a bitter and abrasive know it all, with a lack of humor and a puke inducing sense of self righteousness.
Also known as the _Keyboard Warrior._ 
Take a pill.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I agree he shows the most bias in describing Fe (another reason i think the man was Ti-dom). His Fe description has a distinct Si flavor to it, as if he did not successfully separate the two (much as his Ti type sounds a bit more INTP than ISTP).

I don't think he means Fe adheres to tradition blindly or that's what Fe amounts to. His examples are illustrations of how someone might gauge value using external measures. Tradition is an external measures of what is good/bed. That is exactly why, as you mention in your summation, a Fe-type may adapt to situations, but it's often in a larger context (which means they don't sway with whatever very specific context they're in at the moment, but certainly may adjust seamlessly in time to a larger context that has shifted around them). Tradition is actually a large context & one not easily replaced because it has a "tried & true" aspect for people. Fe types are often willing to shuck it when something is determined to be better with external measures, or may stick to it when failed to be proven as not working well. That's _rational reasoning_, which Feeling does.

All of the cognitive functions are "thinking". The "thinking" a Fe type is rejecting of the kind of impersonal systems a Ti type creates in their inner world. This is not fear of logic. Feeling types tend to see Thinking not as confusing or above their pretty little heads, but as mean, critical, dry, dull, and not even sensical (it discounts a human element they find ridiculous to discount - that's part of reality!!!). Feeling types often experience their thinking as MORE emotional than their feeling. This is because removing the human element is offensive - it drains out meaning & makes things seem very cold & dull.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Arclight said:


> Yeah.. Jung's use of language is not so palatable.. Psychological Types was written in a Swiss regional German dialect using 1930s scientific terminology and that Jung was "on his own planet" so to speak.. and it doesn't always translate well into modern English.
> Jung was not trying to invent typology or personality typing he was trying to explain the differences in perceptions between himself ,Freud and Adler.
> Jung's work was not complete in the context we are discussing.. Typology today.. He provided a foundation.. SO much work has been done since.. He is not the only source of empirical data and information on Functions.
> 
> ...


Not too surprisingly, your latest post didn't really substantively address anything in either the OP or my post about Fe-doms and their relation to Thinking.

As for the "scorn" and "abrasiveness" in what you describe as my "puke inducing" post, and as a reminder, here's how your post addressed the OP:



> Allow me to paraphrase..
> 
> "Jung isn't telling me what I want to hear and/or I don't get it.. Jung is a moron and I know better"


So I'd hardly say I need to take a back seat to you in the scornfulness department, although I can't help noting that the target of my scorn deserved it and the target of yours didn't.

And if you find my posts "puke inducing," then it sounds to me like you're the "keyboard warrior" who needs a pill.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

His description of Te is equally lacking. It says that Te-types just live by a formula and even determine what is beautiful according to it -- it makes them sound robotic.

I think it's safe to conclude that Jung was an introvert who was very much biased against extraverted functions xD


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

^ He shows considerably less bias against Pe though. I smell admiration there, which further makes me think he is Ti-dom and Pe-aux (NOT Ni-dom).


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Arclight said:


> "Jung isn't telling me what I want to hear and/or I don't get it.. Jung is a moron and I know better"


Of course the OP seems to be proving Jung's assessments here. Good thing I wasn't the only one who had the same feeling. If you don't agree with his definition of Extroverted Feeling, what do you think Fe is Inguz? 

I think there is a thing as "Counter Fe", as a person chooses to be contrary to the social schemata but their rejections aren't really part of their own original feeling anyways.

Maybe it's just my own personal experience, however I generally say things for the intent of being an attention whore, but I hardly really actually mean them (even if it's just consciously). An example of this is that I would say that all prisoners should be hanged, or that rape is not actually a big deal. Even if my own emotional response might actually align with with the general populace, I just feel compelled to be contrarian for no reason a lot. 4chan and sites like it are a decent example of counter Fe in popular society. So it's counter Fe in counter Fe.

I also wonder if boredom and interest would be related to the feeling function, or at least a rejection of doing things that are boring or uninteresting. After all it's values over measurements in the very least.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Didn't read it all but I can somehow relate. I can become cold, as in, I can sometimes see good and bad being bad and good or true and untrue and shit. I always get apathic when it happens. I won't be able to favorite either over the other and there's no damn interest in doing so... Even with ethics or doing the right thing and the like. There's no realty about any of it, it all comes down to the pure subjectivity. Which seems I lack. 

Don't get me wrong I do feel strongly about certain things! But everything outside those things tend to lack the commitment and care.

Classic example of Ti picking Fe appart?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> I agree he shows the most bias in describing Fe (another reason i think the man was Ti-dom). His Fe description has a distinct Si flavor to it, as if he did not successfully separate the two (much as his Ti type sounds a bit more INTP than ISTP).
> 
> I don't think he means Fe adheres to tradition blindly or that's what Fe amounts to. His examples are illustrations of how someone might gauge value using external measures. Tradition is an external measures of what is good/bed. That is exactly why, as you mention in your summation, a Fe-type may adapt to situations, but it's often in a larger context (which means they don't sway with whatever very specific context they're in at the moment, but certainly may adjust seamlessly in time to a larger context that has shifted around them). Tradition is actually a large context & one not easily replaced because it has a "tried & true" aspect for people. Fe types are often willing to shuck it when something is determined to be better with external measures, or may stick to it when failed to be proven as not working well. That's _rational reasoning_, which Feeling does.
> 
> All of the cognitive functions are "thinking". The "thinking" a Fe type is rejecting of the kind of impersonal systems a Ti type creates in their inner world. This is not fear of logic. Feeling types tend to see Thinking not as confusing or above their pretty little heads, but as mean, critical, dry, dull, and not even sensical (it discounts a human element they find ridiculous to discount - that's part of reality!!!). Feeling types often experience their thinking as MORE emotional than their feeling. This is because removing the human element is offensive - it drains out meaning & makes things seem very cold & dull.


It is my understanding that Si prefers dealing with the known and certain aspects of perception because it is it's function. Impressions, comparisons, narrowing down what is reliable. In this sense it has a certain affinity towards tradition because tradition is by definition similar. Si dom/aux users will find the already known and familiar comforting and as such they are also prone to routine and enjoying repetitive same-same experiences. 

This is as with all functions a certain strength and a certain weakness at the same time. Ne doms rely strongly on Si in order to make sense of and narrow down Ne perception to usable data (the whole: "this is familiar to me and I was here before"), Si doms in reverse.

It however does not mean that they directly adhere to social traditions...HOWEVER, in the case of Fe which is directed towards external ethics and making sure external harmony exists the whole social tradition priority makes sense (especially if the user prefers Fe and Si - xSFJ). These types value it because it is familiar, reliable, known, repetitive and ensures external harmony, group cohesion, getting along. Fe is negative in the sense that it tends to protect external harmony by cutting away sources of conflict.

Separating the two leads to the user gravitating less towards social traditions/traditions, but the preference still exists in both as the types find comfort in it through either function.

For example my 3w2 ENTP brother's tendency is to adapt to his environment's external ethical conditioning aka to adopt external value sets. To him it is logical to be on good terms with his select group in order to accomplish his goals. The result is that he has a tendency to ostracize people who deviate from his group's values and to criticize illogical people (Ti-Fe with Ne-Si).


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Sorry, but this is about the only thing that would accurately portray my stance on this thread.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

This thread is interesting.

Realizing that my points would lead to a flamewar with the OP I erased them and reserve my insights for myself.
I don't need that right now, I don't care if you guys go undeucated.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@OrangeAppled That Jung hated the Fe type doesn't mean that he was Ti-dom. He would qualify more as INTJ. His irrational fear of feelings doesn't come from being Ti-dom with Fe-inferior, I attribute this to him being enneagram 5w6. To him feelings was unreliable and always obscured logic judgment, this is enneagram 5 stereotype, not Ti-dominance.

I will briefly cross with socionics too, in regards to two points. The first is socionics description of Fe.


> Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
> 
> Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
> 
> Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.


This is very close to what is described in Jung's text that doesn't include his problems with women or personal issues with Fe. Secondly, his type in socionics would be INTp, a Ni-Te type that has a vulnerability to just Fe, which easily in this system explains his irrational fear of the boisterous and changing Fe.
@FreeBeer While I fully agree that you are completely correct in terms of MBTI for the assessment of Si, Jung's Si is the "lazy artist" that is focused on pleasure and comfort as well. It shows how confusing MBTI is, perhaps to some extent the fault of Jung himself for writing such biased descriptions and having such cryptic language. MBTI Si have no focus on the internalized sensations, which should be self-explanatory by the name in it self. Similarly to Si, Fi is the internalized feelings, being aware of ones own feelings towards the subject. This ought to create a personality type who's aware of ones own moral and values, in opposition to the object of course, but has no other choice than to be a "slave" under them as the conscious is so aware of these values. Similarly, Fe ought to be the opposite, focused on the object, to which the subject's feeling values takes a back seat. The sense of right or wrong therefor becomes less pronounced compared to Fi, as even Jung himself stated, Fe can be overwhelmed by the extraverted feeling process while at the same time being oblivious to ones own internalized feelings (ones own personal values).

I am fully aware of the fact that I am now arguing against Myers-Briggs descriptions in favour of my own interpretation of Jung's descriptions and socionics model a interpretation of the same. That is beside the point however, my main problem with this description of Fe is the fact that Jung was incredibly biased when writing it, or if you will, had mommy issues á la Freud, which he ironically just so happened to study under.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Inguz said:


> @OrangeAppled That Jung hated the Fe type doesn't mean that he was Ti-dom. He would qualify more as INTJ. His irrational fear of feelings doesn't come from being Ti-dom with Fe-inferior, I attribute this to him being enneagram 5w6. To him feelings was unreliable and always obscured logic judgment, this is enneagram 5 stereotype, not Ti-dominance.
> 
> I will briefly cross with socionics too, in regards to two points. The first is socionics description of Fe.
> 
> ...



I don't really see how and why MBTI functions would not be the same as jung/socionics functions, because essentially they are describing the same thing from different perspectives.

MBTI Si is NOT memory or tradition etc. Those are just consequences and observations based on what Si actually is. Based on what I said in the above post Si types would be the ones most likely to enjoy comfort and environment that is pleasing to the senses (a good painting) and not Se types, who enjoy dynamic and active environments that engage their Se directly (the forest with animal activity, wind blowing)

Similarly all functions across the board are essentially the same in MBTI and in Socionics, which makes for example socionics IEI an MBTI INFJ given that both have the following valued strong and weak functions: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. IEI Se suggestive is essentially the same thing as MBTI inferior Se.

*Example* my mother ESE (ESFJ) Fe-Si enjoys a clean well furnished house, a social family atmosphere, good lighting, comfortable chairs, lazying around in the swimming pool, relaxing. It makes her feel alive when we invite guests over for a dinner party.

In comparison I have a Se preference and enjoy running out into a thunderstorm screaming at the top of my lungs 8D rain falling, thunder & lighting, just soaking in the chaos, if I could add some speed and more force to it...now that would be awesome!


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> I don't really see how and why MBTI functions would not be the same as jung/socionics functions, because essentially they are describing the same thing from different perspectives.
> 
> MBTI Si is NOT memory or tradition etc. Those are just consequences and observations based on what Si actually is. Based on what I said in the above post Si types would be the ones most likely to enjoy comfort and environment that is pleasing to the senses and not Se types, who enjoy dynamic and active environments that engage their Se directly.
> 
> Similarly all functions across the board are essentially the same in MBTI and in Socionics, which makes for example socionics IEI an MBTI INFJ given that both have the following valued strong and weak functions: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. IEI Se suggestive is essentially the same thing as MBTI inferior Se.


They are simply not. This is very apparent from the Myers-Briggs own website. I can post a few and you can see for yourself.


> *ISFJ
> *Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home.


This is socionics ESI, Fi-Se: Ethical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion



> *ISFP
> *Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.


Socionics Si-Fe: Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion



> *ESFP
> *Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other people.


Socionics Fe-Si: Ethical Sensing Extratim - Wikisocion

And so on.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> His description of Te is equally lacking. It says that Te-types just live by a formula and even determine what is beautiful according to it -- it makes them sound robotic.
> 
> I think it's safe to conclude that Jung was an introvert who was very much biased against extraverted functions xD





Erbse said:


> Sorry, but this is about the only thing that would accurately portray my stance on this thread.


Allow to express my own sentiments about this thread also:










First of all, it should be noted that Jung is describing an extremely stereotype and exaggerated portrait of the Fe type. All of his portraits are. He was even hesitant writing Chapter 10 for that reason alone, because he knew most people wouldn't understand what the chapter was about and take the descriptions a bit too much at face value. 

And yes, Jung could be considered misogynist but really, what do you expect? The man was the most active during the first half of the last century and he grew up in a society that would as a whole be labeled misogynist by today's standards. You could equally argue that Jung was racist because he keeps referring to non-Westerners as primitives. That is hardly a palatable argument against the content of his works since his ideas must be put into their proper historical contexts. If anything, I'd argue that Jung was pretty feminist and I use the term loosely here, for his time, for even suggesting that women are capable of thinking "rationally" as in, feeling is a rational function, not irrational as was believed back then.

With that said, I think it's pretty evident that Jung is actually an INFJ if we were to type him in his own system. This becomes evident if you actually read stuff he's written and said outside of Psychological Types. He hates on modern science (why, it's Se and Te!), he hates on defining his concepts more than he has to and even when asked to clarify he tends to talk away the issue (Tavistock lectures), he hates on Freud like no other, especially the Ne-Si perspective Freud offers because he doesn't think Freud actually got what is relevant about the human psyche so he decided to present his own Ni vision of it. That Jung's an Ni type is extremely obvious because his entire idea of analyzing people based on archetypes expressed from the collective unconsciousness is such an Ni way of approaching psychology. His concept of the collective unconsciousness is also very NiFe because he clearly seems to describe that humans all share some united core. That Jung favors an Fe perspective is also obvious when he describes mob mentality and such, and how he thinks it's impossible for people to not become one with the mob by being overcome by the mob mentality aka Fe feeling tone. Nevermind that his thinking pattern is extremely VS. In socionics I'd type him as an IEI-Fe any day of the week and since I think that if someone is properly typed in socionics, they are also properly typed in Jung's system and that means they are also properly typed in the MBTI, meaning that Jung is also functionally an INFJ.

But whatever.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> They are simply not. This is very apparent from the Myers-Briggs own website. I can post a few and you can see for yourself.
> 
> This is socionics ESI, Fi-Se: Ethical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion
> 
> ...


Why be hung up on descriptions instead of actually looking at the theory that underpins those descriptions? Socionics SEI is the same as an MBTI ISFJ functionally, and once people actually are capable of seeing the type beyond the type descriptions they aren't that different.

Nevermind that descriptions tend to be heavily biased towards certain enneatype combinations.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> Allow to express my own sentiments about this thread also:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm glad someone else could properly articulate my thoughts <3
I also agree Jung was an INFJ (954) (for that matter)


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Inguz said:


> I wish that I could make a comeback, but you didn't write anything worth discussing.


Get emotional!!!


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

And it just goes on becoming more interesting. =D
From watching this I see that my views wouldn't nessecarily led to a flamewar...
But I sure as hell wouldn't be able to play on pokerstars just now. 
I would be caught up in some drama about who understood Fe the best...
Instead I can sit back and enjoy the bits and pieces that emerge to gain even greater insight.
All without lifting a finger.
God I love my new selfish outlook...


----------



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)

Ironically, the OP seems to be washed down in Fi. :laughing: Don't ate on Jung <3 


* *




*Introverted Feeling (Fi) vs. Extraverted Feeling (Fe)*

Since Fi judgments are formed on an independent rather than collective basis, FPs tend to be wary of Extraverted Feeling (Fe) judgments and expressions. To FPs, Fe expressions can seem generic, predictable, shallow, fake, or contrived. There is little IFPs deplore more than those who seem fake, showy, or disingenuous. Their relative distaste for Fe may lead some IFPs to withhold expressing positive sentiments. They may even unwittingly repress positive emotions to bolster their idea of real and authentic feeling. Such individuals (typically INFPs) often see themselves as chronically misunderstood, expressing their melancholy and grievances through art, poetry, or music.These Fi-Fe differences can sometimes make communication uncomfortable between Fi and Fe types. 

IFPs may get caught up in questioning the Fe type’s sincerity, while Fe types wish the IFP would express more feeling to create a greater sense of interpersonal rapport and emotional resonance.Unlike Fe, Fi is not overly concerned with cultivating positive feelings or good morale in a social environment (IFPs do like harmony, but this has more to do with their being uncomfortable with conflict than wanting to cultivate Fe rapport). Rather than focusing on general morale or interpersonal harmony, Fi is concerned with helping specific individuals who have personally moved or otherwise affected them.Interestingly, despite being a Feeling function, Fi is not really a social (or socializing) function. Fe types (especially EFJs) are typically stimulated by being around and engaging with people; Fe is characteristically _interpersonal_. Fi, by contrast, is _intrapersonal_. It involves a relationship with oneself, with one’s own emotions, tastes, and values. Consequently, IFPs are apt to be more choosy about who they spend their time with, since superficial socializing does little to stimulate their Fi.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Phoenix_Rebirth said:


> Ironically, the OP seems to be washed down in Fi. :laughing: Don't ate on Jung <3
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Now I'm Fi because I have an opinion of my own?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Now I'm Fi because I have an opinion of my own?


It's probably less the opinion in and of itself, rather than its very foundation.

Then again, that'd just be my uneducated guess on the subject.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Erbse said:


> It's probably less the opinion in and of itself, rather than its very foundation.
> 
> Then again, that'd just be my uneducated guess on the subject.


Seems so. But what is the foundation then?


----------



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)

Inguz said:


> Now I'm Fi because I have an opinion of my own?


Both Fi and Fe users can have *strong* opinions. 
Anyways, I am not interested in arguing this topic, just found it quite ironic :wink:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

I think @Kamishi and @reckful should kiss and make up. Who's with me?


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm assuming that you've got this directly from his book "Psychological Types"?

There's a few things I noticed should be remembered when reading Jung directly (based on my own process of trying to understand what he's trying to say):

1. It's translated from German, so seemingly simplistic words may actually have a more complex definition than it actually is and/or the seemingly complex words may actually be more simplistic.

2. A lot can be cleared up by looking in the far back of the book in the "definitions" section where he breaks down what each of the words he uses means.

That all being said, considering where he was at the time to first introduce a theory of cognitive functions, to do that he had to be able to describe the best characteristics and the worst the characteristics. So I don't really see much wrong in saying that Fe can (summed up) be "manipulative" because, well honestly, it can be if the person isn't in a very health state psychologically. A personality trait isn't always going to be "good" or "bad" or that one holds any more weight than the other because a person can only become whole by balancing them all out. When I see his comment of this, I immediately think of the Enneagram type descriptions where some authors describe how each of the types can appear when at low, medium, and high levels psychologically. So far, I haven't seen it broken down in this way for MBTI (at least in what I've read) but it would be very realistic for someone to do so.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think it's one of the most mis-represented functions ever beside Si (due to being taken too far in the archetypal scheme of personality manifestations - really, it's not like being emotionally manipulative really has anything to do with the nature of the function - that might be how someone might orient themselves with it, but that wouldn't actually mean anything on its own). I mean, on a primitive level, from my reading, I would assume it's pretty much "feeling into objects" (which would explain inferior Fe types existing in a bit of a "participation mystique" around it at times and why they have to be oriented to thinking dominantly) - on the advanced level, it's feeling into ideas (accurately, however that works in a non-logical way) and civilized/desired standards. Also, there's an emphasis on outward expression of feeling standards for the object (e.g. people, ideas, experiences, etc.) in opposition to one's own feelings, according to Jung. Sort of like "smile for the camera" being taken seriously for an objective purpose at the basic level (weird example, lol - I hope that makes some sense).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung has it right:



> This isn't a great start. Basically, Fe is here described as merely acts of accommodation and impersonal. "I Think it's beautiful because it's expensive and has a famous name under it!!"


It's just valuing the object for the object, simply put. Hillman explains it better than I can.



> What? What does this "exaggerated influence" even mean? HOW does it become cold?!? Like it's theatrical and manipulative?


This is visual I think (what he's describing). The person's expressions disappear suddenly if they get overwhelmed by the object (only if they are an Fe type though, like dom, maybe aux...in other words, a type being a person who plays up feeling egotistically). It might look sort of maniacal and artificial if the person is disoriented by it, or they might go cold. Sort of like they don't know what to do with their feeling displays anymore because the object stopped influencing them in a given moment the "right way."

And the dominant types only repress thinking toward their shadow (aux. repress it a little, but there's no consequence for this - they are fundamentally normal around thinking, I personally think - Jung's only speaking of dominant types here). So yea, he probably was right that they cannot think "what they don't feel" - understanding feeling correctly, this means that whatever they are not holding a personal attachment to based on its value exists in their shadow - it's not recognized by them via the ego standpoint, so they might struggle to talk about stuff that they cannot promote the "feeling-value" of that they feel, so-to-speak (Jung makes it out that their archaic Te side just doesn't adapt well to speaking of "facts" - in other words, impersonal information that has no influence on their options for action, which are considered primarily from the feeling perspective in relation to their environment - they're "primitive" in this kind of delivery, which to Jung just meant "basic" - I would guess kind of a "get-it-over-with" quality). It's common for these types to have their intelligence questioned.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Jung said:


> I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate "beautiful" or "good," not because I find the object "beautiful" or "good" from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie — it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate "ugly" might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable.





Inguz said:


> This isn't a great start. Basically, Fe is here described as merely acts of accommodation and impersonal. "I Think it's beautiful because it's expensive and has a famous name under it!!"





JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung has it right:
> 
> It's just valuing the object for the object, simply put. Hillman explains it better than I can.


 @JungyesMBTIno —

You must be kidding. _Inguz_ had it right. Far from valuing the object "for the object" — i.e., for any qualities that the Fe-dom judges that particular object to possess — Jung is talking about the Fe-dom valuing that particular object because _that's what other people want and/or expect her to do_.

Her feeling-judgment is "objective" not in terms of being determined by the qualities of the actual "object" being judged, but rather in terms of being determined by the _external expectations of others_ (rather than any standards of her own relating to objects of that kind).


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I think JungyesMBTIno is referring to something that is beyond simply valuing things because others told them to. I'm not exactly sure what she is referring to with the whole "Valuing objects for the object" thing though. Probably thinking that valuing something because you are expected to is mostly related to the persona than anything that is actually Fe.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_ —
> 
> You must be kidding. _Inguz_ had it right. Far from valuing the object "for the object" — i.e., for any qualities that the Fe-dom judges that particular object to possess — Jung is talking about the Fe-dom valuing that particular object because _that's what other people want and/or expect her to do_.
> 
> Her feeling-judgment is "objective" not in terms of being determined by the qualities of the actual "object" being judged, but rather in terms of being determined by the _external expectations of others_ (rather than any standards of her own relating to objects of that kind).


Well, yea, that would be the criterion upon which these choose to evaluate the object (what others think, etc.), but not the reason they are drawn to the object or that they orient themselves that way. The value of the object is what they themselves feel into it (because only they know their feelings - they can't posses someone else's feelings), but the criterion upon which it is judged is that of others.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yea, valuing something BECAUSE someone wants you to is persona + self-defense + moral complex, etc. Valuing something from a rationale based around your knowledge of other people for the aim of upholding the object against the collective's feelings would be more of an Fe thing (with a downplay of Ti).


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yea, valuing something BECAUSE someone wants you to is persona + self-defense + moral complex, etc. Valuing something from a rationale based around your knowledge of other people for the aim of upholding the object against the collective's feelings would be more of an Fe thing (with a downplay of Ti).


I can read Jung just as well as you can. I did not read "persona", "self-defense", nor "moral complex" in the passage quoted above. If you're going to assert that Jung meant something radically different from what he wrote, perhaps its time to offer up some alternative evidence?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Fi opposes this because it's what the person idealizes within that determines the object's value (their ideals are very often inexplicable to them and might seem to come from nowhere, but "feel right" to them anyway). They do not hold much trust in collective consensus on issues of value (and might seem tasteless/harsh to Fe types).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Teybo said:


> I can read Jung just as well as you can. I did not read "persona", "self-defense", nor "moral complex" in the passage quoted above. If you're going to assert that Jung meant something radically different from what he wrote, perhaps its time to offer up some alternative evidence?


I was responding to @Sixty Nein's post.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yea, valuing something BECAUSE someone wants you to is persona + self-defense + moral complex, etc. Valuing something from a rationale based around your knowledge of other people for the aim of upholding the object against the collective's feelings would be more of an Fe thing (with a downplay of Ti).


So what you are saying is that Fe types want to meld their own desires with that of the collective feeling to easily translate and thus have a better chance of affecting something (extroversion)? Contradicting this source would lead to some sense of awkwardness I would assume, and thus is the reason why Fe types are often confused whenever there is no real collective feeling atmosphere that is going about. That is more interesting than mere conformity at least, because conformity can always just be the result of cowardice or lack of a desire to break away from the standard.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Sixty Nein said:


> So what you are saying is that Fe types want to meld their own desires with that of the collective feeling to easily translate and thus have a better chance of affecting something (extroversion)? Contradicting this source would lead to some sense of awkwardness I would assume, and thus is the reason why Fe types are often confused whenever there is no real collective feeling atmosphere that is going about. That is more interesting than mere conformity at least, because conformity can always just be the result of cowardice or lack of a desire to break away from the standard.


You nailed it. It's not too far off from Te-Fi, but the person this time just actively tries to influence feelings to be able to evaluate the affects of something instead of using a logical strategy to arrive at a result of sorts. It might seem kind of ambiguous to Te types (while Te types might look more controlling than they really are to Fe types because Te opposes Fe - the feeling atmosphere they're trying to promote might appear to be getting ignored by the Te type).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sixty Nein said:


> So what you are saying is that Fe types want to meld their own desires with that of the collective feeling to easily translate and thus have a better chance of affecting something (extroversion)? Contradicting this source would lead to some sense of awkwardness I would assume, and thus is the reason why Fe types are often confused whenever there is no real collective feeling atmosphere that is going about. That is more interesting than mere conformity at least, because conformity can always just be the result of cowardice or lack of a desire to break away from the standard.


Tell me why you type as MBTI ESTJ again?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I mean, I think everyone has every function, but to Jung, being a type was a matter of what gets played up egotistically and what belongs to a person's shadow or essentially, all those things outside of the person's ideas of who they are. The shadow functions, according to Beebe, just ride on complexes, but do not give a person their sense of self, basically. The 8th function is irrelevant to a person, because it is the one rejected from a person's orientation to meaning, their ego, their worldviews, etc. (since it is opposed by the dominant). I mean, unless you're incredibly self aware, I don't think you'd really have any awareness of function 8 - it's prolly too repressed.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Kamishi said:


> Tell me why you type as MBTI ESTJ again?


What about that statement is so contradictory to what an MBTI ESTJ would say?

Or better yet, why not?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sixty Nein said:


> What about that statement is so contradictory to what an MBTI ESTJ would say?
> 
> Or better yet, why not?


Rather, I'm curious how an ESTJ could possess insight like that how Fe operates considering it is feeling perspective they reject as it is very opposed their dominant.

For the longer and more theoretical version, read what Jungyes wrote above me. It is extremely unlikely for a Te dominant to theoretically conceptualize what Fe is as a function perspective due how it fundamentally opposes Te, especially at the depth you seem to have expressed here. I understand Fe somewhat all right but I do not feel the natural affinement you seem to express towards it as a function perspective.

I have the same problem with Si. The more I learn about Si the less I feel I actually understand it because it's just so foreign to me as a function perspective. Whatever I fundamentally understand about Si comes from understanding the theoretical aspects of it, e.g. it's a Pi function etc. but actually knowing what Si is like, how it operates, how it conceptualizes as a dominant ego perspective and so on, that's just impossible for me to understand. Even Ti and Ne that I also consciously reject are easier for me to understand than Si. Ne does however feel extremely backwards as if it's operating in the wrong direction.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Kamishi said:


> Rather, I'm curious how an ESTJ could possess insight like that how Fe operates considering it is feeling perspective they reject as it is very opposed their dominant.


I could just understand it intellectually.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Intellectually is my favorite way to understand things.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Sixty Nein said:


> I could just understand it intellectually.



* *




I really hate to question type if someone doesn't ask for it, but I have to say that Kamishi might be on to something. Even that one post ("So what you're saying is...") is phrased in a very Fe-ish way.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Ellis Bell said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Statements like these aren't very clear, how so?



reckful said:


> Intellectually is my favorite way to understand things.


This statement amused me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sixty Nein said:


> I could just understand it intellectually.


Think your conversation with Jungyes suggested that you understood it a bit better than just intellectually, personally.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I've got it! @Sixty Nein and @JungyesMBTIno are dating! Wait, no... that's not what this means...


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

@Teybo

That was one of the most awkward things that I've read on the internet. Jesus, I'm both laughing, blushing and cringing at the same time. Even after read that about 3 times already.

So yeah Fe is a cool function for cool people.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Sixty Nein said:


> @Teybo
> 
> That was one of the most awkward things that I've read on the internet. Jesus, I'm both laughing, blushing and cringing at the same time. Even after read that about 3 times already.
> 
> So yeah Fe is a cool function for cool people.


It's because I work out.  *kisses bicep*


----------

