# Difference between dominant/auxiliary Fi and tertiary/inferior Fe?



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

Introverted Feelers are sometimes mistaken for thinkers because they may seem distant, cold and aloof like thinkers with tertiary/inferior Fe. 

On the other hand extraverted feelers are mistaken for Fi dominant/tertiary because they too are not keen on pleasing people either and thus choose to project their emotions on few individuals that he trust even though their projected emotions may fall short as "wanting".

So, is there, if any, signs that you could pick up from both these types to determine their actual preference – whether a person is strong on Fi or is she/he just low on Fe under casual observation? How do you tell the difference?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Tertiary/Inferior functions are dark and people lack confidence in them. Dark feeling is normally cynical.

Fi-dom/aux can be standoffish emotionally but their feeling is not inconsiderate or dark.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Fi tends to be more empathetic, whereas Fe tends to be more sympathetic. The focus on the internal system of values and emotions can make for a selfish individual, particularly when Fi exists lower in the function stack. However, when it's higher in the function stack, or if it has a healthier presence lower in the stack, the Fi-user is more prone to being able to put themselves in others shoes because Fi is an internal framework of reference. Essentially, in a healthy Fi-user, the person compares the situation to their own valuation and emotional experiences, and typically, from there, they are more capable of saying, "I wonder how I would feel if I were experiencing the same thing this other person is."

Fi and Fe users tend to demonstrate warmth towards others in different ways. Fe typically provides the socially appropriate responses to values and emotions, whereas Fi responds warmly to the problems of others due to a stronger ability to see where the other person is coming from. Depending on what extroverted perceiving function accompanies the Fi, the Fi dominant or auxiliary is probably more reticent than a dominant Fe user. An ESFP is likely less reticent than an ENFP, ISFP or INFP.

Lower order Fe users are less warm and more reticent when they lead with introverted thinking, rather than lower order Fe users who dominantly engage the world with Ne or Se. Those types tend to be more brash, and the Se types have a little more swagger.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

cipherpixy said:


> Introverted Feelers are sometimes mistaken for thinkers because they may seem distant, cold and aloof like thinkers with tertiary/inferior Fe.
> 
> On the other hand extraverted feelers are mistaken for Fi dominant/tertiary because they too are not keen on pleasing people either and thus choose to project their emotions on few individuals that he trust even though their projected emotions may fall short as "wanting".
> 
> So, is there, if any, signs that you could pick up from both these types to determine their actual preference – whether a person is strong on Fi or is she/he just low on Fe under casual observation? How do you tell the difference?


Inferior Fe user will still use Fe for articulation while a Fi user will use Te for articulation.

Te has cool articulation:
https://youtu.be/ClPjdBHHE6Q?t=23m2s

While Fe still has warm articulation even if inferior:
https://youtu.be/ClPjdBHHE6Q?t=31m12s


----------



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> Fe typically provides the socially appropriate responses to values and emotions, whereas Fi responds warmly to the problems of others due to _a stronger ability to see where the other person is coming from_.


But isn't that Fe? From what I've read so far _a stronger ability to see where the other person is coming from_ is Fe not Fi. 
Anyhow, I'm more interested in how an inferior Fe manifest.



koalaroo said:


> Lower order Fe users are less warm and more reticent when they lead with introverted thinking, rather than lower order Fe users who dominantly engage the world with Ne or Se. Those types tend to be more brash, and the Se types have a little more swagger.


I see. But how do less a developed Fe differ from types led by Fi? Is it possible that an inferior Fe may come off as Fi?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

cipherpixy said:


> But isn't that Fe? From what I've read so far _a stronger ability to see where the other person is coming from_ is Fe not Fi.
> Anyhow, I'm more interested in how an inferior Fe manifest.


No, that's not Fe. Fe is the ability to respond with socially appropriate mechanisms, if the other person is (typically) acting according to social standards. Fi is able to slip into the mindset of the other person.




> I see. But how do less a developed Fe differ from types led by Fi? Is it possible that an inferior Fe may come off as Fi?


I think Ti in the dominant tends to be more reticent than Fi.


----------



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> No, that's not Fe. Fe is the ability to respond with socially appropriate mechanisms, if the other person is (typically) acting according to social standards. Fi is able to slip into the mindset of the other person.


That's unusual because your statement, _'stronger ability to see where the other person is coming from' and 'slip into the mindset of the other person' relates to Fi_ contradict what I've read in forums, blogs and books so far. I've found it to be repeatedly stressed that one particular trait is an Fe characteristic, it is what defines Fe not Fi. 

The general consensus is summarized as: 
Fe is not aware of his own feeling since he project it outward most of the time and hence developed this keen sense to pick up emotions of others. They've labeled this ability as "absorbing" other people's emotions. Consequently, he has a less developed sense of his own feelings/emotions and, therefore, is less trusting of it. Fe has the standardized set of morals and values that is widely accepted and, therefore, easily connected. This is similar with regard to Te. In Te, it is logic and principles. 

Fi, like Ti(logic and principles), on the other hand has a customized set of morals and values where she compare any input she received from her external environment and if it matches it's good and if it doesn't she might either reject it or update her customized internal morals and values with modifications to accommodate that input, especially if it is crucial. Naturally, she has greater sense of awareness of her own internal feelings that stemmed from her own internal morals and values. Because of that tip in the scale she is less likely to be aware of other people's feelings. The way she tries to connect and see where the other person is coming from is sort of like a hypothetical speculation on her part by comparing her own feelings with the most probable feelings that she picked up, either from familiarity or deduction, and is sure of the other person. They've coined this approach as Fi's "mirroring" ability. Like you wrote, _putting herself in other people shoes_. She uses this approach as a tool to "connect" rather than really feel first hand as Fe user do.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

@cipherpixy Fe "absorb" the atmospher of the situation and they behave with what is socially appropriate. For example if a Fe dom goes in a funeral they will more likely cry because it's socially appropriate even if he doesn't know very well the person who died. So that's why I usually correlate "sympathy" with Fe. 

Now Fi are very aware of other feeling, say they are not is a misconception. They will put themselves in someone else shoes by taking on his own what the person feel internally. So for example during the same funeral the Fi dom will more likely emphasis with someone which he can relate and feel what he feels internally for the death by "mirroring". So that's why I usually correlate "empathy" with Fi.
The only thing that can differ is that Fe can "sympathize" with everybody, but Fi can't "emphasize" with everyone because they had to understand the mindset of other or had experiencing something similar in the past.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_cipherpixy_ - 

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. Fi, as an internalized function, is much better at empathizing with the person because they're better equipped to internalize the emotional states of others by comparing that person's states to their own inner world of values and emotions. Fe externalizes emotions and understands the emotions of others in an external way; that's sympathy, not empathy. Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another's shoes, and this requires internalization of the experiences of others, which Fi users (based on the introspective nature of Fi) are better equipped to do. Fe is an externalized understanding of the emotional states of others, and this is not the same as empathy. However, both the Fi user and the Fe user can employ both sympathy and empathy; it's just that Fi better equips the person with internalizing the other person's emotional experience.

Fi: "I can understand where your grief comes from."
Fe: "My condolences in this trying time."

My Fi is an inferior function, but I very acutely feel the pain of others.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

One time I was at a funeral for someone I didn't know. I wasn't feeling any grief prior to arriving because I didn't know the person. Not long after I arrived, however, I was fighting back tears because I could feel the grief that everyone around me was feeling. It wasn't that I was putting myself "in their shoes"--it was something much more direct and immediate than that. It was more like their grief was emanating from them and hitting me like a wave. I also wasn't crying out of sense of social expectation or appropriateness because I don't really have a sense of what's "appropriate" emotionally (I don't really see emotions in terms of appropriateness in the first place). I can't just feel something because it's expected of me; I can't will a certain feeling or emotion to happen.

I'm definitely an emotional absorber; I don't "mirror" the way it's described in this article (I don't usually think to myself: "how would I feel in your place"). Also, I don't have to understand a person's mindset in order to empathize with them. A person might be crying over something I personally wouldn't care about, but I'd still feel their sadness as if it were my own. 



koalaroo said:


> Fi: "I can understand where your grief comes from."
> Fe: "My condolences in this trying time."


I'd typically say the "Fe" thing to people who are mourning, but I can say something along the lines of the "Fi" statement depending on how personal I want to get with the person. That is, I can relate back to my own experience of grief to let them know they are not alone in what they are experiencing.

So what feeling function do I use?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Mizmar_ -- 

You aren't empathizing with these people in the case of the funeral; you're sympathizing with them (and yes, you are indeed reflecting the emotional atmosphere of your environment in the case of a funeral). Like I said, both Fe and Fi can experience empathy or sympathy. That said, Fi is more prone to empathizing than it is to sympathizing. What you experienced at the funeral is actually "affective empathy" (which more aligns with sympathy); whereas being able to put yourself in another's shoes is cognitive empathy.


----------



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> Fi better equips the person with internalizing the other person's emotional experience.


That equipment is what I've referred to as Fi's "mirroring" aspect. Whatever the other person is feeling she has to first search within for the same hue of emotions she has stored in the past and with deductive approximation she arrives at the same point as the other person to meet the other person's feelings. All this happens in fraction of a second. Thus, she is able to more "genuinely" relate to it than an Fe would. So, technically, she doesn't feel it first hand but rather brings in a point of reference to arrive at a best possible understanding what the other person is feeling (where the other person is coming from). True, the feeling is more intense here and she do relate to the other person's feeling in a depth but what she is feeling is her own by recall rather than Fe users do first hand, here and now. 

Fe on the other hand actually senses first hand and is sometimes overwhelmed from flooding of emotions in her proximity. I've observe this characteristic in INFJs, ENFJs, ESFJs and ISFJs. Their emotional sensing is 'here and now', it has broader spectrum and, therefore, common courtesy is the safest bet in managing such strong emotional input by the seconds. They do appear "shallow" in demeanor but it's like walking a fine line with a bomb strapped. Common courtesy is how they balance that bomb from falling off, and hence, exploding. When they do explode it's what you perceived Fe users as being "drama queens". It can be either positive or negative emotions. You can ask them yourself. 
However, I think we both agree concerning Fe and Fi on some level but are wording it differently.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_cipherpixy_ -- 

I think it's a Te versus Ti thing. We just describe things in different ways. I might make an addendum to what I originally stated, though. There are two types of empathy -- affective and cognitive empathy. Fe is affective empathy, which is more aligned with the general concept of sympathy than with empathy. With Fe you may experience others' emotions, but it's in a different way than the way that Fi does (cognitive empathy). Fi is, despite being a valuation function, able to reason through the other person's emotions in a way that Fe doesn't necessarily have the ability to do.

Fi equips the user to understand the emotional experience of others, whereas Fe doesn't necessarily do that (that requires the input of either Ti or Ni/Si).


----------



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

@koalaroo - 
Te/Ti and Fe/Fi are different, yes, but they work on the same principle, however, different focus. 

Fe feels because she feels those around her and not so much her own as Fi do. But what Fe feels is not fake in the sense that those feelings are real emotions coming in from people around her. Since it is broad, it is not deep. In other words she is reflecting their emotions not hers. 
Fe feelings depends on others.

Fi feels because she feels her own and relates to the person in depth by recall. It can be said that it is purer and genuine in the sense that what she is feeling is sincere. That sincerity comes from within but what she is feeling is her own and how she relates it to the other person and not the actual feelings of the other person. 
Fi feelings depends on themselves. 

Case in point, Feeling types (Fi/Fe) are not telepath. Either someone’s feeling empathy or sympathy, their arrival at that point is through an approach they have developed or selected for themselves over the years and have mastered it. 

Studies regarding Affective and Cognitive empathy construct is inconclusive. Yet, the general consensus in their distinction is parallel to general consensus to distinction in Jungian Fe and Fi. 
Affective empathy aka Perceptual empathy, which you compared to Fe, is “also called emotional empathy: the capacity to respond with an appropriate emotion to another's mental states. Our ability to empathize emotionally is supposed to be based on emotional contagion: being affected by another's emotional or arousal state.”
Subdivided into:
1. Empathic concern: “sympathy and compassion for others in response to their suffering.”
2. Personal distress: “self-centered feelings of discomfort and anxiety in response to another's suffering”.
This is in line with Fe “absorbing” other people’s emotions and “lacking” their own.

Cognitive empathy aka Evaluative empathy, here Fi, “the capacity to understand another's perspective or mental state.”
Subdivided into:
1. Perspective taking: “the tendency to spontaneously adopt others' psychological perspectives.”
2. Fantasy: “the tendency to identify with ﬁctional characters.”
This is consistent with Fi “mirroring” in depth, from within, of other people’s emotions but not “really” feeling other people's emotions. 

Though differing in our perspective, I think we are in agreement. Thank you for your time.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

cipherpixy said:


> Te/Ti and Fe/Fi are different, yes, but they work on the same principle, however, different focus.


You misunderstand me again. Our issue with coming to fully complimentary definitions has to do with the difference between your Ti and my Te. It's not a commentary on the Te/Fi or Fe/Ti axis.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> No, that's not Fe. Fe is the ability to respond with socially appropriate mechanisms, if the other person is (typically) acting according to social standards. Fi is able to slip into the mindset of the other person.


Well, not exactly. Generally, Fe is code of conduct while Fi is a moral compass.
Fe can be really out of touch with standards of surrounding society, though. Code of conduct can be based on some historical or even imagined society and Fe user can behave in ways that aren't really accepted in surrounding society.

Main difference is that Fe is charismatic, while Fi is poignant. It's because Fe is a dynamics mover like Te while Fi is a compass like Ti.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> Well, not exactly. Generally, Fe is code of conduct while Fi is a moral compass.
> Fe can be really out of touch with standards of surrounding society, though. Code of conduct can be based on some historical or even imagined society and Fe user can behave in ways that aren't really accepted in surrounding society.
> 
> Main difference is that Fe is charismatic, while Fi is poignant. It's because Fe is a dynamics mover like Te while Fi is a compass like Ti.


Not really. Both Fi and Fe provide a moral compass; where the moral compass emanates and how it's impressed upon others simply manifests differently. On the other hand, Fi and Ti are not compasses in and of themselves; they're internal systems of categorization. Ti is based in logical categorization whereas Fi is based in valuative categorization.


----------

