# Fe vs Fi Bleed Over



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

I've had a lot of trouble differentiating between the two, probably because I'm a strong T. 

The way I see it, an Fi user can often be perceived as an Fe user and vice-versa. 

For example, an Fi user who, in a particular situation in life, realizes they must adhere to social customs or seem more caring towards community than they really are in order to satisfy or fulfill certain personal feelings they have would come off as an Fe user. 

Similarly, an Fe user who has a strong sense of connection with others, community, and a general tendency to branch out to others and assimilate may find themselves in a situation where being unique, going against the grain, and disliking "the overrated trends" is actually very much so going along with the grain. 

Also, please don't hold my specific examples as absolutes -- these are just examples to illustrate a couple possible scenarios where this might occur. Are there any ways to particularly differentiate between the two when faced with such situations?


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Fe users will put more of an emphasis on being polite, graceful, and tender with other people's feelings. Fi users will tend to speak from their personal emotional experiences, subjectively assigning things a position along value-based lines. Fe will seem more inclusive, Fi will seem more personal.

So, in the situations you gave; an Fe user who is personalizing a value will likely be doing it with the motivation of helping people feel good about themselves, while an Fi user who seems more communitarian will probably reason it out according to their feelings on the matter. Best thing to do is ask, but if you listen, you'll be able to tell the difference.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

AbioticPrime said:


> I've had a lot of trouble differentiating between the two, probably because I'm a strong T.
> 
> The way I see it, an Fi user can often be perceived as an Fe user and vice-versa.
> 
> ...


This is the problem with using behavior to justify Feeling which is not a behavioral process. Anyone can look like anything given the right scenarios, that's why we're not attempting to measure behavior but rather the underlying psychology. If we think of Feeling as it was intended, as evaluation, then it becomes a little bit more clear. When you evaluate something are you taking that thing at surface value (meaning not factoring anything from within on to that evaluation) or are you only looking at it from subjective standpoint? That's what we're asking when we talk about Fi or Fe.

On a very primitive level Feeling is just whether or not we see something as good or bad. Like or dislike. It's how we "appreciate a situation, a person, an object, a moment in terms of value" according to James Hillman. He continues


> As a process, Feeling requires time, more time than is needed for perception. Like thinking, it must rationally organize perceptions and judge them; unlike thinking it judges by values. The more differentiated and rich this set of values, the slower may be the process of Feeling. (Similarly with Thinking, the more differentiated the ideational world, the slower may be the final placing of a new thought.)


This explains why people who often have inferior Thinking or Feeling often use those functions in simple black and white platitudes. Either not properly thought through or not exhaustively evaluated. 



> On a more primitive level, the Feeling function, is mainly a reaction of yes and no, like and dislike, acceptance and rejection. As it develops, there forms in us a subtle appreciation of values, and even of value systems, and our judgments of feeling then rest more and more on a rational hierarchy, whether it be in the realm of aesthetic tastes, ethical goods, or social forms and human relationships. The developed Feeling function is the reason of the heart which the reason of the mind does not quite understand.


And finally he takes something of a veiled swipe at how MBTI re-interpreted the Feeling function into what you describe above.


> Although Feeling is a process of evaluation, although Jung discovered facts leading to his description of the function from evaluative statements in the association experiment, and although values are generally organized by scales, feeling cannot be simplified to fit a pain-pleasure or like-dislike system. Some theorists attempt with their logic to reduce Feeling to an ultimate pair of hedonic coordinates. But the differentiation of aesthetic Feeling (beautiful/ugly), of moral Feeling (good/bad), of human Feeling (love/hatred, elated/depressed), of biological Feeling (attraction/repulsion) all point beyond mere hedonic preferences of like/dislike. Reduction of Feeling to hedonic tone inevitably leads to a hedonistic philosophy in which the hierarchy of Feeling values and judgments is forced into a framework of pleasure and pain. Then quantitative measures are brought in, and Feeling gives way before the technical organization of Thinking.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Fi only really reveals itself when values are threatened, so it would be difficult for an observer to differentiate between Fi and Fe.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Fi only really reveals itself when values are threatened, so it would be difficult for an observer to differentiate between Fi and Fe.


This is often true, it takes a long time usually to find a Fi type. Fi from what I understand of it is feeling and values you feel deeply about that you don't show and that takes an external force to unveil threw differences. It champions the individual. The threat of another thought/value that isnt there own makes the Fi manifest. Fe users usually will tell you their principals and values because they enjoy outwardly expressing them. They view them as points to interact with others and enforce them in social settings. They use their emotions to enforce the group. Fi is more personal standards and is internal that leads the individuals actions. Primarily focused on the individual. Fe is more conscious of the group. Atleast for Fi and Fe-doms


----------



## Stan the Woz (Apr 10, 2012)

Fe users make funnier faces.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

That guy is just as bad with those stereotypes. I'm sorry but Fi does not automatically equal jerk.


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

Arrow said:


> That guy is just as bad with those stereotypes. I'm sorry but Fi does not automatically equal jerk.


You're right, it takes a couple seconds to settle in ;p


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I agree with @Arrow 
The guy in the video has the wrong idea. I've also noticed a lot of posts on here assuming that Fi is less caring and more selfish than Fe. 

Fe seeks to understand the feelings of others in order to align with others, not because it cares more about their feelings. It wants to belong and makes judgements based on what most other people regard as right or wrong. 

Subjective doesn't = selfish. Fi makes feeling judgments using subjective values. Those subjective values are no more or less selfish than the objective values held by the majority of people within each society. 

No wonder people get so confused with the functions. 

Jungs Fi description 
"A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive. They develop into the depth. Whereas, for instance, an extensive feeling of sympathy can express itself in both word and deed at the right place, thus quickly ridding itself of its impression, an intensive sympathy, because shut off from every means of expression, gains a passionate depth that embraces the misery of a world and is simply benumbed"


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I agree the anti-Fi comments send the wrong impression because it makes it sound as if Fi's don't feel or can't feel deeply for others and can only care about themselves. This may happen in less healthy individuals but usually I find that's not the case in myself or in the case of my ISFP cousin who is also a Fi-dom and cares deeply for animals. 

I don't believe that Fi is any less caring then Fe. I feel very deeply as a Fi-dom and I am probably just as caring, kind and at times I can be just as open and expressive as my ESFJ Aunt and my ENFJ cousin, both of them use Fe extensively. I just find it exhausting to do it all the time, while they receive tons of energy from engaging with other people and interacting with others with their feelings. I can't readily expose my feelings like they can and I don't find likenesses as easily as they do because they want to merge their feelings, beliefs and principals with others while I respect differences but adhere to my own personal standards. 

The caring is likely the same just different because it starts internally for Fi. I remember reading a journal entry from a Holocaust victim in class one time, the woman detailed in her entry that she fought with her father because she drank a cup full of soup and then she felt that she was a horrible person for fighting with her father and her family because she ate something which she was not supposed to eat. She felt that she was a horrible person because she wasn't allowed to _eat_ in her ghetto. I remember bawling my eyes out for 5-10 minutes after I read that because I so deeply sympathized with her and her situation. The fact that she could dislike herself just because she was hungry was unjustifiable to me as a person. It was inhumane to treat a person like that and I became enraged by the thought of her feeling less about herself as a person because the Nazi's refused her and her family food. 

No one can tell me that as a Fi-dom I can't experience empathy, grief, pain for another person. It's just a different process as I have to feel it from myself before I can truly feel it for others. When I feel for you, I do or I do not. I have to truly feel it to express it. I can't feel it just because others do. I can't force myself to care just because other people might and I can't make myself feel what's not there to simulate an emotion I do not feel.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Fi only really reveals itself when values are threatened, so it would be difficult for an observer to differentiate between Fi and Fe.


And because how would an observer know whether or not the values were coming from within or not? The reality is, it is not as easy to distinguish Fi vs Fe as many people like to claim. (Quite frankly a lot of so-called Fi-types get it wrong). Fi does not make a person more individualistic on its own. A Fe-type could easily be fiercely individualistic, because we're only talking about evaluation. Not how you fit into a group.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Fi only really reveals itself when values are threatened, so it would be difficult for an observer to differentiate between Fi and Fe.


I agree with this personally for me. I don't generally express myself in an emotional way, ever, unless someone inspires me or guilts me into getting_ mushy_. Although look out if you cross personal boundaries ( or step on my moral /value code )...then i may come at you emotionally, although usually it feels more like anger or deep dislike.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> And because how would an observer know whether or not the values were coming from within or not? The reality is, it is not as easy to distinguish Fi vs Fe as many people like to claim. (Quite frankly a lot of so-called Fi-types get it wrong). Fi does not make a person more individualistic on its own. A Fe-type could easily be fiercely individualistic, because we're only talking about evaluation. Not how you fit into a group.


Jung does describe how Fi doms react when Fi manifests in a negative way during conflict. 

I don't know if Fi aux types also react the same way, but I relate to his description very well. I don't understand why it seems to be ignored by a lot of people on these forums.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Jung does describe how Fi doms react when Fi manifests in a negative way during conflict.
> 
> I don't know if Fi aux types also react the same way, but I relate to his description very well. I don't understand why it seems to be ignored by a lot of people on these forums.


Just a guess here , i personally believe there are a LOT less Fi users here than what we actually see. So many people are confusing Fe with Fi. It's ignored because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Basically people are tired of trying to make others see what they don't want to see, so.....what can you do, nothing. Thanks to people that still have patients to try and make people understand, and still, some will even ignore the ones who are very educated with the functions.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Jung does describe how Fi doms react when Fi manifests in a negative way during conflict.
> 
> I don't know if Fi aux types also react the same way, but I relate to his description very well. I don't understand why it seems to be ignored by a lot of people on these forums.


Because most people dont get that far or care. They find a description that fits a preconceived notion of who they think they are and then try to justify everything by it. Jung is, of course, not speaking in absolutes or even generalizations. He's speaking first and foremost from a psychological disposition and saying that the Introverted Feeling type may act a certain way under certain circumstances, but this is very different than how it is often conceptualized on the web where we start with the action and then try to make the function work. Someone says "I'm an individualist, I don't care about other people, or I do my own thing, therefore I MUST be a Fi-type." You hear this kinda stuff all the time (just hang out in the INFP forum). But really how we evaluate has little to do with being an individualist (and most people are not nearly as individualistic as they think anyway, I'd dare that same person to show up to work or school naked for example) and little to do with not wanting to be a part of any group. All of this deals much more with persona (really more the Kiersey type stuff) than it does your cognitive functions. People just use Fi (or Fe) to justify their behaviors rather than trying to understand their behaviors with the acknowledgment that they might lead to a conclusion about yourself that you were unprepared for.


----------



## pneumoceptor (Aug 25, 2011)

I've said this before... I just don't get the "group" aspect of the Fe definition. It feels incorrect. I don't even know what "group harmony" is. There can be harmony between individuals of a group, but not the group itself. I view a group as a web of individual relationships. I have no desire to have "group harmony". I do desire harmony between myself and other individuals within a group. But I don't desire it to the extent that I will avoid conflict, if I think (or hope) that conflict will ultimately result in better relationships. And based on what I'm describing, I don't see a clear distinction between Fe and Fi, at least in the context of groups.

I see the most distinction between Fe and Fi in the context of caring for a loved one. (I'm avoiding "sympathy" and "empathy" because there are all sorts of bunny trail arguments about subtle semantic distinctions here, and it just confuses things.) As an Fe user, when a friend is expressing for example strong sadness, I will tear up if not outright cry. This is because my friend's sadness "overflows" into me. My understanding is that an Fi user in the same situation might tear up and cry not because of "assimilation" of the sadness, but because the Fi user would imagine how he/she would feel in the same situation, which would most likely be quite sad, and the Fi user would actually feel this sadness from imagining going through the same thing. 9 times out of 10 (or 99 out of 100?), you can't tell the difference here as an observer. Where you can tell the difference is when the Fi user's imagined response to a situation is not the same as the friend's actual response. In that case, the Fi user might not respond with tears to the friend's situation. Because I, as an Fe user, don't imagine myself in the friend's place, this doesn't apply. So I will always respond to the friend's situation with tears.

Does that makes sense? Fi (and Fe) users, do you disagree?

This key difference has substantial repercussions, and they play out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I agree with this personally for me. I don't generally express myself in an emotional way, ever, unless someone inspires me or guilts me into getting_ mushy_. Although look out if you cross personal boundaries ( or step on my moral /value code )...then i may come at you emotionally, although usually it feels more like anger or deep dislike.


This happens to me too exactly the way you described it, except you'd have to catch me on a really bad day. I've learned to try to let things go, but sometimes certain things cross the line and I can't help but take a stand.

I've noticed particularly pretentiousness, inconsideration, deceitfulness, and general personalized negativity set me off lately.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

AbioticPrime said:


> I've noticed particularly pretentiousness, inconsideration, deceitfulness, and general personalized negativity set me off lately.


You've been in my head. I had a really bad experience in my swimming course today and suffice to say I just sort of wanted to set them all on fire and watch them jump into the water because I felt they weren't being considerate and were acting like obnoxious jerks who weren't thinking about the other students in the class who had harder time swimming. I have no tolerance for this and it ruined my entire mood for the duration I was with them. I got them back by beating them at water volleyball though. (laughs)


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Repost. Ahhh! Friday The 13th!


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Because most people dont get that far or care. They find a description that fits a preconceived notion of who they think they are and then try to justify everything by it. Jung is, of course, not speaking in absolutes or even generalizations. He's speaking first and foremost from a psychological disposition and saying that the Introverted Feeling type may act a certain way under certain circumstances


Yes and my point is anyone wanting to understand the functions would be better off reading his descriptions than everyones posts on the forums and watching you tube videos which are often made by people who don't understand the functions. 
Am I not making sense? That's not sarcasm either, it's a genuine question to whoever is following the thread


----------

