# Dominant or Auxiliary Fe for SJ and NF



## SuperunknownVortex (Dec 4, 2009)

I wanted to open a discussion on the difference between the theoretical difference on how Fe is expressed between say the xNFJ and the XSFJ. Considering the fact the four types (INFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ and ESFJ) belong to two distinct temperaments, I would assume Fe would be expressed differently even though it has the same objective.

For instance, as an INFJ I find the Fe expressed by, say, the xSFJ to be different than how I express it.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

SuperunknownVortex said:


> I wanted to open a discussion on the difference between the theoretical difference on how Fe is expressed between say the xNFJ and the XSFJ. Considering the fact the four types (INFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ and ESFJ) belong to two distinct temperaments, I would assume Fe would be expressed differently even though it has the same objective.
> 
> For instance, as an INFJ I find the Fe expressed by, say, the xSFJ to be different than how I express it.


Actually, from my interactions with INFJ's, we seem to usually "express" Fe in the same way. Whether we will pick up on each other's Fe is another thing entirely. I believe there is 3 expressions of Fe: Empathy(Positive), Reflection(Neutral), and Manipulation(Negative). I noticed a tendency that if and Fe user of opposite N/S spectrum does not really understand the individual of the different type, then they will often act by mirroring(Reflection) how they *perceive* the other person acting.

I will give an example: If and ENFJ does not understand the positive gestures that an ESFJ is making towards them, and instead sees the ESFJ not taking them seriously, then the ENFJ may reflect back how they perceive the ESFJ acting towards them, much to the confusion of the ESFJ. From the ESFJ's perspective, they were being nice to the ENFJ, who become upset for seemingly being nice to them.

There is also the occurrence of slight miscommunication between the dichotomy of Fe users. What an ISFJ may see as just being friendly towards someone, and INFJ may take as being hit on. This can lead to very awkward situations. An INFJ may become overburden, with out communicating this, by what they perceive as continual advances of the ISFJ, and then suddenly exploded on the ISFJ when they had no idea anything was wrong. Likewise the INFJ may be receptive to what they think are the advances of the ISFJ and then get hurt when the ISFJ lets them down.

The problem is that we are quite similar and often have expectations on how other Fe users should act, and if we have not gotten to know the Fe user of the differing N/S spectrum, we can end up misinterpreting their actions. Never assume you know how they think; get to know them. Hopefully they will show you the same courtesy, so that you may have positive interactions together. I believe interplay between Fe users of the N and S types can be really rewarding, if we only take the time to understand one another.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

SuperunknownVortex said:


> ... I would assume Fe would be expressed differently even though it has the same objective.


I would assume the same. For the introverts, the dominant subjective function would oversee the expressions of the extraverted auxiliary and so I would assume expressions of auxiliary would then come out differently. Our introverted subjective functions, our unique inner voice, do influence how we interact with the environment outside. (This actually touches on the question I've been thinking of lately - how do exactly introverted and extraverted functions work together?).

ISFJs are dominant sensors and Si is a function that is conservative in the physical world. So how I have seen then express care (Fe) about other people is basically care for their physical comfort as well that the resources of others are conserved (such as doing budget planning within the family). Now INFJs are conservators as well but in entirely different realm. I am actually not sure which realm that would be - what is Ni trying to conserve? I can say that Ni tries to conserve meaning? themes of the past? but I don't really understand what this means in terms of real life. I know that I constantly try to optimize things and am also a slow learner, so definitely I am trying to conserve something but I am not sure what.

Here is also an interesting excerpt from one of ENTP profiles that touches upon the difference in focus of conservation. They used the word "soul" to describe what I was trying to describe but that's a pretty vague definition of it that doesn't really work for me:

"The inventive ENTP finds in the ISFJ a neat complementarily for his enterprise, for in the ISFJ he finds the supreme conservator. The conservator, broadly conceived, is morally bound to ensure the material and legal welfare of his or her charge. The inventor, also broadly conceived, is bent on replacing whatever tools, operation, or enterprise now exists with a better one. Out to exercise his ingenuity in bettering things, the ENTP is of necessity iconoclastic and tends to be so seen. So he can get into a bit of trouble with the elders, who usually are not all that pleased to see their tried-and-true tools, operations, and enterprises blithely set aside for the ENTP's better mousetrap. The ISFJ, mated to this inventive rascal, takes on the task of squaring things with the establishment.

The ENTP also may be attracted to his opposite on the N side: he approaches the INFJ. But the INFJ is humorously and preposterously different from the seemingly similar ISFJ. In the INFJ lies the soul of the "author"-the meaning-giver, the mystic, the oracle. Perhaps the INFJ is a conservator of the soul, a sort of messiah. At any rate, there is something about the "author" (very broadly conceived) which the ENTP covets. Prometheus had to pay dearly for giving fire to man. The Promethian ENTP may figure that, though his INFJ mate may not rescue his body from the vultures, at least the INFJ might rescue his soul from Hell."


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

vel said:


> ISFJs are dominant sensors and Si is a function that is conservative in the physical world. So how I have seen then express care (Fe) about other people is basically care for their physical comfort as well that the resources of others are conserved (such as doing budget planning within the family). Now INFJs are conservators as well but in entirely different realm. I am actually not sure which realm that would be - what is Ni trying to conserve? I can say that Ni tries to conserve meaning? themes of the past? but I don't really understand what this means in terms of real life. I know that I constantly try to optimize things and am also a slow learner, so definitely I am trying to conserve something but I am not sure what.


Sorry, but this is a gross misunderstanding of ISFJ's. Just because we are sensors does not mean we will only be focused on caring for peoples physical comfort. I will give you an example: I have only ever known one other person who is an ISFJ in real life. One time at bible study I was feeling bad, and he gave me a cookie out of the stack of cookies he had in his hand. I could have easily gotten a cookie out of the kitchen if I wanted to, and he was not trying to satisfy my need of sustenance with one cookie. It was a *symbolic* gesture. It showed that he cares, and that he was trying to make me feel better.

Ni and Si both deal with Symbolism. Si deals with an understanding of archetypes, themes, and patterns, where as Ni deals with a passive internal goal system with its own icons and understanding of stimuli based internally on a higher ideal. How then we express our observation and understanding through Fe can result in the same act, but with two different ways of reaching the same conclusion. This is not always case however, but for the most part it rings true.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> a passive internal goal system with its own icons and understanding of stimuli based internally on a higher ideal


I didn't understand that at all...

But if I were to explain Ni to anyone, I would say it is about creating connections in order to see archetypes, themes and patterns. Not that this couldn't be Si as well. And both Si and Ni are introverted functions, so the difference can't really be that Ni is more "internal". Isn't the distinction sort of more about Si being more about specific details and particulars, while Ni is operating with principles and relations?


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

I have had a hard time in the past distinguishing whether my husband is ISFJ or ISTJ. The confusion was mostly centred around the fact that even though he is was quite stereotypically an ISFJ, I couldn't understand how he could be using Fe since it didn't seem at all like my version of Fe - therefore I thought he may have been an ISTJ with very developed Fi.

Only this weekend have I realised that we both share the Fe-Ti judging combo, but it seemed to me that he wasn't using Fe because the way he uses it is quite different to me - it is more grounded in reality than mine. I mean, he literally empathises with others - he cries when they cry. When I empathise I go all theoretical rather than emotional - I put myself in their shoes and try to understand the reasons that they feel the way they do in order to come up with something that has made me feel similar so that I can use the old Ni to help them find a perspective that will get them out of the funk. 

He likes to be of service to people in a very practical sense, whereas I'm not very good with helping people in a physical sense - I'm more about helping them psychologically. I like to analyse and counsel and be there for people who need help getting out of an emotional quagmire, he likes to do things, to be the one who can be depended on e.g. when someone needs to move house and the movers haven't turned up, or if someone needs an errand run etc. 

Also, he is full of ideas about how people should behave specifically when out in society - e.g. he is terribly critical of drivers who don't follow the rules of the road because it is dangerous for everybody if everyone just starts making up their own rules, and he is critical of protesters who vandalise public property because ultimately the taxpayer has to foot the bill, or people who live on welfare and take what is given to them without giving anything back to society. Whereas I am full of ideas about how people should lead their lives in a more general sense - e.g. I am terribly critical of people who don't treat all others with respect, people who feel they are superior, or people who are consciously dishonest, or people who don't take responsibility for their actions but I am less likely to be openly critical towards these people when I actually meet them as I will be able to find out the motivations behind their actions and usually this will lead to a shift in my perspective to allow me to understand why they do what they do and so like the individual, even if I don't like what they represent.

Obviously, that comparison is just based on one INFJ and one ISFJ - I can't claim that this is true for everyone...but there are definitiely significant differences in expression between us.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

kateykinz said:


> Also, he is full of ideas about how people should behave specifically when out in society - e.g. he is terribly critical of drivers who don't follow the rules of the road because it is dangerous for everybody if everyone just starts making up their own rules, and he is critical of protesters who vandalise public property because ultimately the taxpayer has to foot the bill, or people who live on welfare and take what is given to them without giving anything back to society. Whereas I am full of ideas about how people should lead their lives in a more general sense - e.g. I am terribly critical of people who don't treat all others with respect, people who feel they are superior, or people who are consciously dishonest, or people who don't take responsibility for their actions but I am less likely to be openly critical towards these people when I actually meet them as I will be able to find out the motivations behind their actions and usually this will lead to a shift in my perspective to allow me to understand why they do what they do and so like the individual, even if I don't like what they represent.


This does sound more Fi than Fe to me (your description of him). Even Fi+Te maybe... *sorry* :mellow:


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

penchant said:


> This does sound more Fi than Fe to me (your description of him). Even Fi+Te maybe... *sorry* :mellow:


How so?

All of that quote seems to say "To be safe and fair, for the good of the community, everybody should play by the same rules of society." Therefore he adheres to the rules established by society because he thinks it is selfish to live by his own rules - so his morality is based mainly on what has traditionally been established as for the common good. To be saying that people "should" do anything based solely on external dictate is Fe. I don't see that he has come to most of these conclusions internally - they are not ideals that he holds dear.

He puts a lot of stock into being the responsible citizen, the dependable workmate, the doting husband and father, the helpful neighbour. He often puts on his little child voice after he's run an errand or done something around the house and asks me if he's been a good boy :laughing: - he always likes to get external validation for his good behaviour and he is motivated by living up to others' expectations of him. You should see him fussing about before we host a party of any kind - very conscientious in making sure everything is good enough for the guests to feel welcome and looked after.

When he does make decisions where I can see he is clearly using Fi he is very different. He often struggles with it. He tends to feel that he is being selfish to put his own needs and dreams before that which his loved ones / society expect him to be and do. It's easy to talk him out of a decision he has made using Fi. I'd love for him to use it more, as I think it would make him a lot happier, but when he does he can feel monumentally guilty which generally nullifies the positives of using it :sad:


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> Sorry, but this is a gross misunderstanding of ISFJ's. Just because we are sensors does not mean we will only be focused on caring for peoples physical comfort. I will give you an example: I have only ever known one other person who is an ISFJ in real life. One time at bible study I was feeling bad, and he gave me a cookie out of the stack of cookies he had in his hand. I could have easily gotten a cookie out of the kitchen if I wanted to, and he was not trying to satisfy my need of sustenance with one cookie. It was a *symbolic* gesture. It showed that he cares, and that he was trying to make me feel better.


I did not say ISFJ would _only_ express affection in this way, but most frequently when expressing care for others this is what Si dominant and auxiliary people do, this sort of service oriented expression of love that places emphasis on checking up on physical comfort and well-being and health of people who are dear to them. Even in the example you have given, your friend provides for your physical well-being by sharing food with you in response to seeing that you are distressed. The gesture is symbolic of his caring for you - but how he expresses it very much trying to provide for your needs on the physical plane. This is something that I have noted ISFJs and ESFJs to be inclined to doing, once again though it doesn't mean that this is the only way they can express their affection.



Trigun64 said:


> Ni and Si both deal with Symbolism. Si deals with an understanding of archetypes, themes, and patterns, where as Ni deals with a passive internal goal system with its own icons and understanding of stimuli based internally on a higher ideal. How then we express our observation and understanding through Fe can result in the same act, but with two different ways of reaching the same conclusion. This is not always case however, but for the most part it rings true.


Si is described as being associated with good memory for the specifics. Ni is memory of the connections between those specifics. Symbolism is usually something associated with intuition because of its ability to immediately draw connections between different objects while disregarding specifics - so one object comes to equal another object and thus can be used as a symbol of another object or have another meaning. But everybody who has Si also has an intuitive function in form of Ne. So yes they would be able to see patterns and draw connections well, just not as frequently as for example a Ne dominant person would be able to do it.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

kateykinz said:


> Obviously, that comparison is just based on one INFJ and one ISFJ - I can't claim that this is true for everyone...but there are definitiely significant differences in expression between us.


This was fascinating, and I know that in my case I express it somewhere between the way the two of you do. Some things you describe your husband doing are things I had a giggle to myself over because I do exactly the same and others I don't relate to but I do to some of yours.


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

sts06 said:


> This was fascinating, and I know that in my case I express it somewhere between the way the two of you do. Some things you describe your husband doing are things I had a giggle to myself over because I do exactly the same and others I don't relate to but I do to some of yours.


Curious. Can I ask which bits you identify with?


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

kateykinz said:


> Curious. Can I ask which bits you identify with?


Okay, from what you say about him the things I 'recognise' are in italics, the ones I recognise of yours are in bold: 

_I mean, he literally empathises with others - he cries when they cry_. When I empathise I go all theoretical rather than emotional - *I put myself in their shoes and try to understand the reasons that they feel the way they do in order to come up with something that has made me feel similar* so that I can use the old Ni to help them find a perspective that will get them out of the funk.

He likes to be of service to people in a very practical sense, whereas I'm not very good with helping people in a physical sense - I'm more about helping them psychologically. *I like to* analyse and *counsel and be there for people who need help getting out of an emotional quagmire*, _he likes to do things, to be the one who can be depended on e.g. when someone needs to move house and the movers haven't turned up, or if someone needs an errand run etc.
_
Also, he is full of ideas about how people should behave specifically when out in society - e.g._ he is terribly critical of drivers who don't follow the rules of the road because it is dangerous for everybody if everyone just starts making up their own rules_, and he is critical of protesters who vandalise public property because ultimately the taxpayer has to foot the bill, or people who live on welfare and take what is given to them without giving anything back to society. Whereas I am full of ideas about how people should lead their lives in a more general sense - e.g. *I am terribly critical of people who don't treat all others with respect, people who feel they are superior, or people who are consciously dishonest, or people who don't take responsibility for their actions* but *I am less likely to be openly critical towards these people when I actually meet them* as I will be able to find out the motivations behind their actions and usually this will lead to a shift in my perspective to allow me to understand why they do what they do and so like the individual, even if I don't like what they represent.

Some of the things you say you do I do too but I do them with a different purpose in mind. So, when you say you put yourself into their shoes in order to find a way to get them out of the funk, I'm doing it to find ways to connect more closely and empathise more deeply while they are in the funk, if that makes sense. I am finding the connection to help them see that they aren't alone, that I have been there and I understand whatever pain it is that they are in. Also, I am unlikely to be critical to people when I meet them not because I can shift perspective etc but because I don't like people to feel bad and won't let them know I dislike whatever thing they represent that I dislike. I may be able to be civil to someone whose philosophy I really dislike but even if I understand where they are coming from I find it hard to genuinely like someone who adheres to something I feel strongly against. I hope that made sense. I do both ways but my reasons for doing your ones fit more with his reasons for the way he does things, from what I can tell.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

kateykinz said:


> Also, he is full of ideas about how people should behave specifically when out in society


already this makes me think more Fi than Fe



> - e.g. he is terribly critical of drivers who don't follow the rules of the road because it is dangerous for everybody if everyone just starts making up their own rules


I think the way this is expressed is a disapproval of being selfish not on the external basis of considerating others, but on the principle of rules (Fi) with the added support of pointing out that the basis for the rules is that it is objectively dangerous for people (Te). I think Fe would be more tolerant of breaking rules as long as no one is hurt, i.e. being less categorical. As you see the Fe and Te look similar (both based externally), but Te is about objective damage, but Fe more about other peoples experiences (i.e. not only injuries and material damage, but just as much the emotional aspects of scaring other people in traffic).



> , and he is critical of protesters who vandalise public property because ultimately the taxpayer has to foot the bill,


I see this as a Te reason, the cost to taxpayer (an objective, measurable fact), supporting a Fi principle, never vandalise public property. Fe would be much more worried about the people directly affected by the damage to the property, whether it was a street without street lights or kids with a burnt down school.



> or people who live on welfare and take what is given to them without giving anything back to society


.

I think this is the same thing again, but there isn't much data here. Could be a Fi principle that says that everyone should contribute. He's not really thinking about that it hurts anyone personally that other people don't give back, does he? There is a measurable (Te) cost of course... Personally I believe that social welfare is there exactly because not all people are able to give something back, but that these people also need support and recognition. Had they been able to give something back, then a market economy would put a value on that which would give them an income to support themselves.[/QUOTE]



> Whereas I am full of ideas about how people should lead their lives in a more general sense - e.g. I am terribly critical of people who don't treat all others with respect, people who feel they are superior, or people who are consciously dishonest, or people who don't take responsibility for their actions but I am less likely to be openly critical towards these people when I actually meet them as I will be able to find out the motivations behind their actions and usually this will lead to a shift in my perspective to allow me to understand why they do what they do and so like the individual, even if I don't like what they represent.


You, on the other hand, emphasize respect, honesty, and responsibility (assumingly because of the effect those qualities have on others) instead of more concrete moral principles and tone down your criticism of others because you recognise the role of their individual circumstances in judging them.

Or is it me getting it all wrong? :mellow:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Oops, sorry, didn't even read your entire post before replying to it. :crazy:

Here comes the rest:



kateykinz said:


> How so?
> 
> All of that quote seems to say "To be safe and fair, for the good of the community, everybody should play by the same rules of society." Therefore he adheres to the rules established by society because he thinks it is selfish to live by his own rules - so his morality is based mainly on what has traditionally been established as for the common good. To be saying that people "should" do anything based solely on external dictate is Fe. I don't see that he has come to most of these conclusions internally - they are not ideals that he holds dear.


I don't agree that Fe is based on external dictate. Do you see that in yourself? If the "dictate" is rather an agreement of the group, then it makes sense, but only because it is traced back to being that, not in itself. I think S types in general are more prone to obeying authorities though, but I'm not sure on that. And I think that Fi is very good at internalising other peoples opinions, just as Ti can integrate other peoples ideas in their own logic.S o I don't think it has to be "self grown" ideals; it is the fact that he seems to attribute universal applicability to the conclusions that makes me think Fi.



> He puts a lot of stock into being the responsible citizen, the dependable workmate, the doting husband and father, the helpful neighbour. He often puts on his little child voice after he's run an errand or done something around the house and asks me if he's been a good boy :laughing: - he always likes to get external validation for his good behaviour and he is motivated by living up to others' expectations of him. You should see him fussing about before we host a party of any kind - very conscientious in making sure everything is good enough for the guests to feel welcome and looked after.


This could just as well be Te+Fi as Fe. Does he have a set idea about how things need to be in order for people to feel comfortable and does what he can to sort out the logistics? Or does he care less about the organisation and focus on making people comfortable when they have arrived?

And does he seek external validation in form of measurable criteria, or is he happy with you saying that you appreciate him?



> When he does make decisions where I can see he is clearly using Fi he is very different. He often struggles with it. He tends to feel that he is being selfish to put his own needs and dreams before that which his loved ones / society expect him to be and do. It's easy to talk him out of a decision he has made using Fi. I'd love for him to use it more, as I think it would make him a lot happier, but when he does he can feel monumentally guilty which generally nullifies the positives of using it :sad:


I think this can be the situations where he can't use his Te, since that makes him much more uncertain about the validity of his Fi, when Te doesn't back it up. And I think the guilt and feelings of selfishness you are talking about are more a case of him not being able to attribute validity to his own situation and consider his own needs as valid even though they are particular and not universal. So he ends up thinking that his Fi principles overrules his specific wishes. I see my INFP SO do this a lot. Fi seems to work well as long as the situation doesn't get personal.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

penchant said:


> This does sound more Fi than Fe to me (your description of him). Even Fi+Te maybe... *sorry* :mellow:


There is nothing _remotely_ Fi about that mindset . Rather, it has Je (Te or Fe) written all over it.



Trigun64 said:


> Ni and Si both deal with Symbolism. Si deals with an understanding of archetypes, themes, and patterns, where as Ni deals with a passive internal goal system with its own icons and understanding of stimuli based internally on a higher ideal.


I mostly agree in concept....Si focuses on the literal impressions formed with these inner symbols, and Ni on the abstract impression in favor of a literal one. It's the same difference between Se & Ne, only it's concerning the inner world instead of the outer one. Se focuses on what the object is literally, and Ne on what it implies in an abstract way. Si focuses on the internal image of a subjective impression literally, and Ni on what it implies indirectly, which in itself is an image (ie. a fantasy, an abstract impression verses the literal one). This is why Si seems focused on the past & Ni on the future, even though they are really rather "timeless".

Si is not memory; it's only associated with memory because memories often become internal symbols of impressions made, and because Si involves more concrete, literal imagery. However, these internal, subjective sensory impressions are the focus of their perspective, not the external object of the moment. It's an important point because it might be easy for some Si-dom to mistake themselves as Ni-dom otherwise (or vice verse).

Anyway, I just popped in here because I am genuinely interested in the different ways Fe shows in SJs & NFs.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> There is nothing _remotely_ Fi about that mindset . Rather, it has Je (Te or Fe) written all over it.


Not Te+Fi (as in Te aux, Fi dom)? I understand that it is nothing like the Fi of a Fi dom...


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

penchant said:


> Not Te+Fi (as in Te aux, Fi dom)? I understand that it is nothing like the Fi of a Fi dom...


Eh, I personally think it's a poor method to type someone based on their tert function. The visible personality is really influenced most by the first two functions, which explains the 4 letter system.

What would determine Te or Fe in this case would be the reasoning behind his conclusions; are they motivated by utilitarian results or people-oriented values? I got a sense of the former.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> Eh, I personally think it's a poor method to type someone based on their tert function. The visible personality is really influenced most by the first two functions, which explains the 4 letter system.
> 
> What would determine Te or Fe in this case would be the reasoning behind his conclusions; are they motivated by utilitarian results or people-oriented values? I got a sense of the former.


I didn't claim to type him based on Fi only and have no plan to type people based primarily on their tertiary. 

However, since I was looking primarily for Fe it was Fi that I noticed first. I do see both Te and Fi in the examples I pointed out, and I think that seeing Fi supports suggesting Te and vice versa. I wouldn't have an opinion about his type without seeing data for N and S as well, though. I have no intention on jumping to conclusions here.

But so sum up, if I understand it correctly, our only difference here is that while we agree on Te, I claim to be able to see Fi as well. And that maybe my communication skills aren't the best...


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

So he's back to being ISXJ then, thanks :crazy:

He's just so damn emotional - and he doesn't hide it, the good and acceptable emotions at least. He cries easily, and a lot more than I do. It is very uncommon for an ISTJ to be so emotional - of course I know they HAVE emotions, but they don't show them often and don't make decisions based on them. Husband seems to make decisions based equally on feelings and logic so that doesn't help. But, in a small room full of people who don't know each other, although he's an introvert, he's always the first to introduce himself to everyone and try to make the atmosphere more comfortable.

And to your question earlier, penchant, "Does he have a set idea about how things need to be in order for people to feel comfortable and does what he can to sort out the logistics? Or does he care less about the organisation and focus on making people comfortable when they have arrived?" - he covers both of the options equally.

I just wanted to clarify, too, what I said about him and his views of people on welfare - it is only the welfare spongers that he feels this about, not everyone on welfare. Those people who live on welfare constantly because it is more profitable than going to work...there are lots of them in England, I don't know so much about here in Canada.

Whatever type he is, his F and T is pretty well balanced, and he's definitely stronger in both S functions than N functions. And he's always in his head so I have no doubt that his dom-function is introverted.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

kateykinz said:


> So he's back to being ISXJ then, thanks :crazy:


No prob. :crazy:



> He's just so damn emotional - and he doesn't hide it, the good and acceptable emotions at least. He cries easily, and a lot more than I do. It is very uncommon for an ISTJ to be so emotional - of course I know they HAVE emotions, but they don't show them often and don't make decisions based on them. Husband seems to make decisions based equally on feelings and logic so that doesn't help. But, in a small room full of people who don't know each other, although he's an introvert, he's always the first to introduce himself to everyone and try to make the atmosphere more comfortable.


Yes I see that is a good point. I'm not sure about the relation between emotions and the Feeling function. Now, obviously F's are more often in touch with their emotions, but I don't think emotions are a thing for all F's and only F's. And, while tertiaries are normally weaker than auxiliaries, that isn't a law either. But you know that already, so I really didn't need to write that.



> But, in a small room full of people who don't know each other, although he's an introvert, he's always the first to introduce himself to everyone and try to make the atmosphere more comfortable.


I think it is possible to interpret this as Te+Fi if it is really literally 'always' despite him being an introvert. But I doesn't have to either really.



> And to your question earlier, penchant, "Does he have a set idea about how things need to be in order for people to feel comfortable and does what he can to sort out the logistics? Or does he care less about the organisation and focus on making people comfortable when they have arrived?" - he covers both of the options equally.


If he had to choose then between



> I just wanted to clarify, too, what I said about him and his views of people on welfare - it is only the welfare spongers that he feels this about, not everyone on welfare. Those people who live on welfare constantly because it is more profitable than going to work...there are lots of them in England, I don't know so much about here in Canada.


I probably did take the point to its extreme. But still (though maybe I'm delusional here) I would say for me the major issue with people living off benefits instead of working wouldn't be primarily the cost for society as in higher taxes, but a concern for the quality of life for those people, as I think that they would not really be living their lives to the fullest, whether because of laziness or fear of work. I think even in a case like child benefits for the high income earners, I would see the problem as more of a moral one than an economical. Sure, this might not be type at all, but would you say that there are no major differences between your and his reasoning here when the S/N difference is sorted out? (or for that matter in other questions...)



> Whatever type he is, his F and T is pretty well balanced, and he's definitely stronger in both S functions than N functions. And he's always in his head so I have no doubt that his dom-function is introverted.


And it seems like the S/N difference between you is what makes it hard for you to know what is Fe and what is Te, and since the only S to comment here seems to support the Fe/Ti theory, then that gives it some support. They would be the best people to sort this out, right...


----------

