# Fe versus Fi - random thought about the differences



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Snippet of conversation between me (Fe-aux) and my Fi-dom mate, discussing an experience I just had in which my Fe was extremely active/present:_
Me:_ I can't help but be aware of what other people expect and what they value. But you're not like that, are you?

_Her:_ It's not that I'm unaware of those things - it's that I don't care what they expect and value.​
*What I think this may illuminate: 

Feeling is a judging function, not a perceiving function.* The difference between my active Fe-aux and her Fi-dom isn't about what we're each aware of - awareness is about what we perceive. The difference between my Fe-aux and her Fi-dom is the legitimacy our respective judging functions assign to external expectations and values.

Meaning: The difference is not that I perceive external values and expectations and she doesn't. Instead, it's that I care about them and she does not. Her Fi judging function simply doesn't assign those values and expectations a high validity. In contrast, my Fe judging function does assign them a high (initial, in my case as I'm Fe-aux and not dom) validity.

It's very hard for me to imagine being aware of external values and expectations without initially assuming they're valid. 
[HR][/HR]_Additional note #1_: Because I'm Fe-aux, that initial assignment high validity/legitimacy often doesn't stick over time. In my case, Ti comes in and takes apart the external material as I re-center in my Ni perception. So Fe is a part of a cycle for me rather than a consistent process as it might be for Fe-doms.

_Additional note #2_: Fe's initial strong assessment of external values/expectations as valid often makes me uncomfortable at the gut level of my organic (Ni) perception. Ugh. ugh ugh ugh. This feels like crap. I think I'd normalized that and didn't notice it as much in the past but wow .... the more I attend to how all of this works in me, the more I realize how much it feels viscerally unpleasant to me at that basic gut level. Yet it's not like I can simply choose to _not care_ in this Fe-active phase even when I want to choose that way. I just - grrr

[HR][/HR]Thoughts?


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. :tongue:

This is really part of why I mistyped as having Fe, because I am aware of other people's values. However, my overall attitude to those values is something along the lines of "They can do what they want, as long as they leave me alone to do what I want"

I do place worth on my own values, though probably not in the same way an Fi-dom does. They are still there, underneath everything I say or do. I won't accept someone else's values unless they make logical sense. Is that some Te coming in?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Dewymorning said:


> I think you have hit the nail on the head. :tongue:
> 
> This is really part of why I mistyped as having Fe, *because I am aware of other people's values. However, my overall attitude to those values is something along the lines of "They can do what they want, as long as they leave me alone to do what I want"*


This makes a lot of sense to me! I feel like the link between awareness and initial assignment of high worth/validity is so strong and automatic for me that I'd confused these two very different things.



> I do place worth on my own values, though probably not in the same was an Fi-dom does. They are still there though, underneath everything I say or do.* I won't accept someone else's values unless they make logical sense.* *Is that some Te coming in?*


I'd be interested to know what others have to say about this - but from outside of Te it makes sense to me with Te-aux and Fi-tert. Te judging external materials and basically advising Fi on what's okay to accept. 

(though in my case, my own aux and tert have a very different relationship than aux as advisor to tertiary).


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> This makes a lot of sense to me! I feel like the link between awareness and initial assignment of high worth/validity is so strong and automatic for me that I'd confused these two very different things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, the aux is advising the tert in this scenario, it is advising the tertiary on what values are worthy of being valued. :tongue:


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Dewymorning said:


> "They can do what they want, as long as they leave me alone to do what I want"


This is actually how I feel about others as well.


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

I think I should weigh in on this conversation as an Fi Dominant, but I'm too shy. I don't know what to say. >//<


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

absyrd said:


> This is actually how I feel about others as well.


OH NO YOU MUST BE MISTYPED!

I mean, what I was saying is that is my attitude towards values.

Other people can have that general attitude for different reasons. :tongue:


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

double post :laughing:


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Ligerman30 said:


> I think I should weigh in on this conversation as an Fi Dominant, but I'm too shy. I don't know what to say. >//<


*lures Fi-dom out with cookies*


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Ligerman30 said:


> I think I should weigh in on this conversation as an Fi Dominant, but I'm too shy. I don't know what to say. >//<


Well, if you don't have something else to start with, I'm interested to know - is what my INFP said in the conversation snippet from the OP how you experience it as well, or is it different for you (and how, if it is different)?


> _Me:_ I can't help but be aware of what other people expect and what they value. But you're not like that, are you?
> 
> *Her:* *It's not that I'm unaware of those things - it's that I don't care what they expect and value.*​


[HR][/HR]


Dewymorning said:


> *lures Fi-dom out with cookies*


Of course, there's also the cookie lure approach as well


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Well, if you don't have something else to start with, I'm interested to know - is what my INFP said in the conversation snippet from the OP how you experience it as well, or is it different for you (and how, if it is different)?


I have very strong personal values that center around treating others with empathy and kindness. Listening to and helping others so that everyone is in a state of harmony. On a social level I want to be the emotional and moral support I never had and desperately wanted as a child. 

Whenever someone values something I don't, I try to accommodate those people to the best of my abilities to make them happy too because, I think it's the right thing to do. Like someone who values honesty highly, I'll be as honest as I can around them (even if it's hard) because that is what they want and I want to accommodate them. But, frankly if they are going off on some moral tirade about something I don't care about, I don't really give what they are saying much credence. Like how I should shower more often and organize my room or god forbid they start arguing religion or social politics. It's my life, and if they don't like the way I run it they can screw themselves. You get what I'm saying?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Ligerman30 said:


> I have very strong personal values that center around treating others with empathy and kindness. Listening to and helping others so that everyone is in a state of harmony. On a social level I want to be the emotional and moral support I never had and desperately wanted as a child.
> 
> Whenever someone values something I don't, I try to accommodate those people to the best of my abilities to make them happy too because, I think it's the right thing to do. Like someone who values honesty highly, I'll be as honest as I can around them (even if it's hard) because that is what they want and I want to accommodate them. But, frankly if they are going off on some moral tirade about something I don't care about, I don't really give what they are saying much credence. Like how I should shower more often and organize my room or god forbid they start arguing religion or social politics. It's my life, and if they don't like the way I run it they can screw themselves. You get what I'm saying?


Yes! I mean, I don't get it from my own experience, but I do recognize the Fi-ness of it. And I love how you have these Fi values that are about support and harmony and trying to accommodate ... and at the same time, you don't get nearly as automatically affected by external values as I do even though I don't have an internal value system including accommodation. It's like (let me think how to say this) - it's like even when you're accommodating, you're not doing it because you've assigned high validity to their values, but rather because you assign high validity to your own values which include accommodation. (does that make sense? it's clear in my head)

And this part:



> Like how I should shower more often and organize my room or god forbid they start arguing religion or social politics. It's my life, and if they don't like the way I run it they can screw themselves. You get what I'm saying?


I'm struck by your first example (showering) because I've had to think a lot about that one. If someone were to tell me I should shower more often, I would immediately think there was something wrong with whatever I was doing to maintain personal hygiene. (I mean, I shower every day so I'd be a little confused about the quantity, but I would default assume that whatever they're telling me is something I should take as valid in terms of changing what I do because I wouldn't want offend them smell-wise). 

On the other hand, my INFP doesn't shower every day or even with any basic semi-preventative regularity. It's actually my least favorite thing about her and it's upsetting to me in ways and at levels I can barely articulate. I have Se-inf and I am extremely sensitive to smell and it really really bothers me that she usually has to start smelling nasty before she'll bother to wash herself. I can't imagine not caring how I physically affect others' senses. I hate having to tell her, "Ew, you smell, are you going to shower?" and then hoping that if she says yes she'll actually do it instead of getting distracted by something and putting it off another day. And I can't imagine being as okay as she is with being told that she smells bad. It would _mortify_ me to be told that! But for her it's just some factual thing.

Anyway, I don't know if that's too far off track but I was really struck by that little bit.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Yes! I mean, I don't get it from my own experience, but I do recognize the Fi-ness of it. And I love how you have these Fi values that are about support and harmony and trying to accommodate ... and at the same time, you don't get nearly as automatically affected by external values as I do even though I don't have an internal value system including accommodation. It's like (let me think how to say this) - it's like even when you're accommodating, you're not doing it because you've assigned high validity to their values, but rather because you assign high validity to your own values which include accommodation. (does that make sense? it's clear in my head)
> 
> And this part:
> 
> ...


Hmm, I want to comment here a bit more.

Because, being acceptable to other people is important to me. I think it is because I am So-dom. I want to belong.

So, as long as something does not go against my values, I am do it even though it is not my own value in order to not be rejected by others. So, maybe with the showering thing... or anotehr example! Make-up! I don't place any value on my aethestic appearance most of the time and do not usually wear make up, but when I started my job I started wearing make up because I feared that maybe some people valued wearing make up and would 'reject' me if I did not wear make up. However over time I realised no one really cared whether or nto I wore make up and so I returned to my standard, make up for special occasions routine. 

I think this behaviour of mine is more common when going into new situations and meeting new people.

This last week my manager asked if I was interested in working on this longitudinal study a university has been conducting in NZ. I was like "Yeah, that sounds exciting" and so my name was put forward as the researcher for our department. 

However, when I read the letter that had been sent to our department describing the ideal candidate, well, I don't quite meet the standard, mostly because I have no previous experience with this sort of data. Now I have been in contact with someone in our department who does, and she is going to be my support person, but the fact that these people I have not yet met asked for an experienced person, ie, they value that experience, and I don't have that experience freaks me out.

Now within our own department I have had several people say to me "Oh, I was so glad to hear you are going to be working on that study". I am not 100% sure if this is a compliment to my skills and reputation within our department or if they are just happy that someone from our department is going to have access to the data.

But the fact that these people are so supportive of me doing this work doesn't nullify my fear of unknown people rejecting me due to lack of experience with longitudinal data.

It's not that I place high value on other people's values, it is just that I fear possible values which may cause people to reject me.

In short-personality is damn complicated.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Dewymorning said:


> OH NO YOU MUST BE MISTYPED!
> 
> I mean, what I was saying is that is my attitude towards values.
> 
> Other people can have that general attitude for different reasons. :tongue:


Ah.

I was first INTP, then ENTP, then INFJ, then ENFP, then ENTP, now some dude is trying to convince me I'm ISTP.

Not even a consistently shared letter in my history -.-


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

My relationship with these kinds of things is rather cloudy so it's hard to say where I am...They come out behind other reactions, impulses, and habits and some almost completely only with people I've actually developed lots of care for over time. I think most of it is very subconscious, but I think a lot

With expectations, the greatest part of my relationship is that I'm too introverted to handle it, too withdrawn. Expectations usually just feel like they either get in the way, or it's too much for me to handle. I do things like just deciding to go out or change something big on a whim because I feel it, or I stay up to 1pm and wake up at 9pm, whatever little things people think are weird. It doesn't affect me, sometimes I actually like it. I don't feel pulled to change it. Just some little examples, I'm generally just not attached to the expectations

If someone has a different view or something, I don't see the point in getting hostile. hostility is usually a sign of something deeper within the person that goes beyond what they think. Any pure value of peace is clouded by the fact I have a hard time handling hostility sometimes...only most of the time. I automatically avoid it just because it's stressful, or I try to find little ways to get through it while not full out avoiding it. Like using a parachute to crash into the ground. I always wonder if I developed that fear as I grew up with my depressed mother. She used to get angry to the point I was truly surprised no one called the cops. So anger makes me feel nervous, it doesn't even come from a value or any kind or an ethical desire for harmony because I couldn't care less if people get along. It matters as much as it directly affects me

but with people I get close to, most greatly romantic partners, it's a whole different story. People generally think I seem nonchalant, like I don't care about what people think or what people say, but think I'm a teddy bear when they get close to me. And I still think I hold some things in my subconscious. I have a very tenuous connection to them so it very very very rarely makes itself known in my interactions, and if I think about it, grasping air or finding the form of water, almost. But I can grasp it in pieces, I suppose small water crystals in the air. It's just not gonna come out in my life every moment, most moments. Only with some with whom at some point,I'm just a body of veins. And it's funny, because in retrospect, I can see little pieces seeping through at times, but my thoughts are not on it, I'm just slightly blinded to it

I have my family...people like my mother. By nature, I'm not the warmest creature, but my family thinks I'm kind and well meaning, just not that expressive a person. I try at times to make them happy, I just think I'm so self absorbed I'm most of the times not aware(especially when I was younger, I was so fucking self absorbed I had no idea) and when I am, it's a tie between feeling some weird selfless charge(I don't know where it comes from, but I get it sometimes) and feeling like it's a burden

You can get the idea I'm looking at subconscious things, things that barely drive me but that are there and I know they have some affect on what I do, but it's so buried 

Also my sister(INTJ), I've read words from her, a journal entry type of thing, where she expresses have a nature of not understanding peoples' reactions, just not getting why they do what they do, but she wants to get it and she tries to get it. She wants to get it and understand it and operate in it, it's just not where she was born. She doesn't by nature empathize and tends to feel angry when people react certain ways, but doesn't want to feel that. I feel like I can empathize and understand when it finally hits me how deeply things affect people, I can try, but when I do, it feels painful. It feels painful to realize I might have such a huge affect on people. It's hard for me. And at the same time, I'm fucking retarded. I don't know how to gracefully express feelings, I don't understand how things are received. I still feel like people with higher Fe have an easier time understand humans whereas for me I have to sit down, talk, take time to understand a human. But I don't understand anyone else. With my sister, there's this rigidity, she has a set of ethics/values she wants to adhere to. And I don't have that. It's just something I feel pulled to do in a moment, a feeling I follow


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I find that what differentiates Fe and Fi is where their internal compass resides. For Fi types it's within themselves in that one should live up to one's own values. I have values of how I am supposed to do be and it's almost like an internal force that compels me to follow them because otherwise I feel very bad if I don't. I can assess situations to make sure I always follow my values as well, and I can't say I'm overly attuned to or even aware of what others value at all. Sometimes if people express them I might consider whether they are important but unless they overlap with mine chances are that I won't.


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Yes! I mean, I don't get it from my own experience, but I do recognize the Fi-ness of it. And I love how you have these Fi values that are about support and harmony and trying to accommodate ... and at the same time, you don't get nearly as automatically affected by external values as I do even though I don't have an internal value system including accommodation. It's like (let me think how to say this) - it's like even when you're accommodating, you're not doing it because you've assigned high validity to their values, but rather because you assign high validity to your own values which include accommodation. (does that make sense? it's clear in my head)


Yes, that is how I feel.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I find that what differentiates Fe and Fi is where their internal compass resides. For Fi types it's within themselves in that one should live up to one's own values. I have values of how I am supposed to do be and it's almost like an internal force that compels me to follow them because otherwise I feel very bad if I don't. I can assess situations to make sure I always follow my values as well,* and I can't say I'm overly attuned to or even aware of what others value at all*. Sometimes if people express them I might consider whether they are important but unless they overlap with mine chances are that I won't.


But if my lightbulb moment is correct, _awareness or not is not the differentiating factor._ Different individuals may have different levels of awareness. But the differentiating factor is now much worth/legitimacy/validity is assigned to external (or internal) values. Again, speaks to F being a judging function rather than perceiving one.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think awareness very well is a part of feeling because how can you judge if you have zero awareness? My point is probably more relevant to feeling of inferior quality since inferior feelers are simply less aware of feeling overall, both outside and inside themselves because more psychic energy is spent towards thinking.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

I can usually tell if someone has Fe or Fi, but after reading this thread I'm not sure I quite understand Fe =\
That or there have been some major misconceptions here.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> From my understanding all introverted functions, Fi, Ti, Si, are subjective judging functions. Extroverted, Te, Fe, Se, are objective perceiving. Fe is objective, so it isn't judging.


How did you come to that understanding, exactly? Si and Se are perceiving functions and Fe and Te are judging functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Te is objective, so yes you would give more weight to the values of others in that sense. And yes....Fi is focused on our personal inner workings, and doesn't respond, or give much, if any consideration to the external considerations, universal, or social obligated rituals.


Yes, though Te doesn't consider the worth of values being oriented towards thinking. To me, if I am in a group situation where we have to make a common decision based on what is the best for the group, what I would look at strictly would be what external qualities people desire. This is Te in that Te derives and defines based on the external. A square has four sides. So Te doesn't consider values as much as it ascribes people's desires at best as a logical category. That person wants us to do o X, that person wants us to do Y. It cares less about what people actually want as much as it looks at what most people want and derives a logical conclusion that since 87% wanted X, it is the better or more effective option over Y in this case. 

I just want to make this distinction here very clear because I have a sense that people are making a lot of confusions between thinking and feeling here, which is not surprising especially in irrational types where the differentiation/distinction is not as clear.

EDIT
To clarify further because I realize I was probably unclear about this, but let's say we have two people, A and B. A is a vegan and has many values concerning veganism, animal rights and so on, B just eats meat and doesn't give much of a fuck concerning whatever A thinks is important. Now, how Te approaches this is that veganism and eating meat are simply _logical qualities_ A and B possess respectively. It does not however, place emphasis, value or tries to judge or measure the importance of veganism or eating meat. When we do this we end up in the realms of feeling. It is simply as such: A is a vegan, B is a meat eater just like a square has four sides. See? It defines this as a logical quality to people. So Te cannot be value-oriented in this way because Te does simply not think or is concerned about values. If someone is expressing a value, Te does not see a value as much as it sees an _external logical quality_. If someone says, I like horses, Te does not try to understand this from the perspective of values, it cannot, being thinking, but instead what it does is that it ascribes it as a logical quality that defines this person as a horse-lover. It doesn't even consider the fact that this could be a value because Te sees it as a factual statement solely to begin with, dealing with impersonal systems, similar to observing and thus also later claiming that the earth is round (or at least, spherical).

I hope this clarified better. So this is why I do not understand when people claim that Te deals with values. Perhaps it might belie your own feeling preferences here cognitively, but as someone with a fairly strong differentiated thinking preference as an auxiliary, I utterly fail to see how thinking can be aware of values.

Clarification 2
The word value itself in the realms of thinking strictly speaking, has no value. It's a logical quality we can ascribe objects, things, ideas and so on. We can also logically define this such as something as desirable, important and whatever, but as long as we are strictly dealing with this kind of thinking, we are however, not dealing with values from the perspective of feeling as in, what is important to people, as much as we simply understand it as a logical quality we can apply to understand something else _logically_. 

I am not sure feelers will actually understand this, but anyway.


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm going to just put out there how I think to see if it relates to the theory.
First of all, of course, it depends on what the other people's values are and who the people are. If the value has nothing to do with me personally, but is more of a societal value and the people are aquaintances, friends, coworkers, etc, then I feel pretty neutral. I may think (or verbalize) that I disagree, but will not be emotionally affected by it. That changes, however, with significant others, because my values are a part of me, and significant others are like..a part of me, so I can get defensive if I disagree and pretty assertive.

The only time I would feel cognitive dissonance is if someone criticizes me, especially important people. I don't like people implying that I am an X person because I didn't do Y. But I dunno, anyone could feel this. I do feel I have to talk it out to reach an understanding. 

I guess I don't mind conflicting values, as long as I'm not judged negatively as a person because of it. So like, the shower example lol, if someone was like, "Dude, you never shower, that's kinda gross..I always smell you! I always shower!"..that would bother me. But if someone was like "Dude, you never shower and I shower everyday, you weirdo! but that's cool!"..then I wouldn't be bothered.

Meanwhile, I'm not really one to comment on another person's values. I kind of let them do what they do. Unless significant other. Or if they've done something hurtful to me..might comment on it, depending upon how I thought that person would take it.

I dunno, man!


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> You speak of assessment, but from your previous posts it is hinted* you assess external values as more valid than yours to begin with*. So I must wonder what you mean by that.


I mean what you described in bold. I think the deep comprehension problem is that your framework around values is so Fi-specific you can't fully get your head (understanding) around what I'm saying here. But you described it just fine even if you can't get your head around it, interestingly enough. in terms of understanding further, you'd probably need to move outside of Fi assumptions. 



> Also, INTJs are known of being highly critical of others, so what do you mean by "externally-oriented logic"?


 @Ballast may be able to explain this, if she's willing.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

lycanized said:


> By the way, I have a question Aquarian. I see the habit in FJs of giving that value to what people think and I don't really understand it, but where does the strong ethical system some have come from? Maybe that's only the surface, I just sometimes experience NFJs as being rigid in their own way...in the way of saying some things are "wrong" and shouldn't be which would put them at odds


If I understand your question correctly: in my case the external values come from whatever specific people/group I feel connected with.

As for internal "ethical" systems - for me I have what I call a Ni-based physics - how things work in my Ni perceptual landscape. I don't choose or create it, I perceive it and move within it. It's not an ethical system but rather a landscape that functions in a certain way like an ecosystem functions in a certain way. It might incorrectly show up externally as ethics in contexts where there's a lack of language or cultural context to understand differently.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> I mean what you described in bold. I think the deep comprehension problem is that your framework around values is so Fi-specific you can't fully get your head (understanding) around what I'm saying here. But you described it just fine even if you can't get your head around it, interestingly enough. in terms of understanding further, you'd probably need to move outside of Fi assumptions.


But this is the part I'm trying to understand. If you are presented with a certain value that conflicts with yours, from what you say here, you would abandon your own for the sake of that external value. That's clearly not the case since Fe users are human beings after all, and are capable of disagreeing with others.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> From my understanding all introverted functions, Fi, Ti, Si, are subjective judging functions. Extroverted, Te, Fe, Se, are objective perceiving. Fe is objective, so it isn't judging.


N and S are perceiving functions, T and F are judging functions as far as I know. I have no idea where your info comes from but am reasonably certain it's simply incorrect.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> But this is the part I'm trying to understand. If you are presented with a certain value that conflicts with yours, from what you say here, you would abandon your own for the sake of that external value. That's clearly not the case since Fe users are human beings after all, and are capable of disagreeing with others.


In my case: I initially assess external values as more valid than my own within my own field of assessment/consciousness. As I'm Fe-aux, this is only a moment in a process and in most cases Ti-tert eventually comes in, analytically deconstructs the external material in contrast to the physics of my Ni landscape, and I stop assigning that high legitimacy. 

I don't know what it's like for Fe-doms though.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> In my case: I initially assess external values as more valid than my own within my own field of assessment/consciousness. As I'm Fe-aux, this is only a moment in a process and in most cases Ti-tert eventually comes in, analytically deconstructs the external material in contrast to the physics of my Ni landscape, and I stop assigning that high legitimacy.
> 
> I don't know what it's like for Fe-doms though.


Ok, I think I kind of understand now, in a lame way.
So how are you able to understand the initial state? automatic empathy?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> If I understand your question correctly: in my case the external values come from whatever specific people/group I feel connected with.


Is it changeable? Or is it a process of finding what expresses something with real value, or is it not about the value at all but about harmony regardless of what you actually value?




> As for internal "ethical" systems - for me I have what I call a Ni-based physics - how things work in my Ni perceptual landscape. I don't choose or create it, I perceive it and move within it. It's not an ethical system but rather a landscape that functions in a certain way like an ecosystem functions in a certain way. It might incorrectly show up externally as ethics in contexts where there's a lack of language or cultural context to understand differently.


I have much less experience with SFJs, I just always get the feeling with INFJs there's something overarching. It's humanity, it's society, it's humans, it might have a political edge, it might have a philosophical edge. So are the Ni perceptions from a humanities bias? So then when things are expressed in a way taht sounds like a rigid set of what should be and what shouldn't be, it's an expression of a vision of humanity and what those values mean in a very overarching way? Maybe a much more heavily extracted way than it might seem?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, though Te doesn't consider the worth of values being oriented towards thinking. To me, if I am in a group situation where we have to make a common decision based on what is the best for the group, what I would look at strictly would be what external qualities people desire. This is Te in that Te derives and defines based on the external. A square has four sides. So Te doesn't consider values as much as it ascribes people's desires at best as a logical category. That person wants us to do o X, that person wants us to do Y. It cares less about what people actually want as much as it looks at what most people want and derives a logical conclusion that since 87% wanted X, it is the better or more effective option over Y in this case.
> 
> I just want to make this distinction here very clear because I have a sense that people are making a lot of confusions between thinking and feeling here, which is not surprising especially in irrational types where the differentiation/distinction is not as clear.
> 
> ...


Agreed, and although we worded it differently, we were saying the same thing....and here i thought you could somehow telepathically know XD.... Objectively we would want to be considered in group dynamics, to get the best result in a logical and rational way. And i know it doesn't have anything to do with what we or others value...i should have worded it different ...and don't underestimate what people will understand, i understood perfectly what you were saying, thank you very much =PP....see you just ruffled my Fi  not much , just a bit, ha !


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

If this thread has done anything, it's told me that to be an INFJ, I'd have to be one with insanely suppressed Fe which could be possible I suppose with withdrawn enneagrams because I feel as if intuition is most important part of my mind. But I'm still interested in understanding how the different types experience life


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> The OP said she immediately classifies external values as valid.. what does that even mean?! How is it even possible?


I've seen Te being described to do something similar but with external logic systems or objective data. However, it's a part of Te that I haven't been able to completely grasp so I can't really expand.



Aquarian said:


> (I mean, I shower every day so I'd be a little confused about the quantity, but I would default assume that whatever they're telling me is something I should take as valid in terms of changing what I do because I wouldn't want offend them smell-wise).


Your smell hurts my feelings.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I've seen Te being described to do something similar but with external logic systems or objective data. However, it's a part of Te that I haven't been able to completely grasp so I can't really expand.


Well you're the second one here to mention something like that, and I still have no clue about what you mean. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Vivid Sunset (Aug 2, 2011)

Value systems are a construct of perception. As a judging dominant, I'm vastly less interested in value systems themselves, and instead in the conversion from a perception into a final determination of worth. After all, value systems can arbitrarily change to incorporate new values and remove old values or to change the relative priority between values.

From a purely self-centered viewpoint, Fi essentially answers the question, "What is this _object_ worth to *me*?" The most common answer to the question is going to be "no worth" and with that judgment it a propensity to simply ignore the object (e.g. "_Why waste energy on this object? It's going to just result in a waste of energy._"). However, that's just using Fi as a primitive tool, instead of being self-centered it can also focus on another self (e.g. "What is this _object_ worth to *my friend*?") and when it does focus on another self _myself_ is a perfectly valid object that may be evaluated by the question. The contrasting Fe question would be along the lines to, "What am *I* worth to this _object_?"

This may just be me, but having a divergent perception function (or maybe it's just Ne) tends to erase rigid boundaries between different values. I could learn from one person that the color yellow may be hated. I could learn from another person that fruit is to be abhorred. So when considering the value of bananas I can understand that some people will hate it from color, some people can abhor it because of what it is, and some enemies could be made by people who hate the color and what it is.

My own values can be treated in the same fashion as other people's values, simply as yet another pool that I can draw values from. However, I can still tell the difference when answering for myself and answering using a hypothetical conception of a person that has a makeup of every single value that I know about. I also use it as a universal stand-in when making a "not me" or universal evaluation (e.g. Asking "Is it ok to kill?" results in the exception, "Perhaps on a battlefield, where it's kill or be killed").


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Your smell hurts my feelings.


How do you smell me, exactly? *looks around the room suspiciously*


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

lycanized said:


> Is it changeable? Or is it a process of finding what expresses something with real value, or is it not about the value at all but about harmony regardless of what you actually value?


In my case, the external values Fe assigns initial high validity to come from the people or group with whom I'm connected. If it were about me valuing harmony, it would be an internal value. It's almost mechanical in a way - in that for me it seems that Fe is simply designed to assign an initial high validity to external value material ... that's what it _does_ by virtue of what it is as a cognitive process. 



> I have much less experience with SFJs, I just always get the feeling with INFJs there's something overarching. It's humanity, it's society, it's humans, it might have a political edge, it might have a philosophical edge. So are the Ni perceptions from a humanities bias? So then when things are expressed in a way taht sounds like a rigid set of what should be and what shouldn't be, it's an expression of a vision of humanity and what those values mean in a very overarching way? Maybe a much more heavily extracted way than it might seem?


My own Ni landscape isn't human-centric at all. Can't speak for anyone else, though.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> Ok, I think I kind of understand now, in a lame way.
> So how are you able to understand the initial state? automatic empathy?


Are you asking how I am able to understand the external values and expectations? If not, could you re-phrase the question?

If that is what you're asking - I don't know, for me this stuff is very present in the environment, if generally unspoken. I don't need empathy to pick that up. It's much more surface-level than that.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Are you asking how I am able to understand the external values and expectations? If not, could you re-phrase the question?
> 
> If that is what you're asking - I don't know, for me this stuff is very present in the environment, if generally unspoken. I don't need empathy to pick that up. It's much more surface-level than that.


What I mean is: you mentioned your initial state, before the other functions kick in. How are you able to recognize and understand that moment of pure Fe?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> How are you able to recognize and understand that moment of pure Fe?


Clarification: I don't know that I would call it pure Fe - seems more accurate for me to say strongly activated Fe. Ni never shuts off as my dominant, so I wouldn't claim pure fe even when it's really strong.

That said, to answer your question as best I can:

1. _A note about timing_: I seem to recognize it mostly in retrospect through its effects on me rather than at the moment Fe is activated and starts doing its thing. Though this recent experience has pushed me to think about how I might see it closer to when it first happens. But right now I'm barely able to recognize its negative effects on me in real time, let alone when it initially kicks in. 

2. How I _recognize_ what has happened - generally through visceral/gut level Ni or Ni-Se perception of the harm it causes inside me. 

3. How I _understand _what has happened: Conscious understanding of WTF just happened comes through Ti analysis, which follows the visceral/gut level recognition.

4. But freaking wait! I disagree with myself re #1 to some extent. I was just about to post the description from another comment here and realized from my own description that my timing problem is not that I (via Ni and.oror Ni-Se) only recognize it _after_ the fact - it's that I recognize it that way both _before_ and _after _but not at that moment. Weird. Hmm.

Anyway, this may illustrate:



Aquarian said:


> To give a Fe (aux) example as contrast:
> 
> I'm (adjunct) teaching for a formal educational institution for the first time in some years. As I've prepped for this class, I've gotten this gut level Ni-Se dread about it but I haven't been able to figure out why. The staff has been great, things have seemed to fall into place quite nicely, the class attracted way more students than we thought, and the first class was great both in my experience of it and also in what some students told the department coordinator afterward.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> You speak of assessment, but from your previous posts it is hinted you assess external values as more valid than yours to begin with. So I must wonder what you mean by that.
> 
> Also, INTJs are known of being highly critical of others, so what do you mean by "externally-oriented logic"?





Aquarian said:


> I mean what you described in bold. I think the deep comprehension problem is that your framework around values is so Fi-specific you can't fully get your head (understanding) around what I'm saying here. But you described it just fine even if you can't get your head around it, interestingly enough. in terms of understanding further, you'd probably need to move outside of Fi assumptions.
> 
> 
> @_Ballast_ may be able to explain this, if she's willing.





Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I've seen Te being described to do something similar but with external logic systems or objective data. However, it's a part of Te that I haven't been able to completely grasp so I can't really expand.





mbaruh said:


> Well you're the second one here to mention something like that, and I still have no clue about what you mean. I'm genuinely curious.


Well, let's see. Given that our auxiliaries are an extroverted judging function, it makes sense that after our initial introverted perceiving we then _judge_ by external, objective standards. When I give more external validity to data in the outside world, it is when Ni presents me with information that doesn't line up with the real world or is inconsistent with other data. That is to say that while Ni renders something compelling, I will look to the outside world and see if it is consistent with objective standards (for Fe this would be shared social values; for Te it is facts). If I receive an empirical contradiction to my Ni assessment, I may at first assign more validity to that external data, at least to the extent that I acknowledge more analysis is needed on my part. That is the best way I can explain the comparison to what @Aquarian is saying, and admittedly this makes me a little less confident than the typical INTJ because I am always processing contradictory information to see why I and another person (or real world data, experience, etc.) came up with two different answers.

Of course, we also have introverted judging functions to rely on too, and in that sense I am very Fi over Fe.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I might have knowledge of external values, but they're not necessarily in my awareness at any particular point in time. I need to make a conscious effort to align my own actions with external values, which takes energy that isn't always available and can't be sustained for long periods of time. 
Being aware of my own values is energizing and also natural for me to do. 

I wouldn't say it's necessarily because I don't care, there have been times that I've missed external value expectations and been annoyed at myself for it. Other times I'm aware, but I disagree with them and I'm sure that there have been even more occasions where I was completely oblivious to them. 

Btw, I shower daily and would also be mortified if somebody told me that I smelled bad. Oblivious to external values doesn't equal oblivious to personal hygiene.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I might have knowledge of external values, but they're not necessarily in my awareness at any particular point in time. I need to make a conscious effort to align my own actions with external values, which takes energy that isn't always available and can't be sustained for long periods of time.
> Being aware of my own values is energizing and also natural for me to do.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's necessarily because I don't care, there have been times that I've missed external value expectations and been annoyed at myself for it. Other times I'm aware, but I disagree with them and I'm sure that there have been even more occasions where I was completely oblivious to them.
> ...


I agree. I also think that the more differentiated someone's psyche is, the less it will be aware of anything opposite of that differentiation e.g. introversion versus extroversion. I can't even understand Ne even when I try. I just automatically Ni instead, for example. I am not aware of objects' inner potential and I honestly don't even understand what this means except it being a common phrase Ne types seem to identify with a lot; I am only aware of their archetypal symbolic meaning, all that which an object represents. 

It is therefore much better to replace awareness with consciousness, honestly, at least in a Jungian sense. Awareness means that one is taking and paying conscious note of something. Awareness is not the same as perception, since perception is more akin to observation of the world itself. Take that you are seeing a mug on the table. Se perception would be to actually take conscious notice of the mug and take in all its details. It's being observed. An intuitive type who represses sensation such as an Ni type might not even notice that the mug is there in the first place, and this is because their thinking and thus conscious awareness of reality, is focused on Ni. When the Ni type thus sees the very same mug, they don't see the mug as is and takes in all the details of the mug, but they might for example see a drinking utility. What is important to understand here is that the object is the same, but we understand it differently because our awareness of its properties are different. Similarly, an Fi type would see the mug from an ethical perspective, maybe it is their favorite mug, an Si type as the mug they got at their birthday so many years ago and the mug is strongly associated with that feeling so on.

This is why I cannot agree with that awareness has anything to do with perception. Awareness has to do with conscious orientation, where our psychic energy is spent more towards. If someone has undifferentiated feeling, they might do something some of the people in this thread expressed e.g. sometimes pay attention to their internal feeling landscape and sometimes pay attention to the external feeling landscape. They might be somewhat differentiated towards one direction e.g. have a personal preference towards introversion over extroversion or vice versa, but a true Fi type is never truly or genuinely aware of or even interested in feeling outside themselves and this is because introversion just takes that much precedence over extroversion. It's not a quality of what is important in such a sense when it comes to judgement as in, when I judge something for myself it means I only consider my own values but I am aware of others' values, that suggests a mild differentiation towards introversion but might not be truly differentiated, but what is important here is that some psychic energy is still spent externally e.g. being aware of others' values.

Remember that Jung thought most people are in fact psychological ambiverts. So while MBTI/socionics what have you, operate more with the definition of discrete types, that is, people have preferences of one over the other but this does not need to be as strict as it is in a Jungian sense. The true Jungian type does not consider data as important outside of what they consciously value e.g. their dominant. It doesn't even cross their mind that such data exists in the first place.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Ballast said:


> Well, let's see. Given that our auxiliaries are an extroverted judging function, it makes sense that after our initial introverted perceiving we then _judge_ by external, objective standards. When I give more external validity to data in the outside world, it is when Ni presents me with information that doesn't line up with the real world or is inconsistent with other data. That is to say that while Ni renders something compelling, I will look to the outside world and see if it is consistent with objective standards (for Fe this would be shared social values; for Te it is facts). If I receive an empirical contradiction to my Ni assessment, I may at first assign more validity to that external data, at least to the extent that I acknowledge more analysis is needed on my part. That is the best way I can explain the comparison to what @_Aquarian_ is saying, and admittedly this makes me a little less confident than the typical INTJ because I am always processing contradictory information to see why I and another person (or real world data, experience, etc.) came up with two different answers.
> 
> Of course, we also have introverted judging functions to rely on too, and in that sense I am very Fi over Fe.


That's interesting, your description of the process correlates with my own experience with Fe. What would you consider Te data? Is it just about anything that is presented as a fact? What if you don't trust the sources of that fact?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> That's interesting, your description of the process correlates with my own experience with Fe. What would you consider Te data? Is it just about anything that is presented as a fact? What if you don't trust the sources of that fact?


See my previous post about Te.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> See my previous post about Te.


Ooooh, I think I understand it now. I can see the parallel between T and F then. Would it be correct to assume that Te gives initial validity to external logical qualities while Ti does the same with internal ones?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Ooooh, I think I understand it now. I can see the parallel between T and F then. Would it be correct to assume that Te gives initial validity to external logical qualities while Ti does the same with internal ones?


Yes. This ball is round. This chair has four legs. This bed is soft (based on a generally agreed upon idea of what softness is) are all Te logical qualities. Similarly, person X said Y, person A thinks B also fall in the same realm. That's why Te types, especially dominant ones, rely a lot on external sources when arguing.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Hmm.. ironically I can't understand what you're saying even when you describe Te.
I see Te as a function that assigns logic to external elements and expresses it, such as efficient time management or finding logic in the systems around me, hence its extroversion.
I don't quite see how "the ball is round" is a result of a Te process. Wouldn't it fit more an Se perception?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yes. This ball is round. This chair has four legs. This bed is soft (based on a generally agreed upon idea of what softness is) are all Te logical qualities. Similarly, person X said Y, person A thinks B also fall in the same realm. That's why Te types, especially dominant ones, rely a lot on external sources when arguing.


I think that's the main difference between Dom/Aux Te and Dom/Aux Ti in an argument and why there tends to be "conflict" in such arguments, because one side is trying to argue a subjective perception through objective means, where the other is trying to argue an objective perception through subjective means. 

I've also noticed as I've mentioned before the tendency for:

Te: External facts/etc > subjective thinking/perception.
Ti: Subjective thinking/perception > facts. 

I think wiki.socion mentions something akin to that under white logic, that regardless of "opposition" the person using white logic is always the "decider". 

I do think Ni+Te is less creative in a way than Ne+Ti, in the sense that Ne+Ti seems more "outside the box" whereas Te+Ni seems more about the box.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> Hmm.. ironically I can't understand what you're saying even when you describe Te.
> I see Te as a function that assigns logic to external elements and expresses it, such as efficient time management or finding logic in the systems around me, hence its extroversion.
> I don't quite see how "the ball is round" is a result of a Te process. Wouldn't it fit more an Se perception?


No. Se is more that I see a round object that we call a ball. It perceives or observes the object but it makes no judgements about its logical qualities. Te derives facts based on the external. Te cares about efficiency but this is not all that Te does. I would not say that Te finds logic in systems outside oneself, finding logic in general is thinking, but analyzing the logic of external systems by assigning logic may fall more in the realms of Ti in that the logic is already internally derived as in, I think this is logical or not logical as a subjective experience, and this is then extroverted onto the extroverted world. 

In contrast, Te may judge a system more or less valid based on external properties e.g. common or agreed upon use, but it's not concerned about the system's internal logical qualities based on subjective judgement. That's Ti. Te would only measure quality based on external validity e.g. famous and renowned professor supports it so therefore its valid. See how logic is always extroverted? Only the extroverted world can support what is logical because the logic exists and resides outside of oneself as opposed to inside. 

What makes Te associated with efficiency is that Te tends to generalize. It overlooks the subjective and it must because otherwise it would not be extroverted. If 90% think A and 10% think B, then Te judges the percentages as external logical qualities of A and B, and we thus arrive at the decision of what is the most cost-effective: It is easier and thus more effective to accommodate A over B because fewer subjective exceptions. An Fi type might for example understand personal value of both A and B and try to align that more in a balanced manner. Te, being the opposite of Fi, ignores this kind of value-assignment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I think that's the main difference between Dom/Aux Te and Dom/Aux Ti in an argument and why there tends to be "conflict" in such arguments, because one side is trying to argue a subjective perception through objective means, where the other is trying to argue an objective perception through subjective means.


You mean in contrast to swapped position e.g. INTJ arguing with ENTJ and ENTP vs INTP? If so yes, then I agree. I think wikisocion describes this well with the mirror pair description:



> When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude.





> Use of the creative function — while frequent and effortless — seems to turn on and off. One moment the person may seem highly interested in this aspect, and the next — totally indifferent. This may jar people for whom this aspect of reality is of more supreme importance and who expect more consistent attention and effort in this area. A good example of this is one's interaction with their mirror partner; each person's leading function is subject to the other's creativity function, so even though both partners do share similar worldviews, *they are apt to 'correct' or add on to the other's rigid and finalized points.*





> I've also noticed as I've mentioned before the tendency for:
> 
> Te: External facts/etc > subjective thinking/perception.
> Ti: Subjective thinking/perception > facts.


You mean in dominant role? 



> I think wiki.socion mentions something akin to that under white logic, that regardless of "opposition" the person using white logic is always the "decider".


What do you mean by that in context?



> I do think Ni+Te is less creative in a way than Ne+Ti, in the sense that Ne+Ti seems more "outside the box" whereas Te+Ni seems more about the box.


I agree. In this sense I can see why someone might mistake the INTJ for an ISTJ because the INTJ is more likely to stick to what's tried and true in this sense, in that Ni will dismiss Ne possibilities and only accept logical outcomes that are seen as having pragmatic results (SeTe). The ENTP doesn't care about whether it's possible to achieve it or whether the results are pragmatic. It's thinking more for the sake of thinking.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Snippet of conversation between me (Fe-aux) and my Fi-dom mate, discussing an experience I just had in which my Fe was extremely active/present:_Me:_ I can't help but be aware of what other people expect and what they value. But you're not like that, are you?
> 
> _Her:_ It's not that I'm unaware of those things - it's that I don't care what they expect and value.​
> 
> Meaning: The difference is not that I perceive external values and expectations and she doesn't. Instead, it's that I care about them and she does not. Her Fi judging function simply doesn't assign those values and expectations a high validity. In contrast, my Fe judging function does assign them a high (initial, in my case as I'm Fe-aux and not dom) validity.


I agree with your whole opening post.

But what do you think of this, "I do this nice thing for her because I genuinely want to do it and make her happy, not because I should do it," as being said by Fi-dom and Fi-aux sometimes, and I sometimes do that, too.



> It's very hard for me to imagine being aware of external values and expectations without initially assuming they're valid.


 I don't understand this. You separate awareness and agreement/validity earlier, but here you are seeing them as one thing again?? And doesn't this statement reverse the order or things, in other words, shouldn't it be "It's very hard for me to initially assume they're valid without being aware of external values and expectation?"

It's is hard for me to imagine one does not assess validity of the external values before deciding whether they are valid or not. A lot of my feeling and emotion comes from my Fi, my personal evaluation of happenings against myself. Following external values like Fe-users seems very impersonal and unemotional to me, which is why I always doubt if Fe-users really have emotion or not... how can that be... umm.. yourself. or maybe it's not about yourself, idk[HR][/HR]


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

uncertain said:


> Following external values like Fe-users seems very impersonal and unemotional to me, which is why I always doubt if Fe-users really have emotion or not...


Wow, really?

(Honestly though, I approve of seeming unemotional. )



> or maybe it's not about yourself, idk


I would say that's true for myself, at least. Because I want to try not to be too affected by my own bias.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

uncertain said:


> But what do you think of this, "I do this nice thing for her because I genuinely want to do it and make her happy, not because I should do it," as being said by Fi-dom and Fi-aux sometimes, and I sometimes do that, too.


Makes sense to me, on the surface at least. I'm pretty sure F can also be expressed in want/don't want. But I also feel like it depends on the source of the want. Where does the desire come from? In my case, there are kinds of desire (and aversion) that aren't from judging functions but rather are visceral/gut level responses. And I suspect want can also come from other things, like enneagram dynamics. So I would ask - _why_ do you genuinely want to do it and make her happy? What's the source, the root, of that want, in you?



> I don't understand this. You separate awareness and agreement/validity earlier, but here you are seeing them as one thing again?? And doesn't this statement reverse the order or things, in other words, shouldn't it be "It's very hard for me to initially assume they're valid without being aware of external values and expectation?"


That statement was self-critical. Meaning, I was just pointing out a weakness in my perspective that the separation of awareness from judging (my learning from the conversation in the OP) helps correct for. It_ is _hard for me to separate them because as a Fe aux, awareness of external values so often yields Fe assigning them that initial high legitimacy. This is why the conversation from the OP was such a light bulb moment for me - it showed me a distinction where my understanding had been blurry.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Btw, I shower daily and would also be mortified if somebody told me that I smelled bad. Oblivious to external values doesn't equal oblivious to personal hygiene.


I never ever would have thought it had anything with cognitive functions, but there was a discussion in one of the INFP threads that suggested it might be. I wish I could find it but I can't right now. In suspect that in my INFP's case, the not-caring is somehow Fi-fueled, but that doesn't mean that all Fi doms would have the same thing going on.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Wow, really?
> (*Honestly though, I approve of seeming unemotional*. )


I confess I had the same thought


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Wow, really?
> 
> (Honestly though, I approve of seeming unemotional. )
> 
> ...


I should correct myself. I actually mean more about being impersonal. When I say unemotional I mean, because the feeling of Fe is derived from an external systems, it feels less authentic and less real to me than the feeling of Fi. This sentence doesn't even make sense to me, idk.

It is literally unemotional for Fe in some cases, which doesn't really mean anything since a lot of Fi seems unemotional, too. But there is something different when the two types are being unemotional.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I should correct myself. I actually mean more about being impersonal. When I say unemotional I mean, because the feeling of Fe is derived from an external systems, it feels less authentic and less real to me than the feeling of Fi. This sentence doesn't even make sense to me, idk.
> 
> It is literally unemotional for Fe in some cases, which doesn't really mean anything since a lot of Fi seems unemotional, too. But there is something different when the two types are being unemotional.


I appreciate this clarification a lot. Fi can come across as unemotional, in my experience. And yes there are differences.

But on this point:



> I should correct myself. I actually mean more about being impersonal. *When I say unemotional I mean, because the feeling of Fe is derived from an external systems, it feels less authentic and less real to me than the feeling of Fi.* This sentence doesn't even make sense to me, idk.


It makes sense to me, or at least I think it does. It seems pretty common for Fi-doms to see Fe as inauthentic to the self. And on the flip side, I've seen Fe users assess Fi as self-centered. I think we (Fi and Fe) sometimes have difficulty understanding each other across this divide. 

That said, I have been told by multiple people in my offline life that I am one of the most real people they've encountered. But it's a different kind of real-ness - probably best expressed by one of my friends who seriously (and with some heat) disagreed with a choice I made but told me she had to appreciate the fact that my actions and words match. In other words, people seem to experience a certain authenticity/realness in me, but I'm reasonably certain it's not what you're talking about authentic and real. In fact, I'm remembering now that it took me quite a while to begin understanding what the words_ authentic_, _genuine_ and _real_ mean from a Fi perspective. I'm still learning.

I'm thinking it might be interesting useful/interesting to delve deeper into what authentic and real mean to you. Could you give some examples or say more?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> I'm thinking it might be interesting useful/interesting to delve deeper into what authentic and real mean to you. Could you give some examples or say more?


To Fe types, emotions that you see is what you get is real. A person smiling is real, but a person saying they are happy but not smiling is not real, but it is real to the Fi type because when it is Fi, you can sense the depth and the realness as opposed to having to judge the trueness based on the smile. This is because a smile seems lame and superficial to Fi, in that smiling to express happiness is externally derived, but this external derivation cannot humanly convey the depth of Fi emotions and logos. To be real is to genuinely know and feel what you experience inside yourself. It is difficult to even try to define it because it's just so deep and complicated. Authenticity is derived based on a sense of ability to follow one's own values as opposed to others'. One can follow the values of others but only first if one accepts them as one's own.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> To Fe types, emotions that you see is what you get is real. A person smiling is real, but a person saying they are happy but not smiling is not real, but it is real to the Fi type because when it is Fi, you can sense the depth and the realness as opposed to having to judge the trueness based on the smile.


I *don't *assess trueness like you describe Fe users above. I can feel resonance in people. But I do attend to whether their actions and words match. Not facial expressions, those can be real or fake. But something else.

However. I wonder if this will be useful in making the distinction:

Once in the midst of a terrible fight years ago, my mate asked me if I was doing something pretty awful to her. My response was "_Don't ask me to tell you in words. Assess it for yourself, from my actions. You should never ask someone something like this because if they are doing it they won't speak the truth in response anyway_." But she insisted I speak my answer to her ... and when I did, she said she could feel/perceive the truth in that speaking.

The whole thing later got me thinking about differences in how we each can perceive truth and deception. For me, it's a visceral gut level perception - something or someone resonates clear and refreshing/clean, or there's a resonating off-ness that makes me feel kind of sick. I feel this in my body and words can get in the way very easily. Asking someone to speak their perspective is as likely to muddy up my access to this perception as it is to help. But she's somehow able to perceive/assess truth and deception from attending to someone answering a question or saying something. I'm sure I'm not describing it correctly.

Something in your comment reminded me of this situation, though. 



> This is because a smile seems lame and superficial to Fi, in that smiling to express happiness is externally derived, but this external derivation cannot humanly convey the depth of Fi emotions and logos. To be real is to genuinely know and feel what you experience inside yourself. It is difficult to even try to define it because it's just so deep and complicated. Authenticity is derived based on a sense of ability to follow one's own values as opposed to others'. One can follow the values of others but only first if one accepts them as one's own.


I wonder, would Fi support being able to hear truth below what someone says where Fe would likely get more confused by such a thing. Hmmm. As I write this I see something. The reason that Fe would get in my way is that it _opposes_ that Ni-Se perception by assigning the high legitimacy to the external material flowing in and this disrupts my attention and trust for the Ni-Se perception. My response to my mate in the above example was very much from a Fe-aux/Ni-dom perspective: basically saying, "Don't allow external material to sway you, focus on your own perception and how you feel truth." But for her, there is no inflow of that Fe-legitimized material. Hearing my answer to her question was a _totally different kind of information for her_. 

I think this comment is somewhat of a tangent but will post it anyway in case it yields something interesting. I know I just learned something typing it out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> I *don't *assess trueness like you describe Fe users above. I can feel resonance in people. But I do attend to whether their actions and words match. Not facial expressions, those can be real or fake. But something else.


I see I was poor at expressing what I was trying to convey. What I mean is that smiling is expressive of a derivative external standard suited for a specific occasion. Fe types place emphasis on this, and I also find that Fe types overall tend to place emphasis on outwards emotional expression in general including smiling as a means to gauge people's character.



> However. I wonder if this will be useful in making the distinction:
> 
> Once in the midst of a terrible fight years ago, my mate asked me if I was doing something pretty awful to her. My response was "_Don't ask me to tell you in words. Assess it for yourself, from my actions. You should never ask someone something like this because if they are doing it they won't speak the truth in response anyway_." But she insisted I speak my answer to her ... and when I did, she said she could feel/perceive the truth in that speaking.
> 
> ...


No, not very useful, because I have zero clue as to what you are even trying to express. 



> I wonder, would Fi support being able to hear truth below what someone says where Fe would likely get more confused by such a thing. Hmmm. As I write this I see something. The reason that Fe would get in my way is that it _opposes_ that Ni-Se perception by assigning the high legitimacy to the external material flowing in and this disrupts my attention and trust for the Ni-Se perception. My response to my mate in the above example was very much from a Fe-aux/Ni-dom perspective: basically saying, "Don't allow external material to sway you, focus on your own perception and how you feel truth." But for her, there is no inflow of that Fe-legitimized material. Hearing my answer to her question was a _totally different kind of information for her_.


I'm not sure I see dominant Ni in this quote? It seems more like judgement in general than perception, because you are telling her a conclusion that you arrived at instead of asking a question, suggesting her to consider new information or such. Very little focus on observation in general. Consider this if I were you: I might simply ask her what she means. See, that's perception, looking for more data. I am not telling her what to do or even what to think because that must rely on some judgement of the situation.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> ...


We are for sure talkig past each other and not understanding each other here. It's not the first time this has happened in a dialogue between us, if my memory serves. It's not cognitive processes in general, since I've had a fair amount of amazing clear eye-opening dialogue with other INTJs (to the point where I would say that INTJs may be one of my favorite types to learn with in dialogue)

However. There's something specifically in how you and I respectively think or communicate that seems to create a lot of static and misunderstanding and inability to communicate. I don't think it will be useful to continue responding from here because for me it obstructs rather than enhances clarity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> We are for sure talkig past each other and not understanding each other here. It's not the first time this has happened in a dialogue between us, if my memory serves. It's not cognitive processes in general, since I've had a fair amount of amazing clear eye-opening dialogue with other INTJs (to the point where I would say that INTJs may be one of my favorite types to learn with in dialogue)
> 
> However. There's something specifically in how you and I respectively think or communicate that seems to create a lot of static and misunderstanding and inability to communicate. I don't think it will be useful to continue responding from here because for me it obstructs rather than enhances clarity.


What exactly is it that you don't understand to begin with?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> What exactly is it that you don't understand to begin with?


I said I didn't think it would be useful for me to continue responding. I can say that the word that has come to my mind trying to read many of your comments is "impenetrable." It's just like this buzzing wall of grey static a lot of the time. It would take forever to pick apart all the pieces, the process of picking it apart would generate more static as we went, and I find myself without energy to do so. Sorry.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> What exactly is it that you don't understand to begin with?


Te vs Ti

Fe vs Fi

End
of
Story
;D xd


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> It makes sense to me, or at least I think it does. It seems pretty common for Fi-doms to see Fe as inauthentic to the self. And on the flip side, I've seen Fe users assess Fi as self-centered. I think we (Fi and Fe) sometimes have difficulty understanding each other across this divide.
> 
> That said, I have been told by multiple people in my offline life that I am one of the most real people they've encountered. But it's a different kind of real-ness - probably best expressed by one of my friends who seriously (and with some heat) disagreed with a choice I made but told me she had to appreciate the fact that my actions and words match. In other words, people seem to experience a certain authenticity/realness in me, but I'm reasonably certain it's not what you're talking about authentic and real. In fact, I'm remembering now that it took me quite a while to begin understanding what the words_ authentic_, _genuine_ and _real_ mean from a Fi perspective. I'm still learning.
> 
> I'm thinking it might be interesting useful/interesting to delve deeper into what authentic and real mean to you. Could you give some examples or say more?


It's kinda hard to give an explanation of what authentic and real mean. They are just what they are, but I will try.

When an external value conflicts with my own, and IF I am aware of such a different value in the group (sometimes I am oblivious, other times people tell me that I am doing the "inappropriate" thing), the conflict is something that I can feel and probably one of the manifestation of my sense of self. (Not until I really try to describe the process did I realize that a difference between internal and external values and the conflict the difference results are two different things.)

My sense of self lies in Fi, which creates the possibility of internal values conflicting external values. Then I always use my own as a guide and I try to speak and act in accordance with it. Most of the time I do follow because I find it easiest and most comfortable acting in my own way, and exhausting and _inauthentic_ when I follow the external one because I know I have a different value, a more important one to myself, but I don't follow. I can have a really hard time or a depression when the internal value clashes with the external one. I also doesn't feel right when I become inauthentic because my true self would constantly tell me that I have done the wrong thing, which is an example of overthinking. Plus I am a rather lazy person so I avoid doing things that exhausts myself. The final point of acting according to myself is maybe I simply don't care.

A lot of time the process it's not that complicated. It simply feels like I do what I want, what I feel like, without putting much thought into other people. If I don't follow myself, I feel bad, and I feel not being myself, not _real_. 

I don't really seek group standard as guidance. I just act according to what I think. Because I always refer to myself, a deviation from it can be immediately felt, which is the inauthenticity.



> That said, I have been told by multiple people in my offline life that I am one of the most real people they've encountered. But it's a different kind of real-ness - probably best expressed by one of my friends who seriously (and with some heat) disagreed with a choice I made but told me she had to appreciate the fact that my actions and words match. In other words, people seem to experience a certain authenticity/realness in me


Yes that's a *totally* new way of seeing authenticity and real. Honestly, weird. I guess I sort of understand but still can't believe it. It indicates to me that if people can't get a sense of who you are in the first 5 minutes they don't care going deeper.

Maybe all these Fi sense of self or emphasis on authenticity don't really mean anything to people other than the Fi-uesr himself. because we don't make an effort of connecting our selves to the others like that, people don't always understand. For me, it's like if you don't understand me, or you don't care to understand me, I'm fine with that, and I don't care either.

So what exactly is your definition of authenticity and real? Is it the same as that you described in your experience with people? Can you elaborate, whatever that is?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

uncertain said:


> It's kinda hard to give an explanation of what authentic and real mean. They are just what they are, but I will try.


What you described makes sense to me given what I understand and have seen of Fi. Though I don't understand it from the inside, of course. 

And I just tried to imagine (from my perspective) what it would be like for me to attempt what you're describing, and my focus went to these parts:



> *I always use my own as a guide and I try to speak and act in accordance with it. Most of the time I do follow because I find it easiest and most comfortable acting in my own way*, and exhausting and _inauthentic_ when I follow the external one because I know I have a different value, a more important one to myself, but I don't follow.





> *If I don't follow myself,* I feel bad, and I feel not being myself, not _real_.





> I don't really seek group standard as guidance.* I just act according to what I think. Because I always refer to myself*, a deviation from it can be immediately felt, which is the inauthenticity.


So when I did the little thought experiment of trying to imagine myself doing this, I got this sick twisty feeling in my stomach because it seems like using myself this way would be putting a huge unsupportable burden of certainty on myself that I don't feel I'm large enough to bear. It's like standing on something that isn't made to be stood on. I wish I had better words.

It could be that my sense of individual self just isn't strong enough to provide solid ground for me. I mean, when I stand against the material that Fe legitimizes, it isn't because I have a set of individual values that I trust. It's because there's a clash between the Fe-legitimized material and the physics of how my Ni landscape operates. I don't create that landscape, nor am I at the center of it in any way. It's vast, it's huge, it's permeated with powerful energies and I'm this little speck moving inside of it, perceiving it, experiencing it. I can't imagine determining how to move based on values chosen by my tiny little individual self existing inside a landscape with such power and vastness. (that's how I see it at least, not saying your individual self is like that). So even though I (Fe-aux) do stand against Fe-legitimized material fairly often in the end, my own individually generated values aren't the ground I stand on in doing so.



> Yes that's a *totally* new way of seeing authenticity and real. Honestly, weird. I guess I sort of understand but still can't believe it. It indicates to me that if people can't get a sense of who you are in the first 5 minutes they don't care going deeper.


I don't understand that last part about time and depth. The friend I referred to had known me for several years and I believe she saw me pretty deeply. Why do you see it in terms of limited time and depth?



> Maybe all these Fi sense of self or emphasis on authenticity don't really mean anything to people other than the Fi-uesr himself. because we don't make an effort of connecting our selves to the others like that, people don't always understand. For me, it's like if you don't understand me, or you don't care to understand me, I'm fine with that, and I don't care either.


You sound like my mate here. Sometimes, when things have been stressed between us or I'm feeling stressed, it feels like indifference to the existence of our connection itself and I question whether my presence in her life means anything to her at all (despite whatever else she might say or do).



> So what exactly is your definition of authenticity and real? Is it the same as that you described in your experience with people? Can you elaborate, whatever that is?


At the most organic level, I don't have a definition of authenticity and real so much as I have a gut level Ni-Se perception of a certain resonance I associate with that. So I'm wondering - does this comment maybe answer that question to some extent or otherwise say anything useful to the discussion?


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, though Te doesn't consider the worth of values being oriented towards thinking. To me, if I am in a group situation where we have to make a common decision based on what is the best for the group, what I would look at strictly would be what external qualities people desire. This is Te in that Te derives and defines based on the external. A square has four sides. So Te doesn't consider values as much as it ascribes people's desires at best as a logical category. That person wants us to do o X, that person wants us to do Y. It cares less about what people actually want as much as it looks at what most people want and derives a logical conclusion that since 87% wanted X, it is the better or more effective option over Y in this case.
> 
> I just want to make this distinction here very clear because I have a sense that people are making a lot of confusions between thinking and feeling here, which is not surprising especially in irrational types where the differentiation/distinction is not as clear.
> 
> ...



You brought up vegetarian and meat eating, which actually is a good example of what I mean by I judge people's values by Te.

So, if someone tells me they are vegetarian, I will be like "That's nice" and not really care much more than that. I respect there right to be a vegetarian, just as long as they respect my right to my own food choices.
However, if they start to try to explain to me the reason they are a vegetarian, I will judge their reasonings not by the ethics of it, but by the logic. I might ask them whether they eat egg and yoghurt. Do they eat gellotine? Do they see themselves changing their diet in future? Do they take any B vitamins?

And not everyone who is vegetarian is vegetarian for ethical reasons. I have met many Indians who are vegetarian because they were brought up vegetarian and see no reason to change their diet. This is not an illogical reason. My own diet is based on what I was brought up eating.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> What you described makes sense to me given what I understand and have seen of Fi. Though I don't understand it from the inside, of course.
> 
> And I just tried to imagine (from my perspective) what it would be like for me to attempt what you're describing, and my focus went to these parts:
> 
> ...


This thread just keeps getting interesting.
Quick question (if you're not tired of them yet): how do you think Ti applies to you?


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm not sure if this of any use here, but I'd consider myself a pretty strong Fe user and always have been (Ti, on the other hand, is something I learned to cultivate over the years, especially in an academic context - I'm okay with it, but it never feels as instinctual).

I'm not generally keen to throw emotional expression into the pot because it enforces the idea that all F users are somewhat more emotional types, which I personally don't deem true. Since it's been thrown into the mix however, a few personal observations:

If I emotionally express my own inner world, I'm always honest, and I don't manipulate people by e.g. turning on the waterworks or stuff like that. There is no fakery involved. I can hold back outward expression however, I can wipe the slate, so to speak. I do this because I either find it inappropriate to show my emotions, or because I know it would upset someone, that kind of thing.
I'm also very aware of the differences in my judgment process if I compare it to my longterm partner, who is Fi dom (ISFP). He is far more stoic in his outward expression, but I'd consider him more prone to get into heated arguments when his own values are threatened. I actually stay pretty calm in that regard.

People also told me that I seem to instinctively mirror people with regards to body movement and facial expression. If someone smiles, I smile. If someone looks sad, I look sad. I guess on a rather subconscious level, it helps me to get them to open up and feel at ease, but I cannot say that this is consciously manipulative from my side. It's actually very sincere, and I generally tend to over-empathise. 
The conscious "manipulation" (I really think that word gives Fe users a bad reputation, because it somewhat implies sinister motives ) can take place however if I want to steer the conversation to a more conducive/constructive level. Being overly emotional or too locked up both don't help to solve a problem in my opinion. So I use body language, facial expression and tone of voice to either calm them down or make them open up. And yes, that I do pretty consciously.

*Moving away from emotional expression:*
I very strongly judge/measure against social standards. That doesn't necessarily mean however that I always accept these outer standards as my own. I perceive my Fe as very logical (strictly in the sense of "reasoned") in that case, quite detached actually, not emotional at all. I take in information (whether Ni or Se based doesn't matter much in that case) and measure it against a framework. Can be what's considered appropriate in a situation, can be any other set of values. And then I decide, again rather detached, what outcome is favourable in that situation, and consequently whether I adhere to these external standards or not. I can personally only say that Fe never feels like accepting all parts of "the system". It's just being very aware of what's considered appropriate/inappropriate, moral/amoral etc, and usually making that part of my evaluation/judging process. I can still consciously decide against accepting it though, and I indeed do so on occasion. There are also situations when it causes me inner stress, but they are not as frequent as some people might believe.

Don't know if any of this makes sense...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dewymorning said:


> You brought up vegetarian and meat eating, which actually is a good example of what I mean by I judge people's values by Te.
> 
> So, if someone tells me they are vegetarian, I will be like "That's nice" and not really care much more than that. I respect there right to be a vegetarian, just as long as they respect my right to my own food choices.
> However, if they start to try to explain to me the reason they are a vegetarian, I will judge their reasonings not by the ethics of it, but by the logic. I might ask them whether they eat egg and yoghurt. Do they eat gellotine? Do they see themselves changing their diet in future? Do they take any B vitamins?
> ...


Huh? I fail to see how this relates to what I wrote? My point was how Te views people's claims about themselves as logical categories as opposed to ethical statements of value.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> You mean in dominant role?


More-so in dominant than in aux, but it just comes across less in aux. For instance, most INTJs I've spoken to will amend their thinking to be in accordance with facts, it just sometimes tends to take longer. 




> What do you mean by that in context?


In essence that Te dom and aux seem almost compelled to adjust their thinking to reflect the known data, where Ti dom and aux are more comfortable dismissing data that doesn't fit their thinking. Don't get me wrong, I'm very comfortable doing "if we assume this" style thinking or doing trials and error with "if we eliminate datapoints A and C, how does that change the thinking" but in the end the only way I'll dismiss data is with other data. 




> I agree. In this sense I can see why someone might mistake the INTJ for an ISTJ because the INTJ is more likely to stick to what's tried and true in this sense, in that Ni will dismiss Ne possibilities and only accept logical outcomes that are seen as having pragmatic results (SeTe). The ENTP doesn't care about whether it's possible to achieve it or whether the results are pragmatic. It's thinking more for the sake of thinking.


Which I think is why I heard someone say that you should put the XNTPs in a room and have them come up with ideas and then bring in the XNTJs to eliminate the ones that won't work and execute the ones that will.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> More-so in dominant than in aux, but it just comes across less in aux. For instance, most INTJs I've spoken to will amend their thinking to be in accordance with facts, it just sometimes tends to take longer.


All right. 



> In essence that Te dom and aux seem almost compelled to adjust their thinking to reflect the known data, where Ti dom and aux are more comfortable dismissing data that doesn't fit their thinking. Don't get me wrong, I'm very comfortable doing "if we assume this" style thinking or doing trials and error with "if we eliminate datapoints A and C, how does that change the thinking" but in the end the only way I'll dismiss data is with other data.


As in, this data is more important/valid [based on external criteria] than this piece of data? 



> Which I think is why I heard someone say that you should put the XNTPs in a room and have them come up with ideas and then bring in the XNTJs to eliminate the ones that won't work and execute the ones that will.


Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> All right.


I've just noticed a few patterns among some of the people who type themselves INTJ on this forum which prevents them from approaching the subject of type in an optimal manner. I'm not going to get into it in public though. 




> As in, this data is more important/valid [based on external criteria] than this piece of data?


Yes, more or less. Keep in mind that the external criteria can be somewhat subjective as well in how they are weighted in terms of validity. If we take statistics as an example, I'm always going to look for over and underfitting, what data has been excluded and why, why paramenters were set etc, but I will combine that with my knowledge of the people who designed the study to see what goals they were trying to accomplish and so on. 

Of course, more often than not the problem isn't with the data, it's with the conclusions people have drawn based on the data, which is why I prefer data in the rawest possible form.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I've just noticed a few patterns among some of the people who type themselves INTJ on this forum which prevents them from approaching the subject of type in an optimal manner. I'm not going to get into it in public though.


PM?



> Yes, more or less. Keep in mind that the external criteria can be somewhat subjective as well in how they are weighted in terms of validity. If we take statistics as an example, I'm always going to look for over and underfitting, what data has been excluded and why, why paramenters were set etc, but I will combine that with my knowledge of the people who designed the study to see what goals they were trying to accomplish and so on.
> 
> Of course, more often than not the problem isn't with the data, it's with the conclusions people have drawn based on the data, which is why I prefer data in the rawest possible form.


Yes, which is why Fi weighs in to decide what data is important/valid in an unconscious sense e.g. I like this data set more for XYZ reasons.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Yes, more or less. Keep in mind that the external criteria can be somewhat subjective as well in how they are weighted in terms of validity. If we take statistics as an example, I'm always going to look for over and underfitting, what data has been excluded and why, why paramenters were set etc, but I will combine that with my knowledge of the people who designed the study to see what goals they were trying to accomplish and so on.
> 
> Of course, more often than not the problem isn't with the data, it's with the conclusions people have drawn based on the data, which is why I prefer data in the rawest possible form.


I agree with your point, as I've noticed that issue while I had to read some papers, as many times the conclusions that were drawn by the researchers didn't agree with the conclusions that I could draw from their graphs, specially when the conclusions were overly optimistic. So I also prefer to work with raw data, as there's no added bias that could cloud an objective analysis, so I can detect the underlying patterns of that data and discern which data wasn't properly taken (things like experimental errors are rather common, specially when you're a newbie at lab work or you have instrumental that isn't too sensitive), so overall any conclusion would have some degree of subjective bias.

To be honest, even if Fi could act while I do my lab reports, I try to only rely on Ni-Te, and well, Se also is useful for the reality check part, for studying data, as anything that's too subjective could interfere with a proper analysis.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Huh? I fail to see how this relates to what I wrote? My point was how Te views people's claims about themselves as logical categories as opposed to ethical statements of value.


sorry, Ni tangent. I was just using your example to further expound on my earlier point.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> What you described makes sense to me given what I understand and have seen of Fi. Though I don't understand it from the inside, of course.
> 
> So when I did the little thought experiment of trying to imagine myself doing this, I got this sick twisty feeling in my stomach because it seems like using myself this way would be putting a huge unsupportable burden of certainty on myself that I don't feel I'm large enough to bear. It's like standing on something that isn't made to be stood on. I wish I had better words.
> 
> It could be that my sense of individual self just isn't strong enough to provide solid ground for me. I mean, when I stand against the material that Fe legitimizes, it isn't because I have a set of individual values that I trust. It's because there's a clash between the Fe-legitimized material and the physics of how my Ni landscape operates. I don't create that landscape, nor am I at the center of it in any way. It's vast, it's huge, it's permeated with powerful energies and I'm this little speck moving inside of it, perceiving it, experiencing it. I can't imagine determining how to move based on values chosen by my tiny little individual self existing inside a landscape with such power and vastness. (that's how I see it at least, not saying your individual self is like that). So even though I (Fe-aux) do stand against Fe-legitimized material fairly often in the end, my own individually generated values aren't the ground I stand on in doing so.


Very interesting!  I am happy that my description is well enough for you to experience/learn about Fi in another level, and get some actual physical experience of your own. I don't have the same reaction, but it's interesting to learn yours. That profoundness and burden you get is pretty amazing to me. 

I think a lot of Fi-dom experience negative things, but not as suffocating as yours. I had depression and social anxiety and the physical sickness they resulted before, so I will be more prone to these two things in the rest of my life than people who have not. It is said that most IxFPs experience depression at some point of their lives, and my memory tells me that on this forum 90% IxFPs had it. That number always amazes me.

I intellectually understand how Fe individuals think, but when I really try to understand it I fail. When I think about you guys I admire your Fe, your ability to connect with others just like that, but then I am like, really? The seemingly lack of a center makes me ask, what's the point, where are you here? Just why, and how do you do it? That lack of something is one of the reason I feel weird and I can't figure out the realness.

Maybe I always sub-consciously assume that Fe people have a self like Fi people do, but are somehow able to just ignore that self and straightly go with the external, which is one of the reason why I think Fe people are amazing and are emotionally stronger than me. It seems that you are capable of doing everything I am capable of and more than that, _without_ effort.

When I put myself among both types I kinda feel lost and small because of the fact that an individual is small among society, and Fe poeple feels like the society here. Now I really try to imagine how Ni+Fe work, it becomes so strange to me. My mind has some sort of big picture thing but I never feel like I am part of that landscape. I am not integrated with my Ni perception. Ni is intellectually personal but I am not part of it; Fi is both intellectually and emotionally personal and I am part of it. If I have to use Ni+Fe I will feel absolutely lost, overwhelmed, and alienated.

I generally ignore external values, but you know when you grow up like that a lot of times people don't like it. I found it's totally great to ignore what people think about me and that's how I can keep happy and peace inside, but there are times when you just get hurt, not physically, and you question yourself. As I grew up, I was not popular at all and when I got resentment from people but had absolutely no idea why, I for several times questioned myself if there was anything wrong with me, but I believed that I was a good person at heart so everytime I was like I didn't know why, but whatever, I had not done anything wrong. Sometimes it takes courage to keep being that way, but most of the time it just requires the laziness at ignoring things and caring about what people think, lol. And you can imagine in that way I don't have many friends and in fact I don't and I am very good at being alone entertaining myself.

I did and do think that as long as I am a good person and do what I think is right _everything_ else is fine. Not until these few years do I realize that yes there is nothing wrong with my thought but sadly the world just doesn't always work that way, but I have little clue about what I should be if not myself. As I said, being Ni+Fe will be very overwhelming for me. I am simply not capable of that.



> I don't understand that last part about time and depth. The friend I referred to had known me for several years and I believe she saw me pretty deeply. Why do you see it in terms of limited time and depth?


I don't know how to put it. I am not saying that she does not saw the depth. It sort of like, you guide your friend through the road of your personal depth. Fi people might just leave the "task" alone to other people who want to know them. I guess I want to say that most people don't care about who you are as much as what they can get from you, especially when you are not very engaging.

I guess my father has Fe, and I tend to think he is a T, but I am not sure. Sometimes he likes to compliment people who he in fact doesn't think of as particularly good or important. He keeps saying that it is not fake, but he never explains further why. Apparently he doesn't think of them as highly as it sounds, but when he says he is not fake he seems very genuine about it as well. I never understand. That's one of the way he being mysterious to me. While I deem most formal social behavior as pointless and fake my dad never sees it that way, and he keeps saying that it's not, again without further explanation. He has tons of friends and most people would agree that he is a very good friend to have.



> You sound like my mate here. Sometimes, when things have been stressed between us or I'm feeling stressed, it feels like indifference to the existence of our connection itself and I question whether my presence in her life means anything to her at all (despite whatever else she might say or do).


Yeah I understand. What I say about not caring is the main theme and attitude. But for me, things are somehow different when it comes to my loved one. I can become much more caring, but not that I can and will go much out of my way. I can't speak for her though. I usually just do what I myself would like to be done to if I were the other party, but there is just so much that I can do. I have no idea how another person perceive it. If I were your mate, I do things because I love you, and it's pretty sad if nothing I do or say represents my love. Also, because I am pretty shy, it takes something to begin with.

When you say "I question whether my presence in her life means anything to her at all (despite whatever else she might say or do)," do you mean that you no longer love her as much, or that whatever she might say or do fail to make you like it as much as before in your mind?



> At the most organic level, I don't have a definition of authenticity and real so much as I have a gut level Ni-Se perception of a certain resonance I associate with that. So I'm wondering - does this comment maybe answer that question to some extent or otherwise say anything useful to the discussion?


Yes, but it also tells me that authenticity and real are not part of your concern. You don't really think about it until someone mention them to you. Maybe a lot of different things Fi people think about are simply not part of Fe people's lives or their everyday concern, and vice versa.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Blue Flare said:


> I agree with your point, as I've noticed that issue while I had to read some papers, as many times the conclusions that were drawn by the researchers didn't agree with the conclusions that I could draw from their graphs, specially when the conclusions were overly optimistic. So I also prefer to work with raw data, as there's no added bias that could cloud an objective analysis, so I can detect the underlying patterns of that data and discern which data wasn't properly taken (things like experimental errors are rather common, specially when you're a newbie at lab work or you have instrumental that isn't too sensitive), so overall any conclusion would have some degree of subjective bias.
> 
> To be honest, even if Fi could act while I do my lab reports, I try to only rely on Ni-Te, and well, Se also is useful for the reality check part, for studying data, as anything that's too subjective could interfere with a proper analysis.


A word of warning, I started out "knowing" that something was erroneous and I've spent years working on structuring my thinking, gaining a solid knowledge of bias, reasoning fallacies, scientific methods applied to thinking and engaging system 2 as much as possible with the result that I'm now having to work on integrating that with "old style" of thinking.


----------



## shakti (Oct 10, 2012)

For me, being a Fe-dom feels like always having this interconnected web of people in my head. Whenever I act, I always bear in mind how an action would influence all the people around me, both those familiar to me and not. Sometimes this web feels like it needs organising, and then I deliberate on possibilities how to help people and make a change. I often feel responsible for everybody and feel like I'm failing at my mission if I cannot help somebody!

I'm great at showing support through social gestures - saying the "right" things, being on time, doing little favours, listening, providing advice, getting practical things done. However, I sometimes feel that my understanding of people is a bit "superficial", that I cannot get to the true core of things and that I cannot provide support with enough heart. However, these things are, for example, what my ENFP boyfriend excels at. He won't care much for social customs and rituals, but when it matters he will give other people so much love its's incredible. Sometimes his disregard for things I find very important drives me insane (for example, I hate keeping people waiting!), but overall, I think our Fi and Fe complement each other very nicely


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

nvm


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Huh. Although the idea is interesting, I'm inclined to disagree by experience. Perhaps it's because I'm Fi inferior rather than dominant, but I do assign a heavy level of weight to other people's personal expectations and values...maybe not in terms of how it shapes my personal values, but definitely in terms of how we interact.

I'm much more likely to get someone to go along with my plans if I appeal to what appeals to them. 


Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the OP?


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

i'm pretty sure fi is just more self centered than fe, or more self-serving 

*hides*


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> Huh. Although the idea is interesting, I'm inclined to disagree by experience. Perhaps it's because I'm Fi inferior rather than dominant, but I do assign a heavy level of weight to other people's personal expectations and values...maybe not in terms of how it shapes my personal values, but definitely in terms of how we interact.
> 
> I'm much more likely to get someone to go along with my plans if I appeal to what appeals to them.
> 
> ...


The underlying reason for why you give credence to the views and values of others is more important to identifying a cognitive function than the actual act. Doing so because it fits into a plan sounds like extroverted thinking since it has a formulaic tone to it; an input-output analysis.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Gromlin said:


> The underlying reason for why you give credence to the views and values of others is more important to identifying a cognitive function than the actual act. Doing so because it fits into a plan sounds like extroverted thinking since it has a formulaic tone to it; an input-output analysis.


Yes. Je is Je and is always going to focus on extroverted content this way.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> I never ever would have thought it had anything with cognitive functions, but there was a discussion in one of the INFP threads that suggested it might be. I wish I could find it but I can't right now. In suspect that in my INFP's case, the not-caring is somehow Fi-fueled, but that doesn't mean that all Fi doms would have the same thing going on.


I obviously can't comment on your infp. 

I wouldn't put much weight on a discussion in the infp forum when trying to understand functions. The high percentage of depressed infp's there suggests that a number of people mistype as infps as a result of suffering from depression. 

Fe makes judgments within the boundaries of externally held values, which allows plenty of room for individual personal judgements, including preferences for cleanliness.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

mbaruh said:


> What I'm trying to say is, in continuation with my prev. post, is that if Fe is a judging function, shouldn't it.. well.. judge? How can it be like some sort of vacuum that sucks in values, empty of its own (not trying to offend anyone. If I'm being blunt then it's simply to convey my thoughts in the best way possible). Te is also an extroverted judging function, but I can't see it having any "default" state.


Te has a default state. It sucks in facts and models in order to make a pragmatic decision, just like Fe does with values. Fe = "What (kind of compromise) will accomodate the desires of the greatest amount of people?". Te = "What (kind of method) will most efficiently reach this set goal?".

A Te user may, just like a Fe user, have their own opinions or thoughts on the matter, but these are not given any extra weight.

Je-functions are ego-less in this manner. Fe is stereotyped as being self sacrificing, but really, that's generally true for both Je functions, only in different ways. Both Fe and Te are more than willing to sacrifice their own ideas, desires and opinions in order to reach a goal.

A Te user won't care about pulling the short straw in a process, as long as the process is optimal. For example, when delegating tasks, I pretty much always take on the most boring stuff myself, because I don't especially care what I do and I can live with doing boring tasks, since I know everyone else will be more efficient and the end result will be better when everyone can do stuff they like. Thus, my own preferences are sacrificed for the common good.

A Fe user won't care that they will have to put their own values aside to accomodate everyone, as long as this leads to everyone getting along. This is basically the same thing.

Ji functions, on the other hand - both Ti and Fi - concern themselves primarily with their own, personal perspective and outlook.

With Fi, the individual cares about their own ideals and values, and those are the measure of everything. The perspectives and actions of themselves as well as those of other people are judged only by this internal standard. The group dynamics, norms, standards and opinions of others have no bearing on Fi, since all these external things are judged by the internal framework.

With Ti, it's the same thing. Ti judges everything, both internal and external, by their own internal framework for rational understanding. They trust and respect this internal framework far more than they respect any external source. They are the be all, end all judges of the validity of the information they receive.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Trying to look in depth in this thread. Part of me thinks I may have my judging functions off with my current type, since the more I read about them (especially in auxiliary/tertiary), the more they seem like they're kind of blended.

Is it right to say that while Fe has its own opinions and maybe even values, its decisions are based off of what's considered externally worthy?

Also, it seems like when I look at previous type interaction videos, it was the Te/Fi (either order) people who seemed like they were sometimes surprised with some of what I told them where I didn't really notice that with Ti/Fe users.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

NiDBiLD said:


> Te has a default state. It sucks in facts and models in order to make a pragmatic decision, just like Fe does with values. Fe = "What (kind of compromise) will accomodate the desires of the greatest amount of people?". Te = "What (kind of method) will most efficiently reach this set goal?".
> 
> A Te user may, just like a Fe user, have their own opinions or thoughts on the matter, but these are not given any extra weight.
> 
> ...



Thanks, this really cleared up some stuff


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

atypeofuser said:


> Is it right to say that while Fe has its own opinions and maybe even values, its decisions are based off of what's considered externally worthy?


It's my understanding that "values" come from the Ji function. The counterpart of the "values" of a Fi user are the internal rational frameworks of Ti. These frameworks can include systems of ethics, and those are used to guide their use of Fe.

You could say that Fe-Ti users try to accomodate everyone's wishes and opinions in ways that make sense according to their internal rational processes. The term "values" as used by Fi users doesn't really apply. What a Fe user "values" (Since F is extraverted) is to reach an optimal compromise that everyone can agree on.

Since in the Ti-Fe mind, everyone has a right to their own, personal logical space (Ti), and we have no right to push our own understanding on them, what we CAN do externally is to try to find a solution that as many as possible can agree with (Fe). This is because Ti-Fe says personal values (Fi) are arbitrary and unimportant, and therefore a compromise should be easy to reach (Fe).

Te-Fi users on the other hand, have internalized the Feeling function, and because of this, they have an internal set of values. This means they judge every action according to their own principles and ethical understanding. Fi makes no attempt to accomodate others if doing that clashes with their own principles.

Since in the Te-Fi mind, everyone has a right to their own moral values and principles (Fi), and we have no right to push our own principles on them, what we CAN do externally is try to find the optimal, rational way do things (Te). This is because Te-Fi says people's personal understanding of things (Ti) is arbitrary and unimportant, and therefore a best method should be easy to find (Te).


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> This thread just keeps getting interesting.
> Quick question (if you're not tired of them yet): how do you think Ti applies to you?


Quick note - I'm not going to be around PerC much for a while most likely and I have about 5 minutes now. Interesting question about Ti. I've written about in various other places but no time to find and quote. Quick answer: In me, Ti corrects for harm caused to me by Fe. Again, I won't be around much for a while at least, sorry for the hit and run!


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Hi @uncertain, I'm opn limited time so won't be able to answer your question sufficiently - I do appreciate your reply and wish I had more time. It may be a whole before I can get back to PerC, so just wanted to say thanks.

Oh and and authenticity and real does mean something to me - *it just doesn't mean to me what it means to you.* Fi tends to overgeneralize sometimes IMO.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

NiDBiLD said:


> Since in the Ti-Fe mind, everyone has a right to their own, personal logical space (Ti), and we have no right to push our own understanding on them, what we CAN do externally is to try to find a solution that as many as possible can agree with (Fe). This is because Ti-Fe says personal values (Fi) are arbitrary and unimportant, and therefore a compromise should be easy to reach (Fe).


If I'm not mistaken, this is a pretty Kant-like way of viewing things. Which fits because he is usually considered to be an INTP.


----------

