# Is this Fi or Fe?



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

seapebble said:


> Just because you don't think you're wrong, it doesn't mean you're right.


It doesn't, but someone has yet to propose a strong and solid argument why I would be wrong.


> How did I miss this _consensus?_ Well, okay, even if there is one, it doesn't make you right, it makes you popular.


No, it means that people actually for once, even when it comes to subjective experience such as personality, agree on the theory and what they are seeing and understand, so according that base definition of agreement, my assessment is correct as well. 


> You really want to be right, don't you? Well, maybe you are.


It's not about being right or wrong but correct or incorrect.


----------



## deep_intuit (Jun 9, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Can you describe Se / Si in such a way too?  Si was mentioned here as relevant anyway...


 Of course I can. At this point I will now describe the Si function in comparison to the Se function. 

Si:


Introverted sensing is all about the past. Introverted sensing users are very good at remembering past experiences and how things used to be. Also, because introverted sensing users are so focused on the past, they often don’t like any change of any kind. Introverted sensors often have the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” motto. Si users tend to naturally get into a routine of doing the same things over and over again because it is familiar and makes them feel comfortable. For instance, many SJ types tend to go on the same walk at the same time in the morning every day, eat breakfast at the same time every day, watch TV at the same time every night, and go to bed at the same time every night. 


Si users love to get into routines and often times if you disrupt their routines, it will make them feel uncomfortable. Si users are often good at recalling even the slightest of details from their routines as well. For instance, if an Si user is used to having Thanksgiving dinner at 4:00Pm every year, and you have it at 2:00Pm that year it may make them feel uncomfortable because in the past, it was done differently and Si users tend to be uncomfortable with change. Bear in mind that most Si users aren’t uncomfortable to this extent with change, and these are extreme examples, but most are uncomfortable with change in general.

Si users also tend to also recall past details so easily that they can literally see something and almost relive a past experience in their head. Let me give you an example: Let’s say that an Si user was to pass by the location of an old arcade that they used to play video games at. The introverted sensor could literally at that point almost relive an experience in their mind of them playing video games at that arcade in the past. They would literally have a vision of the past in their mind: they would see themselves in the past, they would remember the pizza they ate at the arcade, the Coke that they drank, the game that they played, the cool gun controller, and basically everything else. Si users constantly relive things from their past, and because of this they often like to take trips down memory lane with their friends by frequently discussing past events. 

Si is also generally very focused like a laser beam. SJ’s tend to get on one thought and often struggle to get off of that same thought. Whereas the Ne user may have up to 300 thoughts in one day, the Si user may have like maybe 30. 


Se:


Extroverted sensing users are very aware of their outer surroundings. Whereas many of the intuitives’ minds are out in outer space most of the time and often miss things around them, the Se users will notice basically everything around them. The Se user will see the chair in front of them,: they will notice that the chair is white with brown trim, they will see the diamond patterns in the chair, they will see the black cushion on the chair etc. The Se users will see the fire extinguisher on the left wall, they will see the structure of the rooms, etc. Basically the Se users have a very acute sense of their physical surroundings and don’t miss a single detail. 


Also, Se users (that haven’t developed Ni) often times don’t really see future possibilities of what can happen like Ne users or have futuristic visions like the Ni users. Therefore, Se users basically have no clue what’s going to happen in the future, so therefore they live almost completely and totally in the present moment. Se users aren’t worried about what happened in the past like SJ’s and they aren’t worried about the future like intuitives. No, instead Se users are concerned with what’s happening right now in this very present moment. It is because of this that many Se users live each day like it is their last. 


Se users are also good at taking action in the present moment. Se users often times love activities that allow them to take pure action as well such as sports, dancing, racecar driving, etc. By the way, when I say action based activities, I mean things that allow the Se user to just simply “do” and not to analyze, or reflect on the way that they feel about something, or to plan. No, I’m talking about things where they can do thing, after thing, after thing, without having to think at all. 


When trying to imagine how Se works in your head, think of the way that Chuck Norris operates in any action movie. Chuck chases a guy down the alley, jumps up a ladder, climbs on the roof, chases him on the roof, jumps off the roof, and does a flying jump kick and knocks the guy down. This is how Se works: it does thing, after thing, and just allows the individual to take pure action without thinking. When thinking of how Se works, think of pretty much any high action scene from any action movie. 


Also the last thing that I would like to mention about Se is that fact that it learns the best from experience. Unlike many intuitives that can literally read about something or talk to someone about something and just imagine what something would be like for them if they experienced it, Se users can’t do this. Se users must literally experience something for them to know what it’s like. So for instance, if I were to show an Se user a video of a guy playing baseball, the Se user couldn’t just tell me based on what they saw, if they would like to play baseball or not. They would literally have to experience baseball and to play it themselves to tell you if they would like baseball.


----------



## QueenOfCats (Jan 28, 2011)

Neither, just sympathy/empathy


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

deep_intuit said:


> Of course I can. At this point I will now describe the Si function in comparison to the Se function.


Well really appreciate you typing all this out. 

Anything on how Si and Ne work together (vs Se and Ni but I can understand that pairing much easier)?

So the Si thing, I am really open to more input on anything related to it so I can understand it better. I know the basic definition, I'm looking beyond that.

Se (to understand it) is not so much of a problem for me, I will actually comment on the Se parts, perhaps I can add something to refine things  (you're not an Se user right?)




> Introverted sensing is all about the past.


Yeah I know, it's just hard to imagine... is it like, when you as Si user experience something in the present, you will automatically associate the impression you associated with it in the past? Some association that's pretty irrational but Si is an irrational function heh.

So I would like to hear more about how this associating with the past happens. And how that plays into Ne preference.




> Si users also tend to also recall past details so easily that they can literally see something and almost relive a past experience in their head.


I had such an experience of a recall when I was 8 years old. I'm not naturally focused on the past but that was such an interesting experience of being able to relive something as if it happened the previous day. 




> Si is also generally very focused like a laser beam.


I like focus myself, this depends... I guess this is just a small detail of the description though comparing it to Ne...




> Extroverted sensing users are very aware of their outer surroundings. Whereas many of the intuitives’ minds are out in outer space most of the time and often miss things around them, the Se users will notice basically everything around them. The Se user will see the chair in front of them,: they will notice that the chair is white with brown trim, they will see the diamond patterns in the chair, they will see the black cushion on the chair etc. The Se users will see the fire extinguisher on the left wall, they will see the structure of the rooms, etc. Basically the Se users have a very acute sense of their physical surroundings and don’t miss a single detail.


Well uh... no, I don't look at every single detail, that would take too long. I actually hear that being associated with Si more often. Si's supposedly take the time to look at crappy little details. I don't, I have a much broader focus about the environment. I have seen people associate that with Se, and extraversion in general is supposed to have a broader focus than introversion. So, what is this about Se not missing one single detail? 

Of course, I can get into a mode to sharply focus on the little details when needed. Not a problem. Just not my default attitude. 

Seeing structure of the environment does fit with being broad though. For me anyway. I'm pretty good with spatial perception and not just good with it but focused on it; but not sure if that's just Se or something else too.

And I would like to add, Se is really about looking at things "as is". Physical objects are taken "as is" in the environment, sure but basically everything else too, situations, life, blahblah.




> Also, Se users (that haven’t developed Ni) often times don’t really see future possibilities of what can happen like Ne users or have futuristic visions like the Ni users. Therefore, Se users basically have no clue what’s going to happen in the future, so therefore they live almost completely and totally in the present moment. Se users aren’t worried about what happened in the past like SJ’s and they aren’t worried about the future like intuitives. No, instead Se users are concerned with what’s happening right now in this very present moment. It is because of this that many Se users live each day like it is their last.


Yeah well, I agree about Se living in the moment here and now, it's just that I do like to have the knowledge that I will have the future, not just the present moment but the future too. Like, if there's something going on that I really like, I want to have it "forever". I don't think of this very often though, this is just a deep seated need somewhere in me that sometimes surfaces for a second and I go "aww". If that makes sense.




> Se users are also good at taking action in the present moment. Se users often times love activities that allow them to take pure action as well such as sports, dancing, racecar driving, etc. By the way, when I say action based activities, I mean things that allow the Se user to just simply “do” and not to analyze, or reflect on the way that they feel about something, or to plan. No, I’m talking about things where they can do thing, after thing, after thing, without having to think at all.


Yeah that part of the description I do like.  Shows well how Se is different from other functions.




> When trying to imagine how Se works in your head, think of the way that Chuck Norris operates in any action movie. Chuck chases a guy down the alley, jumps up a ladder, climbs on the roof, chases him on the roof, jumps off the roof, and does a flying jump kick and knocks the guy down. This is how Se works: it does thing, after thing, and just allows the individual to take pure action without thinking. When thinking of how Se works, think of pretty much any high action scene from any action movie.


Ehh, yeah but that's just one extreme example  Nice though 




> Also the last thing that I would like to mention about Se is that fact that it learns the best from experience. Unlike many intuitives that can literally read about something or talk to someone about something and just imagine what something would be like for them if they experienced it, Se users can’t do this. Se users must literally experience something for them to know what it’s like. So for instance, if I were to show an Se user a video of a guy playing baseball, the Se user couldn’t just tell me based on what they saw, if they would like to play baseball or not. They would literally have to experience baseball and to play it themselves to tell you if they would like baseball.


Doesn't Si also learn best from experience? Any difference between Si and Se here?

Btw I can imagine what something would be like, I just don't think about that sort of thing much and it's possible I imagine it in a less vivid way than N's do as long as it's about imagining *myself* in whatever situation etc. That makes me stay closer to reality somehow so I don't really "tune out" enough. If it's about imagining a story that's not to do with me thus nothing to do with reality either then I can imagine it pretty vividly and it can be really engaging. I think that S vs N has nothing to do with ability of imagination. I think it's more the relation of it to reality if that makes sense...?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

fascinating the INTJ's are giving lessons on feelings. 

Perhaps the ISFP's could give lessons on logic to balance things out?

"Feeling" the other person's emotion as your own is Fi. Having the drive to help someone else is sometimes Fe, but it can be Fi.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

seapebble said:


> Example 1. I look at a homeless person and say "oh god this is horrible, the way this person lives..." and I'll be flooded with some kind of emotion which I cannot give a name to.
> 
> Example 2. A few weeks ago, I was waiting for a subway train and I was seated next to a girl. She was reading a book but at the same time she was crying. Suddenly it was as if this was happening to me - as if I was sad. So I pat her in the soulder and asked "are you okay?" (she said yes and it stopped there).
> 
> ...


examples 1, 3, and 4 are Fe. Example one was such a powerful thing, ti triggered an emotion inside you. If you were an Fi user you would have known what the emotion was. 3 adn 4 are flat, straight up Fe.

how old are you?

I'd go post this to the INFJ forum. They are nice people.


----------



## seapebble (Jul 19, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> fascinating the INTJ's are giving lessons on feelings.


Aw, man, why not? We all feel.



drmiller100 said:


> examples 1, 3, and 4 are Fe. Example one was such a powerful thing, ti triggered an emotion inside you. If you were an Fi user you would have known what the emotion was. 3 adn 4 are flat, straight up Fe.
> 
> how old are you?


I guess the emotion in example 1 was sorrow or... I don't know. I probably felt sorry for them. I would like them to live in better conditions.

I'm 31.



drmiller100 said:


> I'd go post this to the INFJ forum. They are nice people.


That's a good idea! They have Fe as their second function. In ISFJ too, perhaps.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

seapebble said:


> Aw, man, why not? We all feel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you are 31, and exploring your Fe, and you are reasonably intelligent evidenced by your posts, I'd be looking at a type with Fe in the third position. 

But the INFJ's are GOOD at typing people.


----------



## seapebble (Jul 19, 2013)

Oh, that's why you said I should go there. Okay, cool!

Types that have Fe in the 3rd position are ENTP and ESTP. I have a hard time imaging myself an ENTP or an ESTP but it's all possible I guess. ESTP sounds awesome but these guys need to do something in order to know it. I can "imagine" or "estimate" how it'll be (and this isn't criticism for the ESTPs, imaging things can lead to all kinds of problems). Reading the ENTP description on personalitypage.com, I think that I have a more 'strict' moral code. Focused more on people and less on results. I also hear that ENTPs don't... well, I don't mean to offence ENTPs, but they don't exactly, set goals. They just go with the flow. They like risk (which I usually avoid) and prefer to be unscheduled. I don't act like that.

What do you mean "exploring" Fe? These experiences didn't begin yesterday. I remember myself in early 20s putting others before me. I'll need to dig up deeper for childhood though.

One thing I can tell for sure. I grew up in an emotionally sterile environment. I was watching films to learn about life. So maybe that stalled the development of Fe. Oh, I just remembered that I've been called a robot, anti-social, and emotionless in the past.


----------



## deep_intuit (Jun 9, 2013)

@_itsme45_



> Well really appreciate you typing all this out.


Thanks. It took me an hour and a half to compose that long ass message. 



> Anything on how Si and Ne work together (vs Se and Ni but I can understand that pairing much easier)?
> 
> So the Si thing, I am really open to more input on anything related to it so I can understand it better. I know the basic definition, I'm looking beyond that.


Ugh. I don't have much information as to how Si and Ne work together. However there is one thing that I've noticed about how Si and Ne work together. I've noticed that many times Si and Ne will work together and relate the past back to the future. Let me give you an example....

The other day I was walking down the street and a car almost hit me. In my mind I kept using Si to revert back to the past and kept envisioning that car about to hit me in my mind. Then, my Ne kicked in, and I started imagining all the various possibilities on different ways that car could of hit me. My mind then went even further in the future and started seeing all of these horrible things that could have happened because the car hit me. I imagined myself having to get a leg amputated, being in a wheel chair for the rest of my life, and even dying. My my mind then went into a huge philosophical journey on what would happen when I died. I saw myself possibly going to the Judeo-Christian heaven, being reincarnated like the Buddhists believe, or even being "just dead" for all of eternity and going into an eternal sleep like the Athiests believe. I believe that this was an example of how Ne and Si could possibly look when working together. 

I also plan to comment on the rest of your post as well, I just don't have the time at the present moment.

EDIT: Ok this comment I would also like to respond to right now...



> Yeah that part of the description I do like.  Shows well how Se is different from other functions.


Another thing that is unique about Se is that it operates almost like a character from a video game. Have you ever played a video game like, "Def Jam Vendetta" for example? Then in that video game, when your power meter fills up completely, you can go into "Blaze Mode"? Yeah Se users can do this too. Sometimes, when an Se user is really into something they get into this mode where they just DO, AND DO, AND DO! It's almost like they develop hella focus on something and just go pure action on accomplishing that task. They are so focused and so action oriented at this moment that it would take a bulldozer to stop them.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

seapebble said:


> Reading the ENTP description on personalitypage.com, I think that I have a more 'strict' moral code. Focused more on people and less on results. I also hear that ENTPs don't... well, I don't mean to offence ENTPs, but they don't exactly, set goals. They just go with the flow. They like risk (which I usually avoid) and prefer to be unscheduled. I don't act like that.
> 
> What do you mean "exploring" Fe? These experiences didn't begin yesterday. I remember myself in early 20s putting others before me. I'll need to dig up deeper for childhood though.
> 
> One thing I can tell for sure. I grew up in an emotionally sterile environment. I was watching films to learn about life. So maybe that stalled the development of Fe. Oh, I just remembered that I've been called a robot, anti-social, and emotionless in the past.


First, you almost sound like not having society's normal morals is a bad thing. This, to me, is a big clue.

In fact, the entire post sounds to me like one gynormous clue. And being male is another clue.

I would bet If you are not INFJ, then you are ISFJ, and your upbringing killed your Fe for a long time. kind of common in very male dominated families where caring and love from a male child is laughed at, ridiculed, and killed off. I was married to an ISFJ who can come across as very cold and emotionless. I have not been around many, if any, male infj's.

I cannot imagine an INFP having their emotions so stunted and hidden and still have the INFP alive. Just my opinion.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

deep_intuit said:


> @_itsme45_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, my mind will often go crazy about possible eventualities.

But, I think we also have to grudgingly admit that Ne really can't operate _without _Si, because it's like... Si is the information storage-- We pull out things we already know from there. We can't operate pure-Ne by just using our environment. It doesn't really work, at least not for me. 

_If _I don't go into an episode of something like:

''If I walk into this dark forest and there is a random robber in there, how will I react to him attacking me? A) Use my keys to gouge out his eyes, B) Swing grocery bag and run. C) Talk him down and run. D) Just run like hell. '' And then, from there, choosing options and deciding what else will happen based off of those options, and just making little stories in my head. With or without possible mythological options, depending on how bored I am. ''CALL UPON THE LIGHTNING.''

That entire thought process is based on the assumption that robbers can hide in dark forests, which is probably gathered from my Si at some point or another....

Then I look at my environment and the things in it as what they remind me of, what they could possibly _be, _and also, what they might have been in the past. This past-orientation makes me think... Si.

So, dragging what you know, and then applying it to what could be, or might have been. Because I think even past-hypotheses can be attributed to Ne. ''What would have happened if Napolean had conquered the world.'' Sort of thing.


----------



## seapebble (Jul 19, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> First, you almost sound like not having society's normal morals is a bad thing. This, to me, is a big clue.


"Not having"? What do you mean? Who is not "having", me? That it's a bad thing if I don't have society's normal morals?

What is gynormous?



drmiller100 said:


> I would bet If you are not INFJ, then you are ISFJ, and your upbringing killed your Fe for a long time. kind of common in very male dominated families where caring and love from a male child is laughed at, ridiculed, and killed off. I was married to an ISFJ who can come across as very cold and emotionless. I have not been around many, if any, male infj's.


I don't remember things that would support that my family as very male and dominated. It could be the case though. I'll try to dig up things.



drmiller100 said:


> I cannot imagine an INFP having their emotions so stunted and hidden and still have the INFP alive. Just my opinion.


So you mean that since INFP's first function is Fi, it would be very difficult having their emotions stunned, eh?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

I have not a shred of morals as dictated by society. I have my own set of ethics and morals I have built myself. Some happen to coincide with some of society, most do not.

I am ENTP. 

Many ENTP's do not follow all of society's rules, including morals, but I am an extreme case. In general, ENTP does not follow the pack blindly however.

Tell me about your father, or the father figure in your life growing up. What was home life like?

Gynormious is like enormous, but gianter.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

deep_intuit said:


> Thanks. It took me an hour and a half to compose that long ass message.


Rest assured, it was worth it 




> Ugh. I don't have much information as to how Si and Ne work together. However there is one thing that I've noticed about how Si and Ne work together. I've noticed that many times Si and Ne will work together and relate the past back to the future. Let me give you an example....


Thanks, actually that was a great example  Just need to understand a bit deeper about how Si's subjectivity works with Ne's objectivity. Anything on that?

My tentative understanding right now is that this is something about how Ne takes the source of the idea from the external world (some object or situation), being extraverted and objective in this fashion, but then goes inside the mind a bit to play with it to generate the possibilities and whatnot and that then is using concrete internal data, that is, Si. It would then be subjective in some way but that's unclear to me, beyond the fact that you're kind of inside your own mind for a few seconds here and there, right?




> I also plan to comment on the rest of your post as well, I just don't have the time at the present moment.


Okay, looking forward to it. 




> Another thing that is unique about Se is that it operates almost like a character from a video game. Have you ever played a video game like, "Def Jam Vendetta" for example? Then in that video game, when your power meter fills up completely, you can go into "Blaze Mode"? Yeah Se users can do this too. Sometimes, when an Se user is really into something they get into this mode where they just DO, AND DO, AND DO! It's almost like they develop hella focus on something and just go pure action on accomplishing that task. They are so focused and so action oriented at this moment that it would take a bulldozer to stop them.


Ohh yes I love that mode! I mean not the game but the action mode in real life (btw I hardly play computer games, just gets boring really quickly except maybe car rally games... or if I can play against someone else but without having to invest too much time into figuring out the game first. Is this Se lol?)




drmiller100 said:


> I have not a shred of morals as dictated by society. I have my own set of ethics and morals I have built myself. Some happen to coincide with some of society, most do not.


ESTPs should be different with this or what? Just curious


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> ESTPs should be different with this or what? Just curious


probably not. INFJ will be VERY different however.


----------



## deep_intuit (Jun 9, 2013)

@Word Dispenser

Yeah I believe that your hypothesis is correct. 
@itsme45

Thanks, actually that was a great example  Just need to understand a bit deeper about how Si's subjectivity works with Ne's objectivity. Anything on that?



> My tentative understanding right now is that this is something about how Ne takes the source of the idea from the external world (some object or situation), being extraverted and objective in this fashion, but then goes inside the mind a bit to play with it to generate the possibilities and whatnot and that then is using concrete internal data, that is, Si. It would then be subjective in some way but that's unclear to me, beyond the fact that you're kind of inside your own mind for a few seconds here and there, right?


Yeah I'm not really sure about the objective and subjective parts of these functions. Sorry.


----------



## seapebble (Jul 19, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> I have not a shred of morals as dictated by society. I have my own set of ethics and morals I have built myself. Some happen to coincide with some of society, most do not.


Oh, I like your view. We are alike. I hate dictated things. I want to know "why". And I'm usually unsatisfied with the answer.

But I sense we have a difference. I imagine that you just go on living inside a society and just find a way to have your way or use tricks, loops, and generally short-circuit the system. I try to change society and it's morals. Viva la revolution  So in a sense, you (as I imagine you) are more flexible than me. And that's refreshing.



drmiller100 said:


> Many ENTP's do not follow all of society's rules, including morals, but I am an extreme case.


I didn't read anything extreme from you so far.



drmiller100 said:


> Tell me about your father, or the father figure in your life growing up. What was home life like?


I originally posted this but I need to think again whether I'm okay with opening this up.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

seapebble said:


> Oh, that's why you said I should go there. Okay, cool!
> 
> Types that have Fe in the 3rd position are ENTP and ESTP. I have a hard time imaging myself an ENTP or an ESTP but it's all possible I guess. ESTP sounds awesome but these guys need to do something in order to know it. I can "imagine" or "estimate" how it'll be (and this isn't criticism for the ESTPs, imaging things can lead to all kinds of problems). Reading the ENTP description on personalitypage.com, I think that I have a more 'strict' moral code. Focused more on people and less on results. I also hear that ENTPs don't... well, I don't mean to offence ENTPs, but they don't exactly, set goals. They just go with the flow. They like risk (which I usually avoid) and prefer to be unscheduled. I don't act like that.
> 
> ...


Needing to do things in order to know them is a Ti thing actually, so it would apply to both.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

seapebble said:


> Two examples.
> 
> Example 1. I look at a homeless person and say "oh god this is horrible, the way this person lives..." and I'll be flooded with some kind of emotion which I cannot give a name to.
> 
> ...


Neither Fi or Fe, I'm pretty sure that's Si, or more likely than not FeSi or SiFe.


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

FeELING for someone else

FiRST, I gotta know how it makes me feel. And well, basically, for Fi's, it doesn't extend to just about anyone.


----------



## seapebble (Jul 19, 2013)

That was brief and to the point, SeñorTaco!


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Can someone please explain to me how feeling bad for homeless people or a girl crying has anything to do with values Fe or Fi values?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Needing to do things in order to know them is a Ti thing actually, so it would apply to both.


you going by lenore thompson?

some ENTP once said that her Ti description was pretty much Ti with Se... I dunno, as I don't know what xNTP's are like with this  but it does make sense to me.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> you going by lenore thompson?
> 
> some ENTP once said that her Ti description was pretty much Ti with Se... I dunno, as I don't know what xNTP's are like with this  but it does make sense to me.


I actually think I may have read that same comment a while back, assuming it was on PerC, or for some reason I remember people having that sentiment about Lenore's Ti description. I'm part of the school of thought that it's difficult to differentiate between individual functions, and that there are essences that can only be described by the compounding of of different combinations of functions. For example, that there is a difference between TiNe and TiSe. With having said that, I don't think this is one of those times.

My view is that Ti is experience based and is at it's best when totally immersed in a subject. One thing common to strong Ti users is their ability to "feel" systems they frequently interact with, probably because they spend so much time interacting with it. When I say system I mean it the loosest of definitions, as in it could be a person throwing a ball or defining a fracture mechanics model. I'm no expert, but I've been studying MBTI stuff/Jung stuff/Beebe stuff/Socionics stuff for a couple years now on a almost daily basis, I've read most of the major books, read probably every major source of type related information on the internet, and religiously followed the most prominent typology youtube channels. In other words, I feel like I've seen most of what's out there. With having said that, I have never read anything that has come as close to describing my learning process and the way I understand things as Lenore's Ti description. Most of the stuff out there is incomplete and/or inconsistent as to what each cognitive function actually does.

Take this thread for example, the original post talked about how he felt bad for the homeless person and for the crying girl. Does the poster feel this indescribable bad feeling for the homeless person because they looked uncomfortable from a material sense? Did they look downtrodden and depressed? Do they happen to believe that the world shouldn't allow people to be homeless? Fe and Fi has nothing to do with seeing people uncomfortable or upset, anyone can see that and feel bad, it's why you're having those feelings in that moment.

I know there's this sentiment that Fe is more caring than Fi but it's actually the opposite. Fe types will really care if it's reasonable for them to care given the situation, but otherwise they might not care. So an Fe type may see someone in pain and want to help them because they feel like they didn't deserve what they're experiencing. Fi types don't need this qualification, they're interested in all feelings, even the feelings of those who may deserve whatever pain they're experiencing. They don't care about whether feelings are reasonable or appropriate for a given situation, they think all feelings are valuable. This isn't as much an feeling dynamic as much as a extroverted vs. introverted dynamic, so the same pattern holds for thinking as well. A Te user could have reasons to objectively say something is true, but a Ti user may not be on board if the conclusion is inconsistent with his/her views on how things work based on their experiences.

I think the perception functions work the same way. One of the reasons I think the OP's experience has a Si flavor to it is the implied connection of his feeling of material discomfort. Si types are focused on how the environment is affecting them and how it's making them feel, seeing a homeless person and imagining how they live must feel uncomfortable to them. Seeing a person cry and caring could be anything, probably just evidence of a genuinely empathetic person


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> My view is that Ti is experience based and is at it's best when totally immersed in a subject. One thing common to strong Ti users is their ability to "feel" systems they frequently interact with, probably because they spend so much time interacting with it. When I say system I mean it the loosest of definitions, as in it could be a person throwing a ball or defining a fracture mechanics model. I'm no expert, but I've been studying MBTI stuff/Jung stuff/Beebe stuff/Socionics stuff for a couple years now on a almost daily basis, I've read most of the major books, read probably every major source of type related information on the internet, and religiously followed the most prominent typology youtube channels. In other words, I feel like I've seen most of what's out there. With having said that, I have never read anything that has come as close to describing my learning process and the way I understand things as Lenore's Ti description. * Most of the stuff out there is incomplete and/or inconsistent as to what each cognitive function actually does.*


Yeah okay... just the computer example was S then, in the original Lenore Ti description lol.

By the way I share your sentiments there, Lenore's Ti was the closest for me 

I have to disagree on your last sentence in that above quoted section though (bolded), what you observed about discrepancies in theories has nothing to do with that. No it's simply just that this stuff is subjective, cognitive functions don't actually exist "as is", so it's completely up to the theory builder how they conceptualize functions. 

Thus, judging the theories against each other based on how much incompleteness or inconsistency is there is not relevant, the descriptions as compared to each other can't be interpreted in this way. They sure are inconsistent with each other across different systems but that does not say anything about which one is best to describe the functions. 

There is of course another viewpoint about how they are incomplete or inconsistent within even one single system and I do agree in that sense, that is, these theories are just not going to be complete. But I said that above already.




> Take this thread for example, the original post talked about how he felt bad for the homeless person and for the crying girl. Does the poster feel this indescribable bad feeling for the homeless person because they looked uncomfortable from a material sense? Did they look downtrodden and depressed? Do they happen to believe that the world shouldn't allow people to be homeless? Fe and Fi has nothing to do with seeing people uncomfortable or upset, anyone can see that and feel bad, it's why you're having those feelings in that moment.
> 
> I know there's this sentiment that Fe is more caring than Fi but it's actually the opposite. Fe types will really care if it's reasonable for them to care given the situation, but otherwise they might not care. So an Fe type may see someone in pain and want to help them because they feel like they didn't deserve what they're experiencing. Fi types don't need this qualification, they're interested in all feelings, even the feelings of those who may deserve whatever pain they're experiencing. They don't care about whether feelings are reasonable or appropriate for a given situation, they think all feelings are valuable. This isn't as much an feeling dynamic as much as a extroverted vs. introverted dynamic, so the same pattern holds for thinking as well. A Te user could have reasons to objectively say something is true, but a Ti user may not be on board if the conclusion is inconsistent with his/her views on how things work based on their experiences.
> 
> I think the perception functions work the same way. One of the reasons I think the OP's experience has a Si flavor to it is the implied connection of his feeling of material discomfort. Si types are focused on how the environment is affecting them and how it's making them feel, seeing a homeless person and imagining how they live must feel uncomfortable to them. Seeing a person cry and caring could be anything, probably just evidence of a genuinely empathetic person


Uhmm, well, okay, more subjective theorizing going against the grain 

Btw I didn't get the part about Fi/Fe vs Ti/Te parallel. Fi thinks all feelings are valuable but Ti as a parallel (?!) doesn't quite think of everything as logical, right?


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah okay... just the computer example was S then, in the original Lenore Ti description lol.
> 
> By the way I share your sentiments there, Lenore's Ti was the closest for me
> 
> ...



Haha fair enough. I agree that I'm not being entirely fair, I can't actually prove anything that I'm saying, and cognitive functions don't actually exist. One of the most difficult things about studying typology, and the thing that makes it really addicting, is that it offers so much potential. It's like I feel like I'm on the verge of figuring it all out, and sometimes I feel like I have, then I'll encounter new information and have to start over. It's like I want to know what's true, what isn't true, why in either case, and I can't stop until I can explain everything. With having said that, I feel like I can decide what definitions are better based on how comprehensible they are and how applicable they are to typing yourself and others. I guess of course that this doesn't mean they're true . I guess my feel is that if there isn't a definitive way to figure out a person's cognitive functions then what's the point of all this?

Agreed that what I was saying in those last paragraphs is subjective, but how else can we talk about this stuff? Unfortunately it's hard to get even a couple data points in terms of instances that suggest use of a certain functions, or at least good ones. It seems like most of them are "intuitives think about the future, sensors don't", "feelers made decisions with their feels, thinkers use their heads", "perceivers are messy, judgers are neat freaks", etc.

I made the parallel between Fi and Ti based on the scale at which they operate. So in the same sense that Ti are "all at once" learners as Lenore described them, Fi users are "all at once" feelers. This understanding makes sense to me because of how Fi users are always described as being concerned with value, whether or not things have value, and other people's feelings regardless of what they are. In other words, Ti has a tendency to go deep, often time deeper than what's objectively necessary by some standards (Te), and I think there's the same dynamic going on between Fi and Fe. So I definitely don't think Ti users think everything as logical, rather they test the logic of everything they experience and similar Fi users test the value of everything they experience. This testing may or may not be a conscious thought of "hey! This is so logical!" or "This is definitely of value!", it can be a gut reaction or feel that introverted functions seem to have.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Haha fair enough. I agree that I'm not being entirely fair, I can't actually prove anything that I'm saying, and cognitive functions don't actually exist. One of the most difficult things about studying typology, and the thing that makes it really addicting, is that it offers so much potential. It's like I feel like I'm on the verge of figuring it all out, and sometimes I feel like I have, then I'll encounter new information and have to start over. It's like I want to know what's true, what isn't true, why in either case, and I can't stop until I can explain everything. With having said that, I feel like I can decide what definitions are better based on how comprehensible they are and how applicable they are to typing yourself and others. I guess of course that this doesn't mean they're true . I guess my feel is that if there isn't a definitive way to figure out a person's cognitive functions then what's the point of all this?


Oh that, about switching perspectives and starting all over again, that's familiar. I got tired of that relatively quickly, maybe because I'm not NTP hahaha. 

I sometimes toy with the thought of how it would be nice to build another "bigger" theory that encompasses all that crap. Even if it means going well beyond just having 8 functions.

I suppose though that it's quite advantageous in a sense to only have 4 letters or 8 functions. Easy to handle neat little attractive categories. (Attractive => somehow it draws people in  good question as to why.) Just can't fit so much information into only this little. So then you'd have to prioritize and stick with something simple that can fit. And the rest of the information is just there to play with talking about the psyche but not to try to categorize them into the functions even if they originally got mentioned because of possible relation to functions. I find correlations about most data too weak to actually bother to identify them with functions.

I hope I'm making sense here  That's basically describing what I'm doing with these theories.




> Agreed that what I was saying in those last paragraphs is subjective, but how else can we talk about this stuff? Unfortunately it's hard to get even a couple data points in terms of instances that suggest use of a certain functions, or at least good ones. It seems like most of them are "intuitives think about the future, sensors don't", "feelers made decisions with their feels, thinkers use their heads", "perceivers are messy, judgers are neat freaks", etc.


Well yeah... it's hard. Usually best to just explain what one thinks instead of using just two-letter function labels (though that takes away some of the practical use of the theory). 

Btw a problem I didn't mention above that comes to mind now reading your examples, is how trying to just stick with some concrete traits associated with functions (even something as generic as "intuitives are conceptual") will cause the problem that once you define them this way, you will soon run into cases where the associations don't hold, e.g. you will find some sensor who's also conceptual, simply because this theory* is not really the actual explanation as to how the mind works. But it can be a nice description of some stuff. Hope I'm still making sense 

*: Not sure about the original jungian stuff, that's hard to decode so far 




> I made the parallel between Fi and Ti based on the scale at which they operate. So in the same sense that Ti are "all at once" learners as Lenore described them, Fi users are "all at once" feelers. This understanding makes sense to me because of how Fi users are always described as being concerned with value, whether or not things have value, and other people's feelings regardless of what they are. In other words, Ti has a tendency to go deep, often time deeper than what's objectively necessary by some standards (Te), and I think there's the same dynamic going on between Fi and Fe. So I definitely don't think Ti users think everything as logical, rather they test the logic of everything they experience and similar Fi users test the value of everything they experience. This testing may or may not be a conscious thought of "hey! This is so logical!" or "This is definitely of value!", it can be a gut reaction or feel that introverted functions seem to have.


Ah okay I get your logic now


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> fascinating the INTJ's are giving lessons on feelings.
> 
> Perhaps the ISFP's could give lessons on logic to balance things out?
> 
> "Feeling" the other person's emotion as your own is Fi. Having the drive to help someone else is sometimes Fe, but it can be Fi.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking too. Both Fi and Fe can be caring; they just experience it differently. Fi, relies more on empathy and Fe on sympathy. Example 1 and the patting on the shoulder could be either but example 2, is clearly Fi. I that Fe would be more of: It's terrible that anyone should have to live this way; society needs to do something about this.


----------



## seapebble (Jul 19, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> Does the poster feel this indescribable bad feeling for the homeless person because they looked uncomfortable from a material sense? Did they look downtrodden and depressed? Do they happen to believe that the world shouldn't allow people to be homeless?


Yes to all three. And it happened in the order you mention it: first I noticed the physical misery, then the depressed state, and then I though "we should do something about this, we can do something about this". I guess the depressed state is a bit more important than physical misery for me.



Cellar Door said:


> It's like I feel like I'm on the verge of figuring it all out, and sometimes I feel like I have, then I'll encounter new information and have to start over. It's like I want to know what's true, what isn't true, why in either case, and I can't stop until I can explain everything.


I identify with that. Not so much with type theory (I'm a beginner afterall), but for human nature.

Perhaps you lack the personal exploration of the issue, the experience. I'm saying this because what I'm reading in there is "I know all the theories but I haven't 'felt' them".

I can tell you something from personal experience. I've read things when I was a teen that made no sense back then. Years later I reached similar conclusions, and then I remembered that some philosopher has actually said that. So I think there is a personal quest in knowledge.



TreasureTower said:


> Both Fi and Fe can be caring; they just experience it differently. Fi, relies more on empathy and Fe on sympathy. Example 1 and the patting on the shoulder could be either but example 2, is clearly Fi.


Because I said "as if this was happening to me" and Fi is feeling what the other person is feeling, right?



TreasureTower said:


> I that Fe would be more of: It's terrible that anyone should have to live this way; society needs to do something about this.


That sounds more accurate, noone should live like this.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Can someone please explain to me how feeling bad for homeless people or a girl crying has anything to do with values Fe or Fi values?


Anyone with an ounce of decency would feel bad for her, but it's just than an Fi user would imagine it happening to them personally, whilst an Fe user would feel it literally happening to them in that moment.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

deep_intuit said:


> Another thing that is unique about Se is that it operates almost like a character from a video game. Have you ever played a video game like, "Def Jam Vendetta" for example? Then in that video game, when your power meter fills up completely, you can go into "Blaze Mode"? Yeah Se users can do this too. Sometimes, when an Se user is really into something they get into this mode where they just DO, AND DO, AND DO! It's almost like they develop hella focus on something and just go pure action on accomplishing that task. They are so focused and so action oriented at this moment that it would take a bulldozer to stop them.


That's a Se thing? I just thought I really enjoy stress. I've always performed better in high pressure environments. I hate slow, quiet jobs. Stress, pressure, activity all going at once. It builds and builds and builds and I just get this rush! It feels fantastic! It's like getting in a fast car and just opening her up and sinking the needle. 

I'm a stay at home Mum right now so I require breaks from the mundane. I'm still healing up from a small ziplining incident but in a couple weeks we're leaving the kids with the grandparents so that we can go portaging. There's some rapids I want to do in a canoe. Can't wait! 

My husband's an ISFJ, so we've had to negotiate reasonable risk levels.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> That's a Se thing? I just thought I really enjoy stress. I've always performed better in high pressure environments. I hate slow, quiet jobs. Stress, pressure, activity all going at once. It builds and builds and builds and I just get this rush! It feels fantastic! It's like getting in a fast car and just opening her up and sinking the needle.


I think it's because all that stress and pressure keeps you in the moment, which is where Se likes to operate. No time for thinking or planning, just doing.


----------



## lebon (Jun 7, 2013)

Fe understands others emotions(I know how you feel). Fi understands own emotions(I feel bad for you). simple as that.
one of the reason INFJs have many highs and lows and can display chameleon personalities, their Ni just intensifies the Fe.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

lebon said:


> Fe understands others emotions(I know how you feel). Fi understands own emotions(I feel bad for you). simple as that.
> one of the reason INFJs have many highs and lows and can display chameleon personalities, their Ni just intensifies the Fe.


Yes! But then some of us are called people pleasers, which is true to some extent. My INFP friend is crazy, IMO. She feels bad for anyone who is the underdog only because SHE feels like the underdog. But she could screw someone over that is "mean" to her or doesn't understand her feelings at the drop of a hat. Then she calls me a people pleaser because I immediately am sensitive to a person's problems even if I don't like them or if their problem has nothing to do with me. Maybe she thinks I'm shallow, not my own person. 

I have strong Fi, very strong, so I can certainly relate feelings back to myself as if they were my own. But the judging function is what shapes my Fe, it seems, because it pushes me to apply empathy to everyone automatically, and it makes me override my tendency to sympathize with the wrong people, unlike dominant Fi users that would sympathize with Satan and turn it loose on society out of sympathy because they can "relate".


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

rosegeranium said:


> ..unlike dominant Fi users that would sympathize with Satan and turn it loose on society out of sympathy because they can "relate".


The Fi is strong in me and I have been known to sympathize with Satan..


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

ScarlettHayden said:


> The Fi is strong in me and I have been known to sympathize with Satan..


Oh, I have too. MWHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

But not under the guise of, "Oh, I am such a caring, wonderful person. I have such empathy for all living things, I just want to make the world a wonderful, caring, fluffy, squishy place--Oh look! Poor Satan, I know what it's like to be scapegoated. C'mere Satan, you're harmless aren't you? You wouldn't hurt a fly, no...awe poor Satan, it's ok that you kill people occassionally, I'll just heal you and we'll populate the world with Satan babies and save the rainforests together..."


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> Anyone with an ounce of decency would feel bad for her, but it's just than an Fi user would imagine it happening to them personally, whilst an Fe user would feel it literally happening to them in that moment.


Your descriptions for each of those are exactly the same. What's the difference between imagining the feeling of something happening to you, and feeling something happening to you that isn't actually happening to you. I've heard these descriptions before and I think they're just a play on words.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

lebon said:


> Fe understands others emotions(I know how you feel). Fi understands own emotions(I feel bad for you). simple as that.
> one of the reason INFJs have many highs and lows and can display chameleon personalities, their Ni just intensifies the Fe.


Not true at all, FJs in general are some of the most emotionally stable people there are. One of their greatest skills is managing their emotional lives.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Your descriptions for each of those are exactly the same. What's the difference between imagining the feeling of something happening to you, and feeling something happening to you that isn't actually happening to you. I've heard these descriptions before and I think they're just a play on words.


Sorry if my description wasn't clear. 

I meant that Fe would imagine being that person in the moment, so they can feel it happening as it's happening to the other person.. whilst Fi would imagine it happening to them at another point of time and thus would be able to feel the other persons pain from their own understanding of how they personally would be affected by that very same situation.

I suppose you could see it as a play on words since they're basically the same thing, they just work in different ways.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm not sure what Fe has to do with empathy or sympathy, but here's an example (bolded part) of Fe in action from Jung:



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


For comparison, here is a description of Fi:



> Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. *Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly,* as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined—they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

seapebble said:


> Yes to all three. And it happened in the order you mention it: first I noticed the physical misery, then the depressed state, and then I though "we should do something about this, we can do something about this". I guess the depressed state is a bit more important than physical misery for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do with my age or experience, I do feel that there is some truth to aspects of these theories, but it's hard to make good reads for everyone I know in real life. I've typed a lot of the people I know, but there are some who still evade me.

That last quote you have responding to TreasureTower, Fe isn't that idealistic, it's much more likely you have some Fi & Si going on.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm not sure what Fe has to do with empathy or sympathy, but here's an example (bolded part) of Fe in action from Jung:
> 
> 
> 
> For comparison, here is a description of Fi:


Thanks for posting this, and you're right, Fe has nothing to do with empathy.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> Sorry if my description wasn't clear.
> 
> I meant that Fe would imagine being that person in the moment, so they can feel it happening as it's happening to the other person.. whilst Fi would imagine it happening to them at another point of time and thus would be able to feel the other persons pain from their own understanding of how they personally would be affected by that very same situation.
> 
> I suppose you could see it as a play on words since they're basically the same thing, they just work in different ways.


Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. The only problem is that I think everyone can feel in real time as well as reflect on it later, I just don't think this is type specific.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. The only problem is that I think everyone can feel in real time as well as reflect on it later, I just don't think this is type specific.


Maybe this is just because Fi is low down in my stack but I never really feel things in the moment. I only ever feel it when reflecting on it alone later.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> Maybe this is just because Fi is low down in my stack but I never really feel things in the moment. I only ever feel it when reflecting on it alone later.


You make an interesting point here, and I've had some experience with this strong Te types. But it's a little different if they have Ni or Si in their stack. I think STJs can react in the moment to material discomfort/unfairness/whatever, but if it's an argument they often times might not realize they said something they shouldn't have said until later. NTJs I've found to be the opposite of that, they're not going to react to material discomfort as much, but if they cross the line in a debate or argument they're usually quicker to notice and apologize. To be honest, I don't know many INTJs so I can't really say I have evidence of their part, but the STJ part I feel like I've seen frequently.


----------



## lebon (Jun 7, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> Not true at all, FJs in general are some of the most emotionally stable people there are. One of their greatest skills is managing their emotional lives.


I wasn't implying that FJs aren't stable folks. sorry if that offended you. my poor english.
It's about why INFJs are complex, they suck up the emotions around them with such intensity. it's crazy inside.
notice that in younger INFJs.
INFJs are the most likely type to suffer from internal turmoil. but since they have to deal witth it everyday, they become the master of it.
the older INFJs are often viewed as very wise people.
so unless you're an INFJ, you wouldn't know how how crazy it is.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. The only problem is that I think everyone can feel in real time as well as reflect on it later, I just don't think this is type specific.


I don't really do either of those too much.

I mostly really just feel anger if I feel something consciously. Other feelings are much harder to notice. Let alone reflect on them...

But this is probably more enneagram related than MBTI related anyway...


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> You make an interesting point here, and I've had some experience with this strong Te types. But it's a little different if they have Ni or Si in their stack. I think STJs can react in the moment to material discomfort/unfairness/whatever, but if it's an argument they often times might not realize they said something they shouldn't have said until later. NTJs I've found to be the opposite of that, they're not going to react to material discomfort as much, but if they cross the line in a debate or argument they're usually quicker to notice and apologize. To be honest, I don't know many INTJs so I can't really say I have evidence of their part, but the STJ part I feel like I've seen frequently.


Perhaps it's more down to the dominant Ni function then that causes this? When it comes to injustices my value system doesn't pick up on it until later and think "well that's actually wrong". When it comes to emotions in general I can be reactive, especially if it's something like anger, love, ect, but I still won't feel the weight of those emotions until I'm reflecting on them alone. This is why it's hard for me with friends, lovers, ect, because it seems like to the other person my whole heart isn't in the interaction at the time. Indeed sometimes it takes me months just to feel the weight of what a person means to me.

I think also when it comes to debate it's strictly a non-emotional realm, so when INTJ's get carried away they realize it's an abnormal reaction. And because it's so foreign they're more likely to apologize to themselves as well as everyone.

My sister is an ISTJ, and I agree she reacts to things a lot more that me. I always wondered what the difference was.



itsme45 said:


> I don't really do either of those too much.
> 
> I mostly really just feel anger if I feel something consciously. Other feelings are much harder to notice. Let alone reflect on them...
> 
> But this is probably more enneagram related than MBTI related anyway...


That's a point. I'm a five so that explains everything. I would've thought an eight to have more ability to feel things in the moment though?


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Clearly Fe.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> My sister is an ISTJ, and I agree she reacts to things a lot more that me. I always wondered what the difference was.


S/N difference, no?




> That's a point. I'm a five so that explains everything. I would've thought an eight to have more ability to feel things in the moment though?


Eights are notorious about denying softer feelings and only really noticing anger... but yes the anger is in the moment yes


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> S/N difference, no?


It's a lot of difference for one function though. Si is just as impersonal as Ni, right? It's not ethical or logical like T/F.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> It's a lot of difference for one function though. Si is just as impersonal as Ni, right? It's not ethical or logical like T/F.


Well I thought what you talked about may be to do with how she cares more about the concrete world than you (sensation preference). Just an idea.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Also, I think if I were in the situation of being the person whose back is patted on, I would probably get sincerely annoyed as if it is trivializing the situation and my emotions aren't quite taken seriously. Don't you feel the depth of my feelings inside yourself? If you were in my position then, trying to cheer me up isn't what I want, but feeling the sadness inside yourself and realize the meaning of that sadness. I want you to feel with me, that's how I feel validated.


What could someone do, a stranger no less, to make you feel validated in that sadness? I would personally never pat a stranger's shoulder as I feel this is... an invasion of personal space, and I'm just not a touchy person. But I might ask if they are okay, or even what's wrong. Or I might ignore it depending on the circumstances...


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Well I thought what you talked about may be to do with how she cares more about the concrete world than you (sensation preference). Just an idea.


Ah yeah. I forgot that Si is supposed to be more concrete. Although probably not as concrete as Se though.


----------

