# Help me understand Fi



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Every time I try to think about Fi,I become convinced it doesn't really exists,that everyone uses Fe.I just can't grasp the concept of Fi for some reason,no matter how hard I try it always looks like Fe that's trying to look like Fi for Fe-ish reasons.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Living dead said:


> Every time I try to think about Fi,I become convinced it doesn't really exists,that everyone uses Fe.I just can't grasp the concept of Fi for some reason,no matter how hard I try it always looks like Fe that's trying to look like Fi for Fe-ish reasons.


I can't imagine what you are saying... It sounds rather pretentious to me. 

Here's one way I approach the two. You are in a situation where you must either compromise a value that is important to you. When forced to compromise, which would make you feel more guilty? Compromising your personal values for the sake of the whole, or compromising the values of the whole for your personal sake? Fi feels compromised or guilty sacrificing the individual for the sake of the whole, while Fe feels compromised or guilty for sacrificing the whole for the sake of self. That, IMO, cuts to the quick of the differences between the two.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Sorry for sounding pretentious,but I really don't get it.
I can't help but feel that people with strong personal values just say they would never compromise them to make themselves sound non-comformist,they don't want anyone to see them as people pleaser because it's not cool or something like that(I sometimes do it too)
Don't get me wrong,I am aware Fi does exist and that it's not what I think it is,but whatever anyone says about Fi I automatically interpret as Fe in disguise and I don't know how to solve that problem.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Living dead said:


> Sorry for sounding pretentious,but I really don't get it.
> I can't help but feel that people with strong personal values just say they would never compromise them to make themselves sound non-comformist,they don't want anyone to see them as people pleaser because it's not cool or something like that(I sometimes do it too)


But I'm sure you've met people that actually didn't compromise them, when the time came. I mean, I can think of a few instances in which I've done _that_, so...


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

I find this rather... surprising. To not be able to relate to it is understandable, but to question whether it exists through an Fe-like filter because you can't relate with it at all is... hmm.

Have you ever closely interacted with an Fi dominant type (INFP or ISFP)? It's very obvious that there is a very different sort of... vibe. It doesn't concern itself with the outside world much or with coming off as "cool" based on standards painted by others or not, rather is more.. genuine than that, it's intentions are far from being some manipulation tactic in order to come off a certain way (as the whole "wanting to look non-conforming since others think it's cool" seems to be implying).


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

*Extraverted Feeling* (Fe) is making decisions based on a value system that is concerned with the well being of people. These values are more global and cultural than personal.

*Introverted Feeling* (Fi) is about making decisions based on your personal values and being concerned more with how things impact you personally than how the group is impacted.

Cognitive Functions - A Simple Explanation

Introverted Feeling (Fi) One of Your Eight Cognitive Functions
Extraverted Feeling (Fe), One of Your Eight Cognitive Functions


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Living dead said:


> Sorry for sounding pretentious,but I really don't get it.
> I can't help but feel that people with strong personal values just say they would never compromise them to make themselves sound non-comformist,they don't want anyone to see them as people pleaser because it's not cool or something like that(I sometimes do it too)
> Don't get me wrong,I am aware Fi does exist and that it's not what I think it is,but whatever anyone says about Fi I automatically interpret as Fe in disguise and I don't know how to solve that problem.


Well, you still sound pretentious--even more so in your second post. Furthermore, I see Fe as uncompromising, and unsympathetic, attempting to make me obey, whether I agree or not. Fe is force of will over others whom you have no real right to do so. That's how I perceive it very often. For instance, Political correctness is an Fe value power play. (SFJ in particular) I find your attitude towards Fi very much in this vein.  And no, I don't take it personally... 

I really don't know how to help you simply accept that some people approach their values differently than you.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

My ENFJ best friend had a gift for understanding how to put people together in a group and have them accomplish something great. That was his beautiful Fe at work. I marveled at the ease with which he helped them work together and fostered group spirit.

When he was having difficulty with a friendship or relationship, he often came to me and put the story out on the table, a blow by blow of what was said and done by him and the other person. Sometimes I could read correspondence between the two. I was adept at teasing out what was going on, both inside him, and the other person, and from there, my ENFJ friend could usually work things out. Figuring out what was going on inside individual people was my Fi at work.

Believe it or not, I'm beginning to believe that his Fe and my Fi are what eventually ripped us apart. We both had been close because we seemed to share similar world and personal views. But at some point, his views changed and began to reflect the new sets of people he was surrounded with. This wasn't necessarily bad, but when I didn't seem to morph with him and these other people, I think he began to look at me as inflexible and obstinate. I no longer fit into his new perspective. He wasn't aware he had changed, but I was vividly aware of all the changes going on inside of him.

There were a lot of traits I admired about my ENFJ friend. Sometimes I wished I was more like him. And sometimes I wish that maybe I could have just made all the adjustments he wanted. But at the end, when our friendship collapsed, I was a devastated person inside. If I had sacrificed what I believed in and who I was to save the friendship, I could not have lived with the condemnation I would have heaped on my conscience. But it meant sacrificing a friendship that meant more to me than any other.

He, too, never understood why it had to be that way.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

bluekitdon said:


> *Extraverted Feeling* (Fe) is making decisions based on a value system that is concerned with the well being of people. These values are more global and cultural than personal.
> 
> *Introverted Feeling* (Fi) is about making decisions based on your personal values and being concerned more with how things impact you personally than how the group is impacted.


This is not technically correct. Fi will take the side of the underdog against the whole. It is the placing of individual against the whole. I tend to stand up for the individuals when the group attempts for force its will. It is just that sort of thing that gets to me the fastest.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Fi and Fe can act like each other on the surface.
One way to tell if someone strongly uses Fe is how they communicate. Fe is going to communicate outwardly with emotion and consider other people's ethics in a conversation, Te is going to say hell no if it disagrees. Fe is socially submissive and objective, Fi is socially dominate and subjective. Fe enjoys the conversation, Fi enjoys the topic if it really relates to them (though Fe can do this if it's upset or doesn't understand what's being said at all. Tell an Fe child about an everyday life story, s/he will smile and listen, tell a Fi child about it and s/he'll be more like "are we finished yet?" In this sense, Fi prefers to choose what it hears, Fe prefers to feel good for listening to the person they know.

Fi is hence often regarded the selfish function, though it can elect to be selfless but it takes more conscious effort.
Fe is hence often regarded as selfless but while Fi is conversationally selective, Fe can be group selective.

Fi is also pack mentality, Fe is like herd mentality.
Fe just couples up with the group it thinks it'll be appropriate in.
Fi storms in and wants to be an alpha/beta immediately, if the group finds them inappropriate it will want to challenge that, Fe would rather leave.

This is why Fe is notorious for the "Fe doorslam", you piss Fe off it doesn't want anything to do with you because it's submissive to the notion you didn't like them and that it could be treated better elsewhere.

This post I am making is actually pretty Fe, as I am establishing that Fi nor Fe is better than the other.
If I went all Fi it would be more of a case of me stating how Fi exists and that it's awesome and Fe is alien and can appear flat to me. F is all about "I feel..."
Fi isn't going to as likely drop values when trapped in an elevator with someone s/he really dislikes and retain the despise (as long as the Fi isn't a wimp to the physical strength or blackmail of the other party so imagine the other party is a feeble murderer or something), Fe is going to say "well we have our differences, but we must preserve the harmony to maintain the situation."

I'm an Fi user, I know I naturally prefer to challenge my viewpoint, yet I am coming to learn acting more Fe can be more efficient in my life.
And to note, Fi or Fe can be selfish depending upon self-preservation, addiction/habit and mood.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> This is not technically correct. Fi will take the side of the underdog against the whole. It is the placing of individual against the whole. I tend to stand up for the individuals when the group attempts for force its will. It is just that sort of thing that gets to me the fastest.


Here's another description direct from the Myers Brigg's website.

My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics - The Eight Function-Attitudes

*Extraverted Feeling: *Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important.

*Introverted Feeling: *Seeks harmony of action and thoughts with personal values. May not always articulate those values.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

bluekitdon said:


> *Extraverted Feeling* (Fe) is making decisions based on a value system that is concerned with the well being of people. These values are more global and cultural than personal.
> 
> *Introverted Feeling* (Fi) is about making decisions based on your personal values and being concerned more with how things impact you personally than how the group is impacted.
> 
> ...


Haha, I can't help it. That link on Fi is just so slanted! I could make some personal observations about the writer, but I shall restrain myself ;D Please tell me there's something better out there about us Fi'ers. INTJ's are this wealth of information.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Laeona said:


> Haha, I can't help it. That link on Fi is just so slanted! I could make some personal observations about the writer, but I shall restrain myself ;D Please tell me there's something better out there about us Fi'ers. INTJ's are this wealth of information.


:crying: nobody understand us....lol.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

@Living dead

Fi uses *personal experience as the point of criteria* to evaluate whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, beautiful or ugly (aesthetically and morally), important or unimportant. So, basically you're comparing external information to a strongly felt emotional ideal, thus forming a value judgment.

I'm gay, so when I experience sexual and emotional attraction towards a another man, the warm sensations and feelings of beauty, affection and desire well up inside me. This is an emotion/feeling in the neurological and physiological sense; *emotions like this are something that virtually everyone experiences, regardless of type*. Normally, people call this kind of emotion/sensation love or infatuation and it's generally considered a good thing since it isn't painful. The cognitive function of_ Introverted Feeling takes this emotion and uses it as a criterion against which it can evaluate whether something is right or wrong_. So, Introverted Feeling isn't the emotion itself--it's measuring information against emotions to decide it's worth. That's why Introverted Feeling is considered ration. It always comes to a conclusion about something, although the conclusion isn't logical. Moreover, that's what makes Fi subjective. It references an individual's internal reactions, in this case, their sexuality. But, everyone experiences sexuality differently and you can't casually tell with 100% accuracy whom someone finds attractive just by looking at them. That being said, it seems there are general expectations of what to expect from people--that's a matter of Extraverted Judgment. It doesn't take in people's subjective experiences into account. Rather, Je looks at who two or more objects are related in their external contexts. For example, black women can generally be expected to date black men. Likewise, mothers are obligated to care for their own children not someone else's, etc…A subjective perspective let's us know that sometimes a black woman might feel attracted to an Asian man or that a mother might feel intense sympathy for an orphaned child that's not her own. It doesn't matter the surface criteria, just the individual experience.

In saying this, I don't mean to say that all Extraverted Judging types are racist or homophobic. However, for a long time in this country, and still in most parts of the world today, these objective expectations for how people should generally relate to each other where pretty much sacred. It's only been after much violence and pain that people are free to comfortably openly act on their subjective preferences rather than objective expectations.

From an early age, when I would daydream (using Ne, largely) about having a boyfriend and use the emotional ideal to judge these fantasies as good and worth pursuing. I strongly felt that they were good. For the most part, my sexuality was no huge secret. I never really followed "traditional" gender norms because they didn't relate much to what I was actually feeling. When I was 14, I used to spend the majority of my free time listening to Björk music and daydreaming about my crushes. If I wasn't thinking about my crush, I was thinking about Iceland--Björk's home country--and imagining an idealized life there where I could live with my handsome lover in bliss.

I was very comfortable in this mental place. As an Introvert, I was almost completely absorbed in what was going on in my head. It was so easy to just put on my headphones and get lost in that warm, cozy world. Of course, I had friends too, but I didn't proactively seek them out 90% of the time outside of school. It feel most natural and most energizing to be alone with my thoughts and feelings. That said, I used Extraverted Perception to basically scan my environment and use it as a trigger to make sense of my world--what other people do and who I am in relation. But, I basically never used much conscious Extraverted Judgment to proactively organize my environment according to logical principles or social norms. I was just content to "live in the moment", "go with the flow", etc.

That is, until people would give me funny looks because of the way I dressed or call into question why I did things the way I did. At that point, I would feel hurt--especially if they started to mention God. Ugh, I was so offended by the fact that Christianity (it was the dominant religion of my environment) supposedly forbade all the feelings that I held so dearly. So, I actively rejected it. I would fiercely argue with anyone who said that I was a sinner~**~*. There were even times that I would intentionally do inappropriate, somewhat vulgar things in order to frustrate people's ideas of what's normal. But, for the most part, I just wanted to relax and be happy. I wasn't a "non-conformist" just because I wanted to look "cool", but I didn't conform to people's gender expectations because I genuinely didn't feel they were a part of me, and I decided that my actual feelings were much more important than pleasing other people. To do otherwise would have been too painful, like having your "soul" ripped out. It would have crushed me; it still would.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Living dead said:


> Sorry for sounding pretentious,but I really don't get it.
> I can't help but feel that people with strong personal values just say they would never compromise them to make themselves sound non-comformist,they don't want anyone to see them as people pleaser because it's not cool or something like that(I sometimes do it too)
> Don't get me wrong,I am aware Fi does exist and that it's not what I think it is,but whatever anyone says about Fi I automatically interpret as *Fe in disguise* and I don't know how to solve that problem.


Fe is when subjective feeling is engulfed by extraverted judgement, but felt '*like*' personal feeling. Jung calls it 'extensive', because it's much dependent on the circumstances where a certain feeling judgement is valid, or considered 'appropriate', and where or when it isn't. 



Jung Extraverted Feeling said:


> As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations 'constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words.
> 
> Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous: They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different.
> 
> Psychological Types, by C.G. Jung


You can read about Introverted Feeling here.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

For me it's easy to understand the difference between Fe and Fi when you look at it in the terms of subjective and objective emotions.

Fe - Objective - If you look sad, you must be sad. It's emotions on the surface.
Fi - Subjective - Would I be sad in that same position? Yes, therefore you must be sad too.

---

This is why Fe can view Fi as selfish, and Fi can view Fe as fake.

Fe using objective emotions:

Fe: You look sad, are you sad?
Fi: No, I'm not sad. What?
Fe: Here, let me make you feel better. You look terribly sad.
Fi: You don't know how I feel!
Fe: You're so sensitive.

or

Fi using subjective emotions (asking the self):

Fe: How can you not see that I'm upset? You never comfort me!
Fi: Because I wouldn't be upset in that same potion, you're being sensitive!

---

As an aux Fe user, other peoples emotions tend to bother me more than my own emotions. I like to view Fe as a mirror.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> As an aux Fe user, other peoples emotions tend to bother me more than my own emotions. I like to view Fe as a mirror.


Lol. You are just focused externally to find a clue or explanation for what you feel. Thing is, it isn't always found externally, and you'll need to dig deep to understand your deepest motivations. 

Fe: Ow...that's why I'm feeling this way all day!
Fi: Yeah, I figured that.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Lol. You are just focused externally to find a clue or explanation for what you feel. Thing is, it isn't always found externally, and you'll need to dig deep to understand your deepest motivations.
> 
> Fe: Ow...that's why I'm feeling this way all day!
> Fi: Yeah, I figured that.


Not ideally.

I'm usually content with my own emotions unless they're distributed by other people. I say it works like a mirror, because I usually feel what other people are feeling (even if it's not how they really feel). If I'm around somebody who is angry long enough, I'm going to either feel those emotions or become angry myself. I'll leave the room to find my own emotions and then I will say, "That's why I was feeling that way!" This is why dom and aux Fe users hate conflict, because that emotion is projected back to us like a mirror. We either try to fix the problem or we'll leave and avoid it completely.

I understand and know my own emotions, I just have a hard time telling mine apart from those around me at times. I'm also expressive with my emotions. If I'm angry, I'm going to project outwardly that I'm pissed. If I'm smiling, I'm most likely happy. It's very objective, my emotions are what they are, there is no spectrum of happy, sad, etc like with Fi.

I imagine when an INFP is sitting in a room alone, they're going to most likely think more about their emotional well being than maybe an INFJ would, who isn't getting any feedback emotionally from the outside world. I know when I sit alone, I'm more in Ni-Ti mode unless I'm trying to solve a people related problem, then I will approach somebody to get feedback from Fe.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

RunForCover07 said:


> I'm usually content with my own emotions unless they're distributed by other people. I say it works like a mirror, because I usually feel what other people are feeling (even if it's not how they really feel). If I'm around somebody who is angry long enough, I'm going to either feel those emotions or become angry myself. I'll leave the room to find my own emotions and then I will say, "That's why I was feeling that way!" This is why dom and aux Fe users hate conflict, because that emotion is projected back to us like a mirror. We either try to fix the problem or we'll leave and avoid it completely.


That's how it works for me too. I find the emotional states of others pretty contagious, especially the "dark" emotions like anger, fear, sadness, ect.



> I understand and know my own emotions, I just have a hard time telling mine apart from those around me at times. I'm also expressive with my emotions. If I'm angry, I'm going to project outwardly that I'm pissed. If I'm smiling, I'm most likely happy. It's very objective, my emotions are what they are, there is no spectrum of happy, sad, etc like with Fi.


I'm not very expressive myself or, if I am, I'm not consciously aware of it. Also, for me there _is_ a spectrum of emotion. There are different types of "happy" and "sad" for example (I don't have names for them, but I experience them).



> I imagine when an INFP is sitting in a room alone, they're going to most likely think more about their emotional well being than maybe an INFJ would, who isn't getting any feedback emotionally from the outside world. I know when I sit alone, I'm more in Ni-Ti mode unless I'm trying to solve a people related problem.


I think I experience the same amount of emotion whether I'm alone or with others. Sometimes if I'm in a big group my emotions feel more jumbled, chaotic. When I'm alone, I have the space and privacy to attend to them, and that makes them feel more expansive -- like they have room to spread out and I have the peace to analyze them.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

@_RunForCover07_ @_Mizmar_

Do you guys think that you tend to translate people's expressions of emotions as predictable signs of appropriateness or cues for what is supposed to happen/what you're supposed to do in a situation?

Like, could you potentially decide that "Oh, John is clearly feeling sad, but he shouldn't because this is Jenny's wedding. He should perk up because that's the right thing to do; he's being selfish. " or are you sort of forced to attend to the emotion at that time, regardless of the context…"Oh, John's feeling sad, better say something to cheer him up."

This is one of the things that I feel most descriptions of Fe don't cover. Lenore Thomson's book _Personality Type: An Owner's Manual_ talks about how Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Thinking need predictability in the external world. Thus, Extraverted Feeling looks at people's consistent signs of emotion (body language, what they say, etc.) and uses them to form _generalized rules of conduct_. Do you agree with that understanding ? Do you think Fe-domiance versus auxiliary makes a difference?

Here's the full chapter of that book, if you want to learn more about what she says: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/132054-lenore-thomsons-extraverted-feeling.html


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

And then things change drastically when Fe and fi are ones inferior functions. Then... well, honestly ... It's just kind of in the background, probably playing some role ... But just kind of ._. *insert crickets*


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

surgery said:


> @RunForCover07 @Mizmar
> 
> Do you guys think that you tend to translate people's expressions of emotions as predictable signs of appropriateness or cues for what is supposed to happen/what you're supposed to do in a situation?
> 
> Like, could you potentially decide that "Oh, John is clearly feeling sad, but he shouldn't because this is Jenny's wedding. He should perk up because that's the right thing to do; he's being selfish. " or are you sort of forced to attend to the emotion at that time, regardless of the context…"Oh, John's feeling sad, better say something to cheer him up."


I lead with introverted intuition, so I'm most likely going to look at the big picture first and try to fix the core of problem with the use of extroverted feeling. In other words, I'm not only going to see that he's upset, but I'm going to see that he's upsetting others around him too, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to be sad (I don't know why he is). Ideally the core solution to this problem is to cheer him up the best I can in order to make everyone happy. Some could argue you should cheer up Jenny, but I don't think that would fix anything at all.

Johnny will be cheered up.
Jenny will be happy I defused the situation.
And everyone will be happy.

I do think dom and aux Fe have different flavors. If you compare a INFJ Vs ENFJ for example, it's going to look a bit different.

ENFJ - Make a judgement first (Fe) and use intuition (Ni) to support their feelings.
INFJ - Perceive with intuition first (Ni) and use feelings to support their intuition.

I don't know if that answered your question or not.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

Living dead said:


> I can't help but feel that people with strong personal values just say they would never compromise them to make themselves sound non-comformist,they don't want anyone to see them as people pleaser because it's not cool or something like that(I sometimes do it too).


I will not compromise my values because I want others to see me in a certain light. I won't compromise my values because they are _my values_ and I believe in them. It literally has nothing to do with other people because it's about my own personal authenticity and my own desires and my own boundaries and standpoint — that's what Fi does.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Irondust said:


> I will not compromise my values because I want others to see me in a certain light. I won't compromise my values because they are _my values_ and I believe in them. It literally has nothing to do with other people because it's about my own personal authenticity and my own desires and my own boundaries and standpoint. That's what Fi does.


But why do you care?That's the part I don't understand.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

Living dead said:


> But why do you care?That's the part I don't understand.


Why do I care about my values…? I can't give a simple answer concerning why I care about my values in a strictly abstract sense. I can explain each particular value I do have and each value will have its own unique reasons.

In either case it's beside the point. Fi is about personal authenticity, harmony between one's own inner values and actions and about awareness of one's own inner states. I would even argue this is why many strong Fe-users are challenged by saying no to others because Fi is the personal boundary-setter simply by virtue of what it is.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Irondust said:


> Why do I care about my values...?


Yep.
Is it really such an odd question?


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Living dead said:


> But why do you care?That's the part I don't understand.


Fi's values are basically created by referencing a subjective reaction. The reaction is intense and there's some part of our mental awareness that leads use to focus our awareness on that intense reaction. There's a parallel part of our mental awareness that focuses on the external world and leads us to adapt our thoughts and behaviors to it. Some people naturally derive more energy from focusing on the reaction (introverts) and some people derive more energy from focusing on the external event (extraverts). There's no certainty as to why some people are introverts and why others are extraverts. No one chooses their preference; they just happen as result of inborn neurology.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

i can't speak for anyone else, but as an Fi user, values are #1 to me. to me, it's about freedom-freedom of thought, feeling, etc. having to go along with the herd can be exhausting, and i can never do it 100%. it goes against my nature.

i think some of this stuff is summed up by this dostoevsky quote i always loved: _Nothing in the world is harder than speaking the truth and nothing easier than flattery.


_


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Living dead said:


> Every time I try to think about Fi,I become convinced it doesn't really exists,that everyone uses Fe.I just can't grasp the concept of Fi for some reason,no matter how hard I try it always looks like Fe that's trying to look like Fi for Fe-ish reasons.


Makes sense. I have difficulty wrapping my head around Ne. I can understand it sort of on an intellectual level, but that's about it - it's so distant from me with Ni being my lead function.

I don't get the judgment of pretension that some are passing. It's natural and normal to have difficulty with a function that is so distant and contradictory to how you process information.

Try thinking of it like the following, keeping in mind that this isn't intended to be the full extent of what Ti and Fi can do: If Ti is a process that goes through data and checks for errors and inconsistencies in an impersonal/technical context, Fi does the same but in an ethical/interpersonal context. 

An example might be something like: (Fi) Noticing that a person says one thing and then does another vs. (Ti) Noticing that an imaginary universe's logic in X area contradicts itself in Y area.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

Living dead said:


> Yep.
> Is it really such an odd question?


I think the question "Why do we care about our values?" kind of shocks us as Fi people. It's hard to imagine a world where people DON'T care about what they value. We all value something. Why wouldn't we care about something we value?

If I hold a belief, it's because I've tested that belief and come to find it has some intrinsic value to the larger picture. And I test it over and over and over again, to refine it and make sure it is what I thought it was. I want to know the breadth and depth of it. I want to know how it interplays with everything in life. And once I've done that, then I'm not apt to let someone dissuade me casually from it. I want to know that I'm building my choices and life on something solid, something worth believing in, and living according to.

My values define who I am, what I stand for. That matters intensely to me. Because if I don't have that strong core, there is no way I can help anyone else. I'm lost. My values are my compass. They point the way.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Makes sense. I have difficulty wrapping my head around Ne. I can understand it sort of on an intellectual level, but that's about it - it's so distant from me with Ni being my lead function.
> 
> I don't get the judgment of pretension that some are passing. It's natural and normal to have difficulty with a function that is so distant and contradictory to how you process information.
> 
> ...


This has to be the most beautiful way I've ever heard Ti and Fi expressed. It's spot on. Wow.

INTJ's just fascinate me. They see so clearly sometimes.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

Laeona said:


> This has to be the most beautiful way I've ever heard Ti and Fi expressed. It's spot on. Wow.
> 
> INTJ's just fascinate me. They see so clearly sometimes.


I concur. Very pithy.

Please do note that Fe is a rational function in the sense that it follows a specific, predictable ruleset. Fi is a personal, subjective function that operates on personal reasoning. It's the same as when we regard Ti as logical nitpicking and have trouble understanding it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Living dead said:


> But why do you care?That's the part I don't understand.


Cause I made them! 
They are the foundation I've built my whole psychic reality on.
The energy investment over several decades of withdrawing interest from the outside world
to favor inner felt truths is what is at stake.
It is just as any other system of meaning, it is arbitrary and based solely on the subjective
effort that has already gone into it.
To sacrifice that inner world would be an enourmous loss of investment.
Flipping dom Fi to dom Fe = ego death IMO.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> For me it's easy to understand the difference between Fe and Fi when you look at it in the terms of subjective and objective emotions.
> 
> Fe - Objective - If you look sad, you must be sad. It's emotions on the surface.
> Fi - Subjective - Would I be sad in that same position? Yes, therefore you must be sad too.
> ...


Hm...see here's the thing. 

Mirror neurons make us yawn when we see someone else yawn, and smile when someone else smiles, and because we smile we may feel better. Still you are not feeling what the other person feels.

This is called emotional contagion, and is related, but different from empathy. 

Fi tends to hide feelings behind a neutral mask. But you (Fe) read someone's face and because you are Ni, (which according to Jung excludes the cooperation of sensation, which is the realm of affect or emotion), you just think what you feel is the other person's emotion or "objective".

It's not so much mirroring but your (Fe) interpretation of mirror neuron data, probably because YOU would feel bad with such a facial expression. (funny, this is how you describe Fi, as relating to their subjective feeling) This is the classic communication error between Fe and Fi. 

It's one thing to claim to know how the other feels (esp. Since there's often not a genuine interest and attempt to understand the inner person, but rather felt as controlling the outer person for the sake of outer harmony), and often felt as annoying because Fe doesn't feel how Fi may feel its emotional state and expression invalidated. I've grown over that, seeing the good intention, and usually it helps to acknowledge that to Fe and express appreciation for its concern -and to mirror or gratify their noble intentions /self concept) , assure them you are fine, and after that everyone is cool.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Laeona said:


> I think the question "Why do we care about our values?" kind of shocks us as Fi people. It's hard to imagine a world where people DON'T care about what they value. We all value something. Why wouldn't we care about something we value?
> 
> If I hold a belief, it's because I've tested that belief and come to find it has some intrinsic value to the larger picture. And I test it over and over and over again, to refine it and make sure it is what I thought it was. I want to know the breadth and depth of it. I want to know how it interplays with everything in life. And once I've done that, then I'm not apt to let someone dissuade me casually from it. I want to know that I'm building my choices and life on something solid, something worth believing in, and living according to.
> 
> My values define who I am, what I stand for. That matters intensely to me. Because if I don't have that strong core, there is no way I can help anyone else. I'm lost. My values are my compass. They point the way.


That's why I see Fi, as kind of, Boy meets world. Fi is theory. Fe is application of theory, that puts theory to the test. It has no value to the theory itself, it has value in results.

I just watched Lincoln, and it gave some great quotes on Fe and pragmatism in general. Actually used a compass example. Lincoln was arguing with a guy who was hell bent on ending slavery. He had a moral compass, and he knew where it went. North was absolute.

But that is blindness... Lincoln used the analogy of following a compass. The map is not the terrain. It points the right way, but it doesn't show the swamp, the cliffs, and every other obstacle in the way. If you end up taking it, you will actually fail. So, if you just go straight North, you're gonna fall on your face. You have to take into account every obstacle on the route. Take it as it comes. You will find North eventually, but you will deviate from the path many times.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

surgery said:


> @_RunForCover07_ @_Mizmar_
> 
> Do you guys think that you tend to translate people's expressions of emotions as predictable signs of appropriateness or cues for what is supposed to happen/what you're supposed to do in a situation?


I do respond to the emotional cues of others, but it has less to do with what is "appropriate" in some "objective" or collectively agreed upon sense, and more to do with what I feel is appropriate in that particular moment for that particular person.



> Like, could you potentially decide that "Oh, John is clearly feeling sad, but he shouldn't because this is Jenny's wedding. He should perk up because that's the right thing to do; he's being selfish. " or are you sort of forced to attend to the emotion at that time, regardless of the context…"Oh, John's feeling sad, better say something to cheer him up."


If someone I knew seemed sad I'd feel concern for their well-being. I wouldn't concern myself with the appropriateness of their sadness. If someone is sad I assume they have a good reason to be (unless, perhaps, they are one of those individuals who are always sad and mopey regardless of context).



> This is one of the things that I feel most descriptions of Fe don't cover. Lenore Thomson's book _Personality Type: An Owner's Manual_ talks about how Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Thinking need predictability in the external world. Thus, Extraverted Feeling looks at people's consistent signs of emotion (body language, what they say, etc.) and uses them to form _generalized rules of conduct_. Do you agree with that understanding ? Do you think Fe-domiance versus auxiliary makes a difference?


I do tend to read people's body language, facial expression, tone of voice, ect. I'll subtly modify my behavior in the moment based on what I'm reading from the other person. For example, if someone I'm conversing with seems shy and diverts their eyes away from mine a lot, I might conclude that have trouble with eye contact and so, out of respect for their personal boundaries, I'll minimize the amount of eye contact I make while conversing with them. However, I'm not that concerned with general rules of etiquette. I might try to follow them just so as not to draw negative attention to myself but, more generally I just try to treat people the way that I would want to be treated in a given situation. Theoretically, I would think Fe-dominance versus Fe auxiliary makes a big difference.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

As an Fi user, I still have issues accepting Fe. Or less so Fe as the indifference to Fi. It's because I am driven by Fi and can't imagine a world where I used anyone else's values to determine mine.

I use facts, logic and empirical evidence to determine what I value. Other people are fallible and subject to all kinds of ignorance and bias. It's evident in the state of the world today that values are not properly allocated.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Laeona said:


> This has to be the most beautiful way I've ever heard Ti and Fi expressed. It's spot on. Wow.
> 
> INTJ's just fascinate me. They see so clearly sometimes.


Thank you. It's the product of years of research, reflection, and discussion. 

I won't pretend it's the result of some kind of INTJ superpower. :tongue:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That's why I see Fi, as kind of, Boy meets world. Fi is theory. Fe is application of theory, that puts theory to the test. It has no value to the theory itself, it has value in results.
> 
> I just watched Lincoln, and it gave some great quotes on Fe and pragmatism in general. Actually used a compass example. Lincoln was arguing with a guy who was hell bent on ending slavery. He had a moral compass, and he knew where it went. North was absolute.
> 
> But that is blindness... Lincoln used the analogy of following a compass. The map is not the terrain. It points the right way, but it doesn't show the swamp, the cliffs, and every other obstacle in the way. If you end up taking it, you will actually fail. So, if you just go straight North, you're gonna fall on your face. You have to take into account every obstacle on the route. Take it as it comes. You will find North eventually, but you will deviate from the path many times.


Map territory would apply to Fe and Ti. I know I used the map-territory argument to you just recently with regard to Ti, but Ti is different from Fi. Ti is like a map/model of truth. And indeed we should not confuse the abstraction with reality, just because the inner logic of the model is consistent. It may even distort our view excluding everything that does not fit in that template. 

But Feeling is not about truth but about value and the difference is that values are ordered or weighed against. But it's true that Fi tries to be consistent in applying this. That is also the difference between compass and map. Fi navigates using the stars above, or relative to the two opposite poles. It's Fe that, as I explained earlier, uses maps, schema's and scripts depending on locality, with less regard for inner consistency. Fi doesn't use maps, and perhaps should do that more (integrating Ne, or Se), because there is usually insufficient awareness of local consensus, causing insecurity, defensiveness or hostility, or just lack of consideration of what is appropriate. 

Also, Fi may look at a concrete situation (circumstance or context), or the consequences and repercussions of a judgement (Te), and weigh this in it's final judgement. It will not as likely use metaphors or symbolic analogies to 'proof' what is right and wrong (rather concrete analogies), or to try to talk inconsistencies straight rhetorically. 

Jung states that normally Fi is higher than the ego which means personal judgement (feelings) may be different, even opposite from rational Fi judgement. But I think this can also make Fi come across as self-righteous, arrogant, etc. regarding their values as universal.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Hm...see here's the thing.
> 
> Mirror neurons make us yawn when we see someone else yawn, and smile when someone else smiles, and because we smile we may feel better. Still you are not feeling what the other person feels.
> 
> ...


I think we're on the same page, but looking at it from a difference perspective (or using mirroring differently). When I mean mirroring, I don't mean that I'm actually feeling the persons "real" emotion, but rather a mirror of what Fe thinks that emotion is objectively. A perfect example of that is when I used to think my INFP ex was mad at times because of her smug facial expressions. "Why are you so pissed off today?" I never believed her when she said she wasn't. I know better now. Lol when she would in fact be feeling happy on the inside (if I could even pry that out of her).

All I know is, my moods seem to depend on those around me a lot of the time. This is why at times I require a good amount of time alone to be left in thought and to not feel anything at all when I don't want to, or at least to process my own emotions.

Either way, thanks for your post. We're overall on the same page.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That's why I see Fi, as kind of, Boy meets world. Fi is theory. Fe is application of theory, that puts theory to the test. It has no value to the theory itself, it has value in results.
> 
> I just watched Lincoln, and it gave some great quotes on Fe and pragmatism in general. Actually used a compass example. Lincoln was arguing with a guy who was hell bent on ending slavery. He had a moral compass, and he knew where it went. North was absolute.
> 
> But that is blindness... Lincoln used the analogy of following a compass. The map is not the terrain. It points the right way, but it doesn't show the swamp, the cliffs, and every other obstacle in the way. If you end up taking it, you will actually fail. So, if you just go straight North, you're gonna fall on your face. You have to take into account every obstacle on the route. Take it as it comes. You will find North eventually, but you will deviate from the path many times.


But don't you see? In that analogy, Fe and Fi aren't the destination, they're the maps we both use to get somewhere. My map may not have all the same information as yours, but it doesn't mean one or the other is the best tool for the job. Each has it's strengths and fallacies. Maybe I get stuck in the swamp missing on my map, but maybe you have your gear stolen in the city that was on your map. lol Neither of us are totally prepared for everything out there. And sometimes, we're both overtaken by the thunderstorm that doesn't show up on any map. But you know, put Fe and Fi together, and there isn't too much they can't overcome.

As for theory, well, I'd call using my values as a life course not just theory, but practical application.

Btw, Lincoln? Epic movie there. Those dialogues were amazing! Thaddeus Stevens found a place in my heart.

You are an interesting mix. You make such definitive statements about things outside your scope, and yet I cannot find myself offended by that. I do hope I'm there when you have that "Ah-ha" moment and finally see what's been hidden from your eyes. You are a good window into the Fe side of things.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Laeona said:


> But don't you see? In that analogy, Fe and Fi aren't the destination, they're the maps we both use to get somewhere. My map may not have all the same information as yours, but it doesn't mean one or the other is the best tool for the job. Each has it's strengths and fallacies. Maybe I get stuck in the swamp missing on my map, but maybe you have your gear stolen in the city that was on your map. lol Neither of us are totally prepared for everything out there. And sometimes, we're both overtaken by the thunderstorm that doesn't show up on any map. But you know, put Fe and Fi together, and there isn't too much they can't overcome.
> 
> As for theory, well, I'd call using my values as a life course not just theory, but practical application.
> 
> ...


lol...

But were you thinking that too? Stevens was Fi, and he didn't want to give it up. Which is admirable. I thought it was a great contrast. But, he swallowed his pride, and gave in to Fe, and saved the day. 

Lincoln is the perfect embodiment of Fe. He seems like he doesn't really have a position, because his position is dependent on what is happening. He has been criticized for over 100 years on this. How he should have been more firm on slavery, this or that.. and he was inconsistent. But sometimes conditions require inconsistency. You have to adjust, and take in every situation as it comes.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Laeona said:


> But don't you see? In that analogy, Fe and Fi aren't the destination, they're the maps we both use to get somewhere. My map may not have all the same information as yours, but it doesn't mean one or the other is the best tool for the job.


How about another analogy. Rather than maps, both are compasses. I think that, maybe Fi has a compass that points to north, but Fe has a compass like Jack Sparrow's--it follows whatever has the strongest current hold on his heart, only the Fe compass follows others' compasses. That is how it comes across to me. 

I'm finding this thread rather interesting, because it seems to be descending into an Fe collective back-patting, thanking God that you weren't created a Samaritan, or worse, an Fi-user...

I think that part of the problem is that those of us who most understand how Fi functions are also the least capable of describing it to others, thanks to the nature our personalities. ISFPs tend to resort to Se, which is nonverbal, and INFPs to Ne, which tends to be metaphorical and obtuse. And our last resort is Te, which tends to get testy and defensive, and still doesn't do a great job of describing that actually takes place outside the bounds of human language. 

Sorry, but it all sounds rather absurd to me. Do Ne types also praise the Maker that they aren't Ni-types? Are Te types grateful they don't have to suffer with the curse of Ti? I mean, why this total dissing of Fi? 

I have a question for the OP @Living dead.


> But why do you care?That's the part I don't understand.




Is there something going on that you aren't telling us? A specific situation? a particular person? Something happen? 

I mean, the above quote is just so... blanket ...that it makes no sense without some sort of context. I get the impression you are not telling us everything/the whole situation. 

But if you want to know why I care, maybe this quote will help:

_"We defend our dishonesty on the grounds that it may hurt another person_
_and then, having rationalised our phoniness into nobility, we settle for_
_superficial relationships." —__John Powell_

I'll take genuine over superficial relationships any day.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

> Is there something going on that you aren't telling us?


I know lots of shy people who are shy not because they think they can't possibly make themselves be good enough(like I do),but because they fear being rejected and ridiculed for their values and interests and that's why they avoid people.It's one of the strangest things in the world for me.I never thought of it that way.I never thought "Oh,being...will surely make me popular,but I don't wanna be like that because it's totally not me".For me,it's more like "I know being...will make me popular,but am I good enough to be...?All the other people that act like that are way better than me in every way."

Makes sense?


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I'll take genuine over superficial relationships any day.


May I ask how you would define a superficial relationship? I see this word tossed around at dom and aux Fe personality types often, but I never really know what that means, because I would consider my love and friendships as genuine. I think it's easy to forget that Fe as well has values, and although it may not ask the self, that doesn't always mean that the feeling is detached and from an empty place. Not to mention there are other functions to support that judgement as well.

The word superficial could as well pertain to other things. Although an ISFJ has Fe, I could very well say I think their love of the sensory world is superficial with having inferior Se. I could say that an INFP is superficial, because they only show love when they feel it compares to their values.

^Just saying what if, not my actual thoughts....

While I understand your use of superficial (surface level emotions), I thought maybe you could see how that word could look from a different perspective.

I think this is what confuses Fe users about Fi the most, because usually Fi is defined in a way that's demeaning of Fe. Of course this is done with all functions and all types have bias moments, but its a thought to think of.

Also, what if a Fe user agreed with your Fi values (had the same ideas on love, life, and humanity?), would that still make them superficial, or would that be genuine?

This post wasn't meant to be argumentative, but rather to start a discussion.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

Living dead said:


> I know lots of shy people who are shy not because they think they can't possibly make themselves be good enough(like I do),but because they fear being rejected and ridiculed for their values and interests and that's why they avoid people.


That sounds like social anxiety disorder. I think that goes beyond type and has more to do with personal traumatic experiences especially during childhood and adolescence.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> May I ask how you would define a superficial relationship? I see this word tossed around at dom and aux Fe personality types often, but I never really know what that means, because I would consider my love and friendships as genuine.


I gave the quote..

_"We defend our dishonesty on the grounds that it may hurt another person_
_and then, having rationalised our phoniness into nobility, we settle for_
_superficial relationships." —__John Powell_

That is what makes relationships superficial. Do you really need more explanation? Honestly, I don't think INFJs are prone to such things, but my ENFJ daughter is more prone than her INFJ sister, and I've known lots of SFJ types that are prone to this. 

INFJs sit in a weird position, IMO, because they have strong values and can be uncompromising in them in social situations--at least, this is how I've observed my own daughter's behavior. But we do tend to come to points of contention over the very point about which I quoted above. We hide the truth--either about ourselves or about others--for the sake of not hurting feelings (read emotions), but what we really lose is genuineness. The potential for such behavior in relationships is for it to spin wildly out of control. It's not that Fi types aren't also guilty of hiding the truth for the sake of not hurting others feelings, but I fear that we are always conscious of what is happening, and of the impending doom as well. Like I said in an earlier post of mine. Which makes you feel more guilty? hiding the truth for the sake of someone else's emotions? or telling the truth because honesty is the best policy?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Living dead said:


> I know lots of shy people who are shy not because they think they can't possibly make themselves be good enough(like I do),but because they fear being rejected and ridiculed for their values and interests and that's why they avoid people.It's one of the strangest things in the world for me.I never thought of it that way.I never thought "Oh,being...will surely make me popular,but I don't wanna be like that because it's totally not me".For me,it's more like "I know being...will make me popular,but am I good enough to be...?All the other people that act like that are way better than me in every way."
> 
> Makes sense?


Have you ever broken a bone? Or had a very sore toe or hand or some prominent part of your body that got injured and was very tender? What did you do? You protected it from others. Think of that while I mention why these people may be like this... Fi tends to be a vulnerable function, and rather innocent--at least when a child is young. You injure that child, though, and the wound takes a long time to heal, and when people are continually hitting it, bumping into it (figuratively of course), it takes even longer to heal. It's like picking a scab, too. 

The thing is, you are looking at it wrongly, like most people, and you may, by insensitivity, be keeping the wounds open. Belittling someone for their concerns doesn't help. Sadly, that seems to be the primary way that Fe types try to "fix" Fi types of feelings. "Oh, you'll get over it!" or "Just ignore them. They can't hurt you." little realizing that they aren't necessarily the ones to create the wound--they are just punching the open wound, or peeling the scab, or bumping the broken arm. Lots of time, it may not be intentional, but it may be insensitive. And for Fi, one of the defensive mechanisms to get people to stop is to lash back in harsh language, simply to get you to leave them alone. (like pushing away somebody who bumped your sore arm!)


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I mean, why this total dissing of Fi?


Fe/Fi dissing is a very common thing on these forums in general (I personally never really get why people are so touchy about it either way). Much worse than Te/Ti, Se/Si or Ne/Ni in my opinion. Maybe it's the "nature of the beast", but I honestly think it's the wrong beast a lot of people have in mind when they think of "feeling". I've been in a Fe/Fi relationship for many years, and yes, of course you get the odd clash of values (you even get that in Fe/Fe or Fi/Fi), but I honestly think people turn it into a bigger issue than it is. If both sides actually try to listen and understand each other, it works quite nicely. Everything else is just stubborn muscle-flexing.

If you look at the other side of the fence: The amount of hate against Fe brought forward by some people (often on very shaky foundations) is bordering on unreal sometimes. There are literally thousands of threads on here, dissing Fe. As if every Fe user was a superficial, spineless, manipulative, dishonest person without real values (when in fact, their values are as stable as those of an Fi user, just their orientation is a different one). On top of that, Fe is deemed "annoyingly outwardly expressive and fake". Yes, mature...

Example: If being accommodating towards other people (the "object") belongs to an Fe user's set of values, they don't stray from that value, as much as an Fi user wouldn't stray from another of their values just to _*be* _accommodating. It's just that to an Fi user, it can come across as "Fe adjusts/reacts differently to everyone, ergo it can't have any values". When in fact by doing that, the Fe user displays one of their _very_ values and doesn't stray from it an inch. 
An Fi user could come to the same conclusions/behave in the same way actually, but the process of getting there would be a different one. They would subjectively need to feel the need to be accommodating, it would be internally derived. The Fe user is accommodating because they derive that need externally, which, to them, is a very rational thing to do (so not "emotional" or "mushy", as some people seem to perceive it). Both would be very honest and genuine, and very true to their psychological type by doing that. 

The fact that in Jungian terms, many of an Fe user's values are culturally or socially determined/derived doesn't change that one bit. It's not less conscious of what is happening, and it is also well capable of going against the grain if need be. By thinking otherwise, you'd perpetuate the very stereotype against Fe that you wouldn't have against Fi for a second.

Both Fe and Fi dissing is ridiculous. "Defending" one function by dissing another is not the way forward either way. So if someone tries to understand another function by asking questions, it can only be a good thing IMHO. 
This thread is actually quite civilised compared to what I've seen before...


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

FallingSlowly said:


> This thread is actually quite civilised compared to what I've seen before...


Give me a tic, i'll bring out the war paint and spears


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Makes sense. I have difficulty wrapping my head around Ne. I can understand it sort of on an intellectual level, but that's about it - it's so distant from me with Ni being my lead function.
> 
> I don't get the judgment of pretension that some are passing. It's natural and normal to have difficulty with a function that is so distant and contradictory to how you process information.
> 
> ...



I have been trying to grasp Ni for years. I must have read dozens of pages and articles on it but... everything I learn about it seems to seemingly disappear like the most distant of memories. I suppose I just cannot relate to it at all.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> I've been in a Fe/Fi relationship for many years, and yes, of course you get the odd clash of values (you even get that in Fe/Fe or Fi/Fi), but I honestly think people turn it into a bigger issue than it is. :snip:
> If you look at the other side of the fence: The amount of hate against Fe brought forward by some people (often on very shaky foundations) is bordering on unreal sometimes. There are literally thousands of threads on here, dissing Fe. As if every Fe user was a superficial, spineless, manipulative, dishonest person without real values (when in fact, their values are as stable as those of an Fi user, just their orientation is a different one). On top of that, Fe is deemed "annoyingly outwardly expressive and fake". Yes, mature...


Well, from my perspective, one-on-one is not so much a special problem--it's just one of those things that people in relationships have to work through. IMO, the real problem is in group dynamics. As Fe grows in numbers, it grows exponentially in force/influence, and tends to just steamroll its will through. That is generally where I have problems with Fe "values." One on one, I can deal with it. In fact, my ISFJ coworker and I seldom "clashed" over our differences. We discussed them, and generally could work out a solution rather amicably, and even if things got hot, it never interfered with our decision making process (from my side, at least. He could hide his true feelings quite well if he wanted, though I always felt I could suss them out--something about me he kind of feared) ;-) It is more of a problem with my inferior-Fe wife, because she tends to use it in self-defense with her Ti, and that can be quite painful to me--but on the other hand, I pull out Te in self defense, so it's hardly like I think she's the "bad guy" in our differences. Quite the opposite, in fact... I recognize my failings that draw out those episodes from her...

But, like I said, you get Fe build-up in a group, and it can become unbearable. Sort of like in this thread. I know it's been amicable, but I do sense a certain, as I said, collective back-patting among the Fe types involved. I don't know how to explain it otherwise. Sorry.

I try to write honestly about what I see. And in this thread in particular, felt that what was wanted was an honest Fi perspective, so I gave it--no malice or bad intent--just honest perspective. If you want to know what Fi sounds or feels like, that is what you need. I doubt you will understand it anyway, but that's what I'm going to give. 

On the other hand, I don't remember ever asking myself, "I need to understand Fe." or "I need to ask someone of an Fe type to explain to me Fe." It just doesn't really enter my galaxy of things to wonder about. Maybe that's because it's always out there... But honestly, such feelings are of no interest to me... needing to know how others relate or feel or "come together". In fact, the idea of needing to talk out emotions to understand them? It's just foreign to me.... so I can't see myself asking for help in this matter... But hey, if you think you want to know about Fi... I suppose--just don't expect it to be pretty, or logical or something like what you were expecting. ;-) (actually, I believe I already know all I need to know at a practical level. Fe feels compromised or guilty when forced to compromise the sense of the whole for self--knowing that gives me all I need to know to deal with such people. But I've known that for years, even before I knew about Jung, M/B or cognitive functions--I saw it in others, and dealt with them accordingly. I found it weird, therefore, when they would fail to give me the same consideration...)

And as others have already noted. Fe descriptions of Fi are just so... hm... uh... um... wrong. It leads me to believe that maybe trying to understand Fi by an outsider is an effort in futility. ;-) Just stick with the simple fact that when Fi must compromise what is important to them for the sake of the whole, they will feel guilty and compromised, and try to offer them the same consideration for that.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Empty said:


> I have been trying to grasp Ni for years. I must have read dozens of pages and articles on it but... everything I learn about it seems to seemingly disappear like the most distant of memories. I suppose I just cannot relate to it at all.


I wonder if these failures to understand always move from the extroverted functions to the introverted ones? I mean, I think I can sort of understand how Ne operates--can't do it, but I understand it, in the sense that when I see it, I know what's happening... I understand Te, too (It's my poor inferior, after all). But Ti seems a bit outside my realm... I call it Fi without the values, but that still doesn't help me. Si, too, is just whaaa? OK, I see it in action, and know what it is, but the whys and hows? Nope. Ni is my tert, but honestly, I find that the less I try to think about it, the better it works, like an SEP. If you try to see an SEP field at work, you won't see it... 

So, is it always that people struggle with understanding the introverted functions? Or do, for instance, folks with strong Ni struggle with understanding Ne? or Ti with Te?


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Living dead said:


> Every time I try to think about Fi,I become convinced it doesn't really exists,that everyone uses Fe.


Ironically, that's how Fe works.



Living dead said:


> I just can't grasp the concept of Fi for some reason,no matter how hard I try it always looks like Fe that's trying to look like Fi for Fe-ish reasons.


Fi users have a ridiculously selfish and raw passion beyond meanings and reasoning. The rest is a vicious cycle of nuances. It's not something that can be practically "nurtured from nothing" or "consumed completely". Fi users don't need to adopt a particular manifestation to digest whatever possibility, while their psyches are already made of hypothetical meanings.

Fe users are loving you because who you are.
Fi users are loving you because who you aren't as your decision despite everything.

Fe users are hating you because what you did.
Fi users are hating you because why and how did you do that on purpose.

Fe user: _I have a feeling for you and I will make you recognize it to earn your attention._
Fi user: _I have feelings for you and you should notice some of them to earn my attention._

After all, it's not so different than Te-Ti difference.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

@_ferroequinologist_
You raise a couple of interesting points.

Personal opinion: Maybe some people, no matter if more Fe or Fi leaning overall, have an ability to understand other functions better because they're not that highly differentiated in the first place. Not every INFJ in MBTI terms has to be Ni (Fe) in Jungian terms, for example. Depending on scholar, and how they interpret Jung, there's much more scope for all sorts of mixed types. They could be Ni (Fe), Ni (Fi) or even Ni F (with a more ambivert F orientation). Probably explains why some people have a harder, and others an easier time to understand and adjust.

Speaking in general terms however, I think an Fe user understands Fi as much as an Fi user understands Fe. Or rather as little 

I personally don't think Fi users, as a whole, have Fe figured out any more than vice versa. To use your words the other way round: "Fi descriptions of Fe are just so... hm... uh... um... wrong." 
One of them, in my personal view, is this one: "In fact, the idea of needing to talk out emotions to understand them?" 
That'd be a very reductionist view of Fe, for instance. Granted, it might be related to the fact that even self-proclaimed Fe users have no grasp on what Fe actually is. Fe doesn't necessarily feel the need to talk out, or display, emotions at all (one could even argue some Fe'ers are less likely to do so because subjective feelings are the very opposite of what is required in an extraverted feeling value judgment. Not saying I necessarily agree, just food for thought). I sometimes think people mix up Fe with histrionic personality disorder 

On the subject of group dynamics: This, I can actually understand. It's something even I can find uncomfortable at times (I'm Fe aux in theory, although... see above). It massively depends on the individual setting and values shared though, and I personally also think it depends on the attitude of the dominant function and position of Fe/Fi in the stacking.

Understanding introverted functions vs extraverted ones: Not sure. One could say it's the nature of the beast (in a way, libido directed towards the object should be easier to spot), but I don't think it's as easy as that. I personally have most problems with Ne and Si. I recognise them rather easily in other people because the process is so alien to me, if that makes any sense? So recognising them: One thing. Understanding the process/trying to make some sense of it myself: Much harder.

Anyway, back on topic (sort of): By the same token Fi users are very sensitive to feeling "ganged up upon", Fe users sometimes feel that people don't understand their true workings and motives either. One could say: Whilst you feel they don't give you any consideration by e.g. forcing group values on you, they'd feel the same if you'd e.g. not yield to what's best for the group and bring the process to a halt. It's hard to negotiate at times, and I don't think one is inherently more right than the other. It depends on so many variables ("How very Fe of you", I hear you grunting, holding up Jack Sparrow's compass ).

That's why threads like this are quite good IMHO, as long as people stay respectful. Disagreeing, or not understanding despite trying, has no personal component, I hope everyone knows that. 

Truth is probably that most of the time, no one's really out to get anyone...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> Fe/Fi dissing is a very common thing on these forums in general (I personally never really get why people are so touchy about it either way). Much worse than Te/Ti, Se/Si or Ne/Ni in my opinion. Maybe it's the "nature of the beast", but I honestly think it's the wrong beast a lot of people have in mind when they think of "feeling". I've been in a Fe/Fi relationship for many years, and yes, of course you get the odd clash of values (you even get that in Fe/Fe or Fi/Fi), but I honestly think people turn it into a bigger issue than it is. If both sides actually try to listen and understand each other, it works quite nicely. Everything else is just stubborn muscle-flexing.


Ironically though, I always see Fe types expressing this sentiment along the lines of "but if everyone just kind of tried a little harder to get along we would all get along so much better".

There's a certain irony to it. Sure, communication is always important and this goes beyond type as it applies to all relationships, but this particular logos is intrinsically Fe-derived in nature. Personally I am of the opinion that we can still respect each other while disagreeing and we don't even have to listen in order to do that, because respecting you as a person goes beyond listening to you as a person. I can't put it better than that.


----------



## mandarintrees (Mar 22, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Well, you still sound pretentious--even more so in your second post. Furthermore, I see Fe as uncompromising, and unsympathetic, attempting to make me obey, whether I agree or not. Fe is force of will over others whom you have no real right to do so. That's how I perceive it very often. For instance, Political correctness is an Fe value power play. (SFJ in particular) I find your attitude towards Fi very much in this vein.  And no, I don't take it personally...
> 
> I really don't know how to help you simply accept that some people approach their values differently than you.


Whoa, that's harsh. I don't think LivingDead was acting pretentious. I genuinely see that she is confused and attempting to explain her rationalization so that you might point out her flaws so better to understand Fi, which might have come off as pretentious, but was probably genuinely earnest. 

On that note-- I think you misunderstand Fe. I'm not sure how SFJs operate, but ENFJs, at least, are very opposite of that.  Please don't make these accusations-- they are unfair and untrue.


----------



## mandarintrees (Mar 22, 2014)

Laeona said:


> My ENFJ best friend had a gift for understanding how to put people together in a group and have them accomplish something great. That was his beautiful Fe at work. I marveled at the ease with which he helped them work together and fostered group spirit.
> 
> When he was having difficulty with a friendship or relationship, he often came to me and put the story out on the table, a blow by blow of what was said and done by him and the other person. Sometimes I could read correspondence between the two. I was adept at teasing out what was going on, both inside him, and the other person, and from there, my ENFJ friend could usually work things out. Figuring out what was going on inside individual people was my Fi at work.
> 
> ...


Typical casualty/tragedy of ENFJ/INFP relations, I've found.  Pretty common.


----------



## mandarintrees (Mar 22, 2014)

KCfox said:


> Fi and Fe can act like each other on the surface.
> One way to tell if someone strongly uses Fe is how they communicate. Fe is going to communicate outwardly with emotion and consider other people's ethics in a conversation, Te is going to say hell no if it disagrees. Fe is socially submissive and objective, Fi is socially dominate and subjective. Fe enjoys the conversation, Fi enjoys the topic if it really relates to them (though Fe can do this if it's upset or doesn't understand what's being said at all. Tell an Fe child about an everyday life story, s/he will smile and listen, tell a Fi child about it and s/he'll be more like "are we finished yet?" In this sense, Fi prefers to choose what it hears, Fe prefers to feel good for listening to the person they know.
> 
> Fi is hence often regarded the selfish function, though it can elect to be selfless but it takes more conscious effort.
> ...


Best explanation I've ever heard. Makes me wonder-- to what extent can dom-Fe practice and become adept at Fi? And vice versa?


----------



## mandarintrees (Mar 22, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Makes sense. I have difficulty wrapping my head around Ne. I can understand it sort of on an intellectual level, but that's about it - it's so distant from me with Ni being my lead function.
> 
> I don't get the judgment of pretension that some are passing. It's natural and normal to have difficulty with a function that is so distant and contradictory to how you process information.
> 
> ...


Such a precise and thoughtful explanation.  I think this really is the best way for ENFJs to make sense of Fi-- by comparing it to Ti. It really seems the perfect comparison.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> I personally don't think Fi users, as a whole, have Fe figured out any more than vice versa. To use your words the other way round: "Fi descriptions of Fe are just so... hm... uh... um... wrong."
> One of them, in my personal view, is this one: "In fact, the idea of needing to talk out emotions to understand them?"


Just a quick comment on this point. I don't know that I have read this in any description. This is just something my wife (Fe-inferior) has told me for ages (long before we discovered MBTI an' 'at). And, in fact, my two daughters, INFJ and ENFJ have concurred with her on that point. We like to talk philosophically on things in our house, and this one, in relation to things that have happened in our lives, has come up on occasion. In fact, it is just this sort of thing--finding out things we have long known about ourselves--having explanations in the Jungian functions that convinced me of how accurate it is. ;-)

But again, I don't remember if I read this in any Fe description. I just know it from my family, and how they are so befuddled by my lack of need. I think we used to just chalk it up to guy/girl differences, but really, it's much more nuanced than that.


----------



## mandarintrees (Mar 22, 2014)

FallingSlowly said:


> Fe/Fi dissing is a very common thing on these forums in general (I personally never really get why people are so touchy about it either way). Much worse than Te/Ti, Se/Si or Ne/Ni in my opinion. Maybe it's the "nature of the beast", but I honestly think it's the wrong beast a lot of people have in mind when they think of "feeling". I've been in a Fe/Fi relationship for many years, and yes, of course you get the odd clash of values (you even get that in Fe/Fe or Fi/Fi), but I honestly think people turn it into a bigger issue than it is. If both sides actually try to listen and understand each other, it works quite nicely. Everything else is just stubborn muscle-flexing.
> 
> If you look at the other side of the fence: The amount of hate against Fe brought forward by some people (often on very shaky foundations) is bordering on unreal sometimes. There are literally thousands of threads on here, dissing Fe. As if every Fe user was a superficial, spineless, manipulative, dishonest person without real values (when in fact, their values are as stable as those of an Fi user, just their orientation is a different one). On top of that, Fe is deemed "annoyingly outwardly expressive and fake". Yes, mature...
> 
> ...


I want to thank you a thousand times.  
As an ENFJ, I've never felt better defended or had my Fe better understood (even better than I could have expressed myself). This is obviously hyperbole, but really, thank you.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

> An example might be something like: (Fi) Noticing that a person says one thing and then does another vs. (Ti) Noticing that an imaginary universe's logic in X area contradicts itself in Y area.


But doesn't everyone notice such things?I always notice,but I don't care at all as long as the person is nice to me.
And I can notice what most people do isn't the best maybe or whatever,but it doesn't matter at all to me because what they think is important,I don't get anything from thinking they are wrong.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Or is it my Ti then noticing it from logical perspective,but not reacting emotionally or something like that?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

mandarintrees said:


> Whoa, that's harsh. I don't think LivingDead was acting pretentious. I genuinely see that she is confused and attempting to explain her rationalization so that you might point out her flaws so better to understand Fi, which might have come off as pretentious, but was probably genuinely earnest.
> 
> On that note-- I think you misunderstand Fe. I'm not sure how SFJs operate, but ENFJs, at least, are very opposite of that.  Please don't make these accusations-- they are unfair and untrue.


Did you miss my point that I didn't take it personally? What I was trying to do was be evocative to show how Fi perceives such things. I hope and don't think that @Living dead took it personally. If so, then I apologize. I was merely trying to make a point with my use of language. I thought that the followup posts seem to understand the spirit in which I wrote. Sigh... 

And now you posted this, I have to confess that, as an ISFP I frequently find my Fi creating problems with people close to me, and I truly admire my daughter's ability to effect people for good (She's ENFJ). She's only 17, but she is able to somehow even effect people 20 years or more older than her in amazing ways. That is the good side of Fe, and one that can make someone jealous. ;-) But the sad truth is, try as I might, I could never change the way I am. When I attempt to exude Fe-type feelings, I tend to fail--the effect is never what I was expecting or hoping for...


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

how do Fe and Fi (primarily dom and aux Fe/Fi users) manifest themselves in the user when in a romantic relationship?


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I think we used to just chalk it up to guy/girl differences, but really, it's much more nuanced than that.


I think that the female/male dynamic definitely plays into this to an extent, but as you say: It's not all, and not every woman/man behaves in a stereotypical way. 

Funnily enough, my Fi dom partner is a very outwardly expressive type, and he has no problems to talk about superficial feelings. The deeper ones, on the other hand - not so much.
I am a lot quieter than he is actually, but when I talk, I am very animated. Verbal communication of feelings though - meh, depends. It is a necessity to make relationships work, and I also use it in my coaching work because it helps with the process. I don't communicate them to everyone though, I don't feel a generalised need to "talk things through".

If you didn't know us and had a very shoddy grasp on functions, you would probably say he's a Feeler and I'm a Thinker. He seems quite "soft" to the person who doesn't know him that well, and I can seem rather detached (has been communicated to me more than once). 

I personally prefer to leave this whole "emotions" thing out of the equation if I'm honest, because everyone has them. It says comparably little about our perception and our judgment process IMHO. If one wants to add emotions to it, then I'd rather not talk about how I communicate them, but how other people's emotions affect a person's judgment, or how they perceive them. Alas, you can spot the problem already


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That's why I see Fi, as kind of, Boy meets world. Fi is theory. Fe is application of theory, that puts theory to the test. It has no value to the theory itself, it has value in results.
> 
> I just watched Lincoln, and it gave some great quotes on Fe and pragmatism in general. Actually used a compass example. Lincoln was arguing with a guy who was hell bent on ending slavery. He had a moral compass, and he knew where it went. North was absolute.
> 
> But that is blindness... Lincoln used the analogy of following a compass. The map is not the terrain. It points the right way, but it doesn't show the swamp, the cliffs, and every other obstacle in the way. If you end up taking it, you will actually fail. So, if you just go straight North, you're gonna fall on your face. You have to take into account every obstacle on the route. Take it as it comes. You will find North eventually, but you will deviate from the path many times.


what's nice about this is it also gives a good Te-Ti parallel. 
the frustration of the Fe user regarding Fi has many parallels to the Te user regarding Ti.

The "most correct" vs the "most effective" in a way?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Modal Soul said:


> how do Fe and Fi (primarily dom and aux Fe/Fi users) manifest themselves in the user when in a romantic relationship?


Sexually


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Ironically though, I always see Fe types expressing this sentiment along the lines of "but if everyone just kind of tried a little harder to get along we would all get along so much better".
> 
> There's a certain irony to it. Sure, communication is always important and this goes beyond type as it applies to all relationships, but this particular logos is intrinsically Fe-derived in nature. Personally I am of the opinion that we can still respect each other while disagreeing and we don't even have to listen in order to do that, because respecting you as a person goes beyond listening to you as a person. I can't put it better than that.


We're actually on the same page, and I think that most mature Fe users wouldn't argue with those points. I also never came across a mature Fi user who didn't see the necessity for consensus/compromise at times.

The only thing I personally feel slightly differently about is the "no need to listen" part. For me (and just for me, so not trying to imply people have to see it the same way), listening to other people is the very foundation of respect. Listening is not equivalent to agreeing. I always listen to what someone has to say though, maybe in an attempt to try and understand where they're coming from. Sometimes I do, sometimes I fail. Normal I guess. 

I think sometimes, people can mistake stating your point/a reply as trying to convince them, which isn't necessarily the case. It's just offering another point of view (provided the situation warrants it - sometimes, it's just better to keep your mouth shut ). Whether someone identifies or not is up to them, not me.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

yet another intj said:


> Fe users are loving you because who you are.
> Fi users are loving you because who you aren't as your decision despite everything.


didn;'t understand this? what is the Fi one saying. is there a word missing?



> Fe users are hating you because what you did.
> Fi users are hating you because why and how did you do that on purpose.


I'm not sure this one is accurate. I think motive/intent is very important to Fe. Actually, I'm gonna go with-- your motive during your behavior was more important that the behavior itself. Mmm, maybe motive is vague. To put it in a more Fe-way--- your feelings towards me and what that says about the definition of our relationship is the most important thing. If I can change my mindset about what the relationship framework is, I remove like 80% of the hurt. 
Then I try doing that in a conflict with an Fi user and they get pissed at me for playing games and dismissing their feelings.



> Fe user: _I have a feeling for you and I will make you recognize it to earn your attention._
> Fi user: _I have feelings for you and you should notice some of them to earn my attention._


ouch that one hits far too close to home. -wince-


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Empty said:


> I have been trying to grasp Ni for years. I must have read dozens of pages and articles on it but... everything I learn about it seems to seemingly disappear like the most distant of memories. I suppose I just cannot relate to it at all.


I find it strange when Ne users say they can't relate to Ni, it just shows how awful the descriptions of Ni are. Both functions are intuition so they work the same way, Ne users have a better reference to Ni, than say Si. So think of your intuition and instead of expanding an idea outward (all the possible places it can go) think of it as using the same technique to bring it to a point (shedding away the possibilities and finding the meaning or core.) Ne finds the relevancy in all the new relations a concept brings and Ni eliminates obscure relations and looks for the most accurate one. Where Ne accepts every small connection, Ni looks for the strongest connection. We both use non-tangible information to get there. We just move a concept in opposite directions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> We're actually on the same page, and I think that most mature Fe users wouldn't argue with those points. I also never came across a mature Fi user who didn't see the necessity for consensus/compromise at times.
> 
> The only thing I personally feel slightly differently about is the "no need to listen" part. For me (and just for me, so not trying to imply people have to see it the same way), listening to other people is the very foundation of respect. Listening is not equivalent to agreeing. I always listen to what someone has to say though, maybe in an attempt to try and understand where they're coming from. Sometimes I do, sometimes I fail. Normal I guess.
> 
> I think sometimes, people can mistake stating your point/a reply as trying to convince them, which isn't necessarily the case. It's just offering another point of view (provided the situation warrants it - sometimes, it's just better to keep your mouth shut ). Whether someone identifies or not is up to them, not me.


There are times I don't want to listen to people simply because I disagree. I can still respect them as people though I will definitely not respect their opinions, but if their opinions are seen as too negative to me, then I can't take them seriously either.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I find it strange when Ne users say they can't relate to Ni, it just shows how awful the descriptions of Ni are. Both functions are intuition so they work the same way, Ne users have a better reference to Ni, than say Si. So think of your intuition and instead of expanding an idea outward (all the possible places it can go) think of it as using the same technique to bring it to a point (shedding away the possibilities and finding the meaning or core.) Ne finds the relevancy in all the new relations a concept brings and Ni eliminates obscure relations and looks for the most accurate one. Where Ne accepts every small connection, Ni looks for the strongest connection. We both use non-tangible information to get there. We just move a concept in opposite directions.


i don't know why it's strange.
I find it easiest to understand something I've had some kinds of experience with. (for example, once I've identified one member of a type, it becomes 500% easier for me to identify other members of the same type)
I have experience with Si. 

Whereas Ni is an abstraction. And it's an abstraction that is a bit hard for me to arrive at by my usual method, i.e. taking various related things I _do_ have experience with and sort of averaging them together. 

In understanding Ni I tend to stick with the converging/diverging idea. I don't understand what it means or feels like to converge on one idea, i just abstractly sort of wrap my head around the concept as a whole.

me, doing my best to generally grasp the concept of Ni:









_let's try this..._










_eh, good enough

_
edit: truthfully i basically suffer regarding Ni the same issue the OP had with Fi-- any conception of Ni I come up with seems to boil down to "weird Ne that reaches weird conclusions". Which is obviously wrong, hence why I end up going with the boa constrictor approach.

edit #2: i wonder if that is basically the attitude of all Xe to the corresponding Xi?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> i don't know why it's strange.
> I find it easiest to understand something I've had some kinds of hands-on experience with. (for example, once I've identified one member of a type, it becomes 500% easier for me to identify other members of the same type)
> I have hands on experience with Si.
> 
> ...


As an intuitive you should understand the method. Our minds work in the same exact way. We just go in different directions with a concept. You don't get to see our Ni in its purist form, but it is the same as yours. We just internalize it. Granted, you see our extraverted judging functions, which probably doesn't help in the understanding of it. However, the method is exactly the same. We take in all the impressions, ideas, energies, possibilities, thoughts, analogies, etc. of a concept. We just narrow where you expand. 

My point is to show that both intuitive functions work the same. A lot of definitions make Ni seem magical, mystical, or fanatical. Just because it's internal doesn't make it so different from Ne.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> As an intuitive you should understand the method. Our minds work in the same exact way. We just go in different directions with a concept. You don't get to see our Ni in its purist form, but it is the same as yours. We just internalize it. Granted, you see our extraverted judging functions, which probably doesn't help in the understanding of it. However, the method is exactly the same. We take in all the impressions, ideas, energies, possibilities, thoughts, analogies, etc. of a concept. We just narrow where you expand.
> 
> My point is to show that both intuitive functions work the same. A lot of definitions make Ni seem magical, mystical, or fanatical. Just because it's internal doesn't make it so different from Ne.


but what does it mean to narrow, rather than to expand? 
on an Ne-graspy-of-concept-y level, what is the _concept_ of a narrowed idea? Descriptions of Ni speak of the core, key essence of the idea or somesuch. then i think i sort of understand and then i listen to Ni users talking about Ni things and I'm like "nope. nope."

also we should probably take this convo to one of the countless Ne Ni threads... not that I'm not enjoying it


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> edit #2: i wonder if that is basically the attitude of all Xe to the corresponding Xi?[/SIZE][/SIZE]


Ti and Ni are definitely the functions I struggle to comprehend the most, so I could buy that there's some truth to this.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

few things:
1. i like this thread. and it definitely gave me a chance for some insight into Fi
2. I think (?) it is accurate to say that Fe needs to be "stoked". What I mean is, Fi seems to sort of sustain itself. people asked about Fi/Fe in a relationship, well, it seems like the Fi would have these strong feelings and they would be pretty steady unless outright attacked, and the Fi user would give to the partner because that's what they want to do, but it will be... in their own way... but for the Fe user, feelings need to be fanned, there needs to be a sort of dynamic/interplay. Fe users give and the partner's response to that giving reinforces/strengthens their feelings... and they also need the giving back, the words of affirmation or the things like that, because when their partner externally expresses an emotion, they will mirror it back and it will grow in themselves as well... 
...I mean, this is not exactly a new insight, but Fi users can sometimes be very sparse in the emotional feedback they give out, I'm not talking "discussing emotions" since that's also culturally gender-linked but I mean even things like flirting, little compliments or intimate body language. (I can definitely think of exceptions to this generalization.) the point is, Fe users need those kind of signals to help them center their own feelings. I think.




ferroequinologist said:


> On the other hand, I don't remember ever asking myself, "I need to understand Fe." or "I need to ask someone of an Fe type to explain to me Fe." It just doesn't really enter my galaxy of things to wonder about. Maybe that's because it's always out there... But honestly, such feelings are of no interest to me... needing to know how others relate or feel or "come together". In fact, the idea of needing to talk out emotions to understand them? It's just foreign to me.... so I can't see myself asking for help in this matter... But hey, if you think you want to know about Fi... I suppose--just don't expect it to be pretty, or logical or something like what you were expecting. ;-)


well i guess wanting that sort of knowledge is very Fe in flavor?
although INFP is most common on this site-- i guess Fi interest in psych is more knowing oneself? (but this doesn;t seem to match what i've seen among Fi users-- so why are so many Fi users interested in psychology?)


it doesn;t need to be pretty and logical, it;s just... even having the experience described, can help in believing that it's, you know, _real_. 




> (actually, I believe I already know all I need to know at a practical level. Fe feels compromised or guilty when forced to compromise the sense of the whole for self--knowing that gives me all I need to know to deal with such people. But I've known that for years, even before I knew about Jung, M/B or cognitive functions--I saw it in others, and dealt with them accordingly. I found it weird, therefore, when they would fail to give me the same consideration...).


seems kinda true, even for Fe-inferior types... they just feel it more distantly than upper-level Fe, I think.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Ti and Ni are definitely the functions I struggle to comprehend the most, so I could buy that there's some truth to this.



perhaps its because all Xi functions are subjective relative to objective Xe counterparts....?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> but what does it mean to narrow, rather than to expand?
> on an Ne-graspy-of-concept-y level, what is the _concept_ of a narrowed idea? Descriptions of Ni speak of the core, key essence of the idea or somesuch. then i think i sort of understand and then i listen to Ni users talking about Ni things and I'm like "nope. nope."
> 
> also we should probably take this convo to one of the countless Ne Ni threads... not that I'm not enjoying it


I started a thread with my response: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/196890-how-ni-ne-alike.html#post5274034


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> You should look at why it bothers you, in a subjective way or in an objective way? For me, I've spent time in line and for someone to discount my time and assume they get special treatment is annoying. It's subjective to me. If I were to think the line jumper broke a social rule that bothered every person in line and the whole structure of social rules, then that would be Fe.


i guess it's both. it really annoys me, but i think it's rude to cut a bunch of people who have been waiting. we've all been waiting, so why should this person go first? i feel both subjectively and objectively annoyed by it


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

I have a question:Which one is it if I assume that person who jumped in front of me did it because I looked like someone who deserves such treatment?
Every time someone does something impolite like that I take it soooo personally,I always think they'd never do it to other people.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Living dead said:


> I have a question:Which one is it if I assume that person who jumped in front of me did it because I looked like someone who deserves such treatment?
> Every time someone does something impolite like that I take it soooo personally,I always think they'd never do it to other people.


Hm... I dunno. My mom was really bad about that. She was also quite paranoid in general. I don't know her type, but my closest guess would be ISFJ, due to the descriptions of inferior Ne, but I don't know what is the cause for these feelings of hers. For myself, I can't say that I think people are targeting me in particular like this. Though in one-and-one interactions with people, I may sense a negative attitude towards me, but never think that in impersonal interactions...


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> It is a vast oversimplification that doesn't quite hit it, and as we should all know, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. ;-)
> 
> I am constantly questioning and examining my values--internally. They may have come from somewhere else or somebody else--from my childhood, the Bible, watching others, and seeing how things played out, or from my own experience. The common factor is that these are my values, unique to me. I don't expect nor ask everybody else to conform to them. If you ask me about my more general values, I will share them with you, and the ones I consider to be more universal, I may even be more willing to try to convince you of, but even then, I respect everyone's right and responsibility to disagree and to reach their own conclusions. I have no right to force myself upon you, unless public safety is at stake. There is a bit of truth to the absoluteness of them, because once something becomes settled, it's pretty settled, and not likely to change--not, mind you, that I won't be willing to entertain conflicting data, and I have been known to change my mind on things, but it isn't something that is going to change, simply because someone tells me I'm wrong, or I ought to for the "common good". The only times I want to change others is when I'm stressed out, and then my Te kicks in, throws out a bunch of black and white judgments, and then wakes up, recognizes how stupid it it, and goes back in its shell...
> 
> Maybe you should think of Fi as an iceberg--an enormous chunk of it exists beyond your perception. What you see (the absoluteness--probably expressed through Te) of it, is all you see on the outside. But what's going on on the inside is not absolute. It always feels in a state of flux, questioning and reevaluating.


See, the problem is, the more Fi users explain Fi, the more it simply seems that it's the same as what I use - I don't get the all-encompassing difference that people talk about. If someone tells me my value is wrong and that I should sacrifice it for the common good, I'm going to say like hell I'm gonna do that - unless I feel myself that it would be better for me to sacrifice it for the common good. I don't follow what everyone else says just to keep the peace, and that seems to be the general description of Fe. Rather, I see Fi users say time and again "Fi is about internal values. Fe is about external values (or no personal values at all)." That doesn't make sense to me, because that isn't the way I work, and I'm pretty sure I use Fe. Therefore, I eventually come to the conclusion that Fi and Fe aren't really about values at all, and come back to the explanation you made earlier in another thread, which I can comprehend:



> *To attempt to summarize: Fi is about the subject, how it's impacted or impressed upon. Fe is about the object, how to express or impress upon the object. Fi says that all it knows is the subject, and how it would feel. While Fe says that what matters is the object, and how to express to the object.*


Therefore, I don't see that they are value functions at all, but that they are how one views themselves vs others.

Unless we say that Fi believes that all values are independent, and do not affect each other (each person is an island, with their own rules that govern only themselves), and Fe believes that all values are dependent upon each other, and do affect each other (we're all islands, but have one ultimate rule system which impacts us all).
Yes? No?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

candiemerald said:


> See, the problem is, the more Fi users explain Fi, the more it simply seems that it's the same as what I use - I don't get the all-encompassing difference that people talk about. If someone tells me my value is wrong and that I should sacrifice it for the common good, I'm going to say like hell I'm gonna do that - unless I feel myself that it would be better for me to sacrifice it for the common good. I don't follow what everyone else says just to keep the peace, and that seems to be the general description of Fe. Rather, I see Fi users say time and again "Fi is about internal values. Fe is about external values (or no personal values at all)." That doesn't make sense to me, because that isn't the way I work, and I'm pretty sure I use Fe. Therefore, I eventually come to the conclusion that Fi and Fe aren't really about values at all, and come back to the explanation you made earlier in another thread, which I can comprehend:


Have you given any thought that you might not be INFJ? ;-) More seriously, what did I say in the other thread?

Think of the differences maybe this way. Fi focuses on how others impact you, and Fe focuses on how you impact others. For instance, I don't normally think about how my actions will impact what others think or feel (in fact, I can be quite oblivious) unless there has been some reason for it--somebody says something or I have prior experience with similar situations, but even in such cases, my awareness is of rather secondary consideration, and comes back to that sense of guilt I've mentioned. 



> Unless we say that Fi believes that all values are independent, and do not affect each other (each person is an island, with their own rules that govern only themselves), and Fe believes that all values are dependent upon each other, and do affect each other (we're all islands, but have one ultimate rule system which impacts us all).
> Yes? No?


I kind of agree with this--not that there aren't universal values, but that my values can't impact or change your values. I can't convince you to change yours, and don't expect to be able to change mine. It is this that causes Fe expressions to make me bristle. It's the idea that you think you can enforce them or force them upon me. Like I said, not that there aren't, IMO, universal values, but that each of us has to discover and follow them on our own. That's your responsibility not mine, and my responsibility for me, not yours. Discussion is not disavowed here, just the right or ability for one to force one's values on the other. But not only do I have no right, I have no power or ability to do so... So, yeah, each of us is an island, or own galaxy of feelings and values.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

Living dead said:


> I have a question:Which one is it if I assume that person who jumped in front of me did it because I looked like someone who deserves such treatment?
> Every time someone does something impolite like that I take it soooo personally,I always think they'd never do it to other people.


i'm not sure what that is, or anything i said in my tangent is related to Fi or Fe, but it's interesting that you see it that way! because i think i see it the opposite way. what i don't get is how many people can act like this without caring and/or noticing. i think of it as they cut in front of all of us and they are a selfish jerk...i don't see it as a reflection on myself, but a negative reflection on them.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Have you given any thought that you might not be INFJ? ;-) More seriously, what did I say in the other thread?
> 
> Think of the differences maybe this way. Fi focuses on how others impact you, and Fe focuses on how you impact others. For instance, I don't normally think about how my actions will impact what others think or feel (in fact, I can be quite oblivious) unless there has been some reason for it--somebody says something or I have prior experience with similar situations, but even in such cases, my awareness is of rather secondary consideration, and comes back to that sense of guilt I've mentioned.
> 
> ...


I have, yes. I've even seriously considered INTJ lately, because it almost seems as if my thinking qualities outweigh my Fe. But I really don't think so, since Ni/Fe/Ti seems to fit me best. Except the usual descriptions of Fe don't fit me at all...

Yes, that's what it boils down to, and that makes sense - and proves me Fe rather than Fi, methinks. I don't understand the complication, then, since that is pretty basic and easy to understand. It doesn't seem to suggest that Fe and Fi have anything to do with values, however, but simply with how we relate to others.

Interesting. I can't say I disagree with that. Perhaps, however, Fi focuses on how each person interprets universal values, and what those values mean to them specifically, and Fe focuses on the universal values themselves, and how, ultimately the universal values affect everyone in the same way.
So, ultimately, Fe and Fi is not about difference in values, but about difference in focus.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

I have a theory when it comes to Fe and I'm hoping that some Fi users can elaborate on Fi as well based on this theory (to give the opposing perspective). @_FallingSlowly_ had some great insight and this is what got me thinking about how I conduct my own emotions as an Fe user.

I do believe that it's false that Fe doesn't feel emotions internally, because the emotion has to start somewhere. What I think happens is, Fi comes to the conclusion that Fe is projecting an empty emotion, because it's projected outwardly rather than "internalized" or asking the self, and I can imagine how that's confusing, because Fi confuses me in that same sense.

Here is an example of that in theory:

When somebody upsets me or says something that goes against my Fe values, my first instinct is project my emotion outwardly. What made me think of this is, the more I keep an emotion built up inside of me, the more uncomfortable and unjustified I feel (I can become unhealthy). I have a hard time internalizing emotions in general, it needs to come out out eventually.

This is why I said if I'm happy, I'm smiling/laughing. If I'm pissed, my body language is going to project that. But, this doesn't mean that I don't or can't keep my emotions to myself, because I do and have other ways of processing them outwardly (writing, thinking them through, talking out loud, etc).

I have an INFP ex and I can actually see this disconnect now. She used to keep her emotions to herself, and I always felt it was selfish of her to let me feel so upset (to want to express my emotions), and for her not to express how she felt in-return (she was internalizing her emotions compared to her values). 

_Why can't you see that I'm unhappy right now? Do you not care/love me?

_Like how I project my emotions, I too need to see them to determine how others are feeling, because I expect them to project their emotions the same way that I do. But this is where Fi will say to Fe, "You don't know how I'm feeling!" Through time, I can also learn to use my emotions differently depending on Ni I would assume, as I'll want to collect enough information to learn how to use Fe correctly (maybe something ENFJ have a harder time doing, seeing as they have a judgement before a perception.).

I do feel emotions! I just have to project them out to feel understood/justified/and one with those around me.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

bear with me, i have just a little thoughtspill here on some stuff.

i don't think Fi/Fe are so much about _emotions_. i think they are more about just how we operate out in the world. "feeling" just means we make decisions based on relationships/affecting others in contrast to how thinkers operate out in the world.

as an Fi user, i see Fe (maybe just dominant Fe? not sure) as being outwardly warm, making individuals or a group feel a warm, positive, uplifting feeling, building people up, being inspiring. they intentionally want to affect others and do have an effect on others. isn't MLK an ENFJ? he's a good example of what i am thinking of. i mean this in a symbolic/archetypal sort of way, not that every Fe user is exactly like this.

for me, as an Fi user, when a friend comes to me with a problem, i can try to imagine how i would feel if i was to walk in their shoes (i actually do this automatically, i think it's Fi+Ne) of course i may not *truly* know, but i try to give advice based on that sort of thought process. i am not harsh, but i do not "sugar coat" i may not come off as totally positive or entirely take their side, but i try to be honest in a diplomatic, supportive but compassionate way. (hope this makes sense.)


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> isn't MLK an ENFJ?


People like MLK are really just obvious. I want to know how to identify the less obvious Fe-users though, like INFJ, ISFJ, or even the T.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

uncertain said:


> People like MLK are really just obvious. I want to know how to identify the less obvious Fe-users though, like INFJ, ISFJ, or even the T.


ok, well i can't help you there, i was just trying to use a person/archetype to explain how i interpret a function, not how to tell what someone is by how they act necessarily.

though i will say that the archetype of the nurse immediately comes to mind when i think of ISFJ.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm willing to agree with @Living dead if Fi users do really say they arent influenced by reactions from others. That sounds like a huge lie to me.

Fi is more like upsetting others rather than regretting your decision later, for me at least. I cant understand their difference unless there is conflict between them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

uncertain said:


> People like MLK are really just obvious. I want to know how to identify the less obvious Fe-users though, like INFJ, ISFJ, or even the T.


I often do process of elimination for typing. I have a friend. I know he is a feeler, I know he is an introvert, I know he is a perceiver. So he is an ISFP or INFP. 

INFJ is very hard to type. I assume any IxFJ is an ISFJ. I just know I'm one from my internal processes. My default state is a heavy state of associate dreaming/thinking. INFJ are weirder than ENFJ or ISFJ. They can hide it well, but if you pay close enough attention, it will eventually seep through. 

Fe doms are obvious because they feel right into people. MLK just connects instantly. INFJ longs for that same kind of connection, but has a wall between it. Which I find easy to spot. They like to help behind the scenes, and don't drawn attention to themselves. I think INFJ are unnatural Fe users, because they come from such a detached point of view, Ni. It's a very strange combination. You have Fe, which wants to connect so much, to transcend collectively. Then you have Ni, which is in it's way. Which is the most detached from the outside world than any other function. 

A lot of T users simply have a hardness to them that F does not. It's a demeanor.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

mirrorghost said:


> bear with me, i have just a little thoughtspill here on some stuff.
> 
> i don't think Fi/Fe are so much about _emotions_. i think they are more about just how we operate out in the world. "feeling" just means we make decisions based on relationships/affecting others in contrast to how thinkers operate out in the world.
> 
> ...


Yes, Fe is outwardly warm. INFJ is more outwardly warm than INFP, but INFJ is cold on the inside, while INFP is warm on inside. INFP appears more detached than INFJ, but INFJ is actually more detached. We just hide it better.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, Fe is outwardly warm. INFJ is more outwardly warm than INFP, but INFJ is cold on the inside, while INFP is warm on inside. INFP appears more detached than INFJ, but INFJ is actually more detached. We just hide it better.


yeah that sounds about right to me. i follow this INFJ on twitter and she comes off pretty cold online, while i probably come off warmer, but i come off warmer online than i do in real life. my in real life INFJ friends are definitely outwardly more warm but colder inside than me.

sooo...INFx's are maybe just hard to read in general...


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I often do process of elimination for typing. I have a friend. I know he is a feeler, I know he is an introvert, I know he is a perceiver. So he is an ISFP or INFP.
> 
> INFJ is very hard to type. I assume any IxFJ is an ISFJ. I just know I'm one from my internal processes. My default state is a heavy state of associate dreaming/thinking. INFJ are weirder than ENFJ or ISFJ. They can hide it well, but if you pay close enough attention, it will eventually seep through.
> 
> ...


I would have to agree, I find there are moments where I won't express my emotions simply based on my Ni insights. It's not only good for trying to figure out the emotions/motives of others, but learning how to hide yourself as well. I'm not saying this is always healthy behavior, but this is ideally how an INFJ manipulates people with emotions and turns a situation upside down.

An ENFP once told me and this made sense about INFJs/ENFJS:

INFJs have the weird ability to get people to open up to them without any effort.
ENFJs get people to open up to them by expressing themselves.

Fe in INFJs have a much different flavor than with ISFJs, seeing as they base their judgements around experience.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> INFJ is very hard to type. I assume any IxFJ is an ISFJ. I just know I'm one from my internal processes.


So ISFJ and INFJ look the same?


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

uncertain said:


> So ISFJ and INFJ look the same?


They can look alike due to Fe/Ti, but you can usually tell them apart based on Ni/Si.

You have an ISFJ friend if she/he is giving you advice based on past experience (very grounded advice).
You have an INFJ if they're giving you advice based insight, trying to get you to see both sides of the coin to make a decision.

Si - this is what you should do based on my own experience or what I have learned.
Ni - I'm going to give you a couple of ideas and let you decide on the best option based on what I see.

It's really hard to explain, honestly. They can look very much alike, but I find Si/Ni go in completely opposite directions.

ISFJ are usually concrete.
INFJs are usually abstract.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

crashbandicoot said:


> I'm willing to agree with @_Living dead_ if Fi users do really say they arent *influenced *by reactions from others. That sounds like a huge lie to me.


What do you mean by "influenced" in this sentence? I suspect you don't mean what I would mean...


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Living dead said:


> Every time I try to think about Fi,I become convinced it doesn't really exists,that everyone uses Fe.I just can't grasp the concept of Fi for some reason,no matter how hard I try it always looks like Fe that's trying to look like Fi for Fe-ish reasons.


Fe: We should all be together, DON'T YOU THINK!
Fi: I wan't to go to this party./ I don't want to go to this party. (depending on which one it is).

Well.... Fi doms do either whatever they want or whatever somebody else wants, but not what should be done according to Te or Fe.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> i guess it's both. it really annoys me, but i think it's rude to cut a bunch of people who have been waiting. we've all been waiting, so why should this person go first? i feel both subjectively and objectively annoyed by it


No, no... you think it objectively absurd... and subjectively/abstractly wrong. (Given that you are an Fi/Te)

An Fe/Ti would not approach if it were nonsensical so objectively. "Maybe," Ti opines, "it was a rather good idea... it depends on whether or not it caused any harm."

We look outward for signs of actual harm... to feed back into Ti to see if it is an abstractly logical thing to do.

Te assesses the situation pragmatically and at face value, up front... it uses this to determine internally if it is abstractly right or wrong. 

A good rule of thumb is to ask ... if some of the people hesitated a moment, but then relented and seemed fine with it... would you change your mind based on that about whether or not it was wrong. After all, it is not doing any actual harm. I am removing you from the line to make it more clear. 

I think that most Fe types would, say, "No one has a problem so there is no problem. He is a jerk, but it seems to be fine."
To which Fi type replies, " ...and he was banking on people giving him a pass. It's still wrong. Everyone rolling over changes nothing."


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

Okay, I think I was rather off with my original understanding of Fi vs Fe. I stole this from @Aelthwyn from the Do people with Fe even have feelings of their own? thread - I think this describes Fi vs Fe very well. I think I finally understand the difference:


Aelthwyn said:


> I think Fi compares outside input against an internal 'standard', while it seems more like Fe compares internal input against an external 'standard'. Thus Fi doesn't necessarily seek out something to compare their internal state to, just waits until it comes to them. But until the external checks have been conducted, Fe may feel uncertain, vague, not fully solidified. This might explain why your emotions seem to become more clear only after you've spoken with someone else. It's not that your feelings aren't 'yours', but that an external sounding board helps you to discover them and sort them out.


As a Fe user, once I come to a conclusion on a value I have to seek external input, to see if my value holds weight. If someone I trust and usually agree with agrees with my value, I will feel it is confirmed, and will ask them to explain why they feel that way, to see if they follow the same logic I do. If they disagree, I will continue to question my value and feel lost. Therefore, I need to actually verbalize or express my value in order to label and understand my value. If the value holds up under external scrutiny, I will feel that value is correct, and will be cemented as a personal value. If it is flimsy and doesn't hold up to external scrutiny, I will continue to seek if it is correct or not, and if it continues to be shot down I will most likely give it up.

I think the order of the functions, however, has a lot of influence on the way Fe works. For me, since it is my aux function, I depend less on the opinion of others than perhaps a dom would. I will want to hear other's opinions, but my Ni has already actually made the decision, so I'm more just checking to see if perhaps I missed something, or allowing that I might be incorrect. If my value is challenged, I'm going to fall back on my Ti to see if those opinions seem rational and logical to me. So Fe uses other people as a sounding board, to gauge other's reactions in an attempt to understand values better, while Fi has their own internal sounding board, and don't need to seek external input.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Fe: We should all be together, DON'T YOU THINK!
> Fi: I wan't to go to this party./ I don't want to go to this party. (depending on which one it is).
> 
> Well.... Fi doms do either whatever they want or whatever somebody else wants, but not what should be done according to Te or Fe.


What you said about Fe can be true, but there are other instances that Fe uses to compare values.

I might say, "I want somebody to go to this party with me, because I don't know how I'm going to interact with everybody else."

^Using somebody that I'm familiar with emotionally as comfort in case all goes to hell. Bahaha.

or I could say, "I don't want to go to this party, because I don't know anybody there. I think I'll stay home." 

^Unsure of how I'll interact with everybody.

That's what's complicated about Fi/Fe at times, because both could come to the same conclusion for different reasons. While I would agree Fe is seen as collectively doing something with other people, but it could be a collective idea of harmony as well (not being part of a group, but emotionally everyone is satisfied).

When my parents would fight, I would mediate to get both of them to not only get along, but to bring the emotional level of the house back down to "normal".

I could go to a party and stand in the corner alone all night ideally. Fe doesn't make me want to be part of a group, I just want to get along with the group.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@RunForCover07 I wasn't 100% serious, just using my ENFJ and IXFP colleagues as extreme examples.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> @_RunForCover07_ I wasn't 100% serious, just using my ENFJ and IXFP colleagues as extreme examples.


There was no offense taken, just putting a thought out there.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

arkigos said:


> No, no... you think it objectively absurd... and subjectively/abstractly wrong. (Given that you are an Fi/Te)
> 
> An Fe/Ti would not approach if it were nonsensical so objectively. "Maybe," Ti opines, "it was a rather good idea... it depends on whether or not it caused any harm."
> 
> ...


ok, so it's a good idea for that one person, in an extremely self-serving manner, but i suppose people like that don't care about pissing off 30 people. i think "harm" is a strong word, but it does add a drop in the general bucket of rudeness we experience on the streets  



> A good rule of thumb is to ask ... if some of the people hesitated a moment, but then relented and seemed fine with it... would you change your mind based on that about whether or not it was wrong. After all, it is not doing any actual harm. I am removing you from the line to make it more clear.
> 
> I think that most Fe types would, say, "No one has a problem so there is no problem. He is a jerk, but it seems to be fine."
> To which Fi type replies, " ...and he was probably banking on people giving him a pass. It's still wrong. Everyone rolling over changes nothing."


yeah i wouldn't change my mind, they're still a self-serving jerk, but i also can't know if someone has a problem with them too. many people could be annoyed but don't say anything because they don't want conflict with a stranger (like me.) plus, i feel like having to tell someone something like this is stupid. if you're over the age of let's say 10 and don't know how to be mildly polite in public, then nothing i say will make a difference. i don't know if i would say it is "wrong" but it is rude and adds to social tension/stress. i feel like life is already stressful, so is it that hard to just be slightly polite while out in public? i think this particular example is more of an F thing as opposed to T though, more than anything...

come to think of it though, my ISTP friend with inferior Fe is one of the most polite people ever.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

candiemerald said:


> Okay, I think I was rather off with my original understanding of Fi vs Fe. I stole this from @_Aelthwyn_ from the Do people with Fe even have feelings of their own? thread - I think this describes Fi vs Fe very well. I think I finally understand the difference:
> 
> As a Fe user, once I come to a conclusion on a value I have to seek external input, to see if my value holds weight. If someone I trust and usually agree with agrees with my value, I will feel it is confirmed, and will ask them to explain why they feel that way, to see if they follow the same logic I do. If they disagree, I will continue to question my value and feel lost. Therefore, I need to actually verbalize or express my value in order to label and understand my value. If the value holds up under external scrutiny, I will feel that value is correct, and will be cemented as a personal value. If it is flimsy and doesn't hold up to external scrutiny, I will continue to seek if it is correct or not, and if it continues to be shot down I will most likely give it up.
> 
> I think the order of the functions, however, has a lot of influence on the way Fe works. For me, since it is my aux function, I depend less on the opinion of others than perhaps a dom would. I will want to hear other's opinions, but my Ni has already actually made the decision, so I'm more just checking to see if perhaps I missed something, or allowing that I might be incorrect. If my value is challenged, I'm going to fall back on my Ti to see if those opinions seem rational and logical to me. So Fe uses other people as a sounding board, to gauge other's reactions in an attempt to understand values better, while Fi has their own internal sounding board, and don't need to seek external input.


Between what you quoted and said yourself, this is really good stuff. It helps me understand Fe in a way I never did before, and, I hope, will help me be more patient with my wife and daughters. I try so hard, sometimes, to understand them, but man, it is trying sometimes. This is great ammo to pump into my brain when they are expressing. ;-) Thanks.

But it still feels weird to me--the need to express to understand or verify. That is so foreign to me--for me, expressing feelings causes me to get confused, and worse, seems to cause others confusion, because they, in no way, can understand what I'm saying... In other words, for me, expressing has the opposite effect... So, thanks for that explanation.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Between what you quoted and said yourself, this is really good stuff. It helps me understand Fe in a way I never did before, and, I hope, will help me be more patient with my wife and daughters. I try so hard, sometimes, to understand them, but man, it is trying sometimes. This is great ammo to pump into my brain when they are expressing. ;-) Thanks.
> 
> But it still feels weird to me--the need to express to understand or verify. That is so foreign to me--for me, expressing feelings causes me to get confused, and worse, seems to cause others confusion, because they, in no way, can understand what I'm saying... In other words, for me, expressing has the opposite effect... So, thanks for that explanation.


The only thing that we can do is try our best to understand and compromise, but the beauty is in wanting to do those actions because you care enough to do so. I think both Fe/Fi can appreciate that, because those are selfless acts from both perspectives, or maybe I'm just being a mushy INFJ right now.

Either way, I see beauty in your post. Haha.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

(this post got lost in the shuffle, so I'm only now replying to it. sorry)



candiemerald said:


> I have, yes. I've even seriously considered INTJ lately, because it almost seems as if my thinking qualities outweigh my Fe. But I really don't think so, since Ni/Fe/Ti seems to fit me best. Except the usual descriptions of Fe don't fit me at all...


I'm sorry! I was intending that to be a joke! (hence the smiley and "more seriously" after it) I'm not good at jokes, it seems--or maybe this phenomenon of questioning type is too common on PerC... who knows. ;-)



> Yes, that's what it boils down to, and that makes sense - and proves me Fe rather than Fi, methinks. I don't understand the complication, then, since that is pretty basic and easy to understand. It doesn't seem to suggest that Fe and Fi have anything to do with values, however, but simply with how we relate to others.
> 
> Interesting. I can't say I disagree with that. Perhaps, however, Fi focuses on how each person interprets universal values, and what those values mean to them specifically, and Fe focuses on the universal values themselves, and how, ultimately the universal values affect everyone in the same way.
> So, ultimately, Fe and Fi is not about difference in values, *but about difference in focus*.


(about the bold part) Isn't that really what introverted vs extroverted is about? One focuses inwardly, and one outwardly. The real problem is in describing how that looks. ;-) Also, with whether or how it operates, or impacts things like values.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> What do you mean by "influenced" in this sentence? I suspect you don't mean what I would mean...


Its almost as you dont even slightly care if people like you or not, acting anything but easy going and kind/polite. 

btw, I mean not 'you' as person but things attributed to Fi.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

crashbandicoot said:


> btw, I mean not 'you' as person but things attributed to Fi.


That's OK. I understand. I do the same thing, saying "you" in a non-specific manner...



> Its almost as you dont even slightly care if people like you or not, acting anything but easy going and kind/polite.


Aha. Well, that's not entirely true. It's not like I wouldn't care--could care very much--but I would not necessarily let such emotions deter me from doing what I feel is right. Or, if I did, the guilt would be over the fact that I did allow them to deter me. 

But honestly, it is not infrequent that due to my views, I am not aware of how I am coming across--as unkind or impolite. And in such situations, it is only after the fact that I discover it, and yeah, then there is a strong sense of guilt at how I handled the situation. These will be strongest if I also feel that I broke one of my own rules or standards of conduct--especially if I've been inconsistent or judged (internally) others for the same behavior I have now shown myself to be guilty of. These are the feelings that tend to drive me, rather than the general ones that Fe seems to champion. 

If I could say something here. I wonder if some of this trumpeting of Fi values isn't really just Fe masquarading--and because of this, it _must_ trumpet, so as to validate its seeming Fi-ness. Personally, this is how I perceive a lot of hipster behavior. Anything that is conspicuously hipster seems to be this sort of masquerading. Also, while I'm too young to remember the hippy movement personally (I remember seeing hippies, etc. but didn't understand it), much of what I've read suggests that it was begun by your INFP types, but taken over by Fe types, whence its character changed and became more conspicuous in its behavior. The irony is seen in how one of its first big "mouthpieces" was lambasted because he "sold out" by playing electric guitar. As if he didn't have a right to be himself anymore. So, I can certainly see how seeming Fi values could be mimicked by non-Fi types. And I don't mean to portray it, in particular, in a negative light, but I can only share my own perspective...


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

ROFL, what does it say about me that I pulled up _every_ "queue jumper" I ever came across, usually with a sweet smile and "Oh sorry, I don't know if you noticed, but the queue ends over there?"

In all seriousness though: It's not that easy to distinguish Fe and Fi if you don't try to find out how people actually _reason_. Emotions and or superficially observable behaviour are, IMHO, just a small part of the equation (I admit that for that very reason, Keirsey is the bane of my life). 

Both Fe and Fi can lead to doing exactly the same thing. To understand if it's Fe or Fi (or even Te or Ti), you'd need to find out WHY people are doing what they do/HOW they came to that conclusion.

Is their judgment influenced by directing libido towards/focus on the object (Fe), or away from it (Fi)? Same applies to values: internally (Fi) or externally (Fe) derived?

Of course observable behaviour is what we're all trying to look for, for obvious reasons, but it's a slippery slope. I could try to give you examples of what it looks like, but the Fi part can obviously only be abstracted from an INFJ living with an ISFP for almost 10 years. Neither the INFJ nor the ISFP are shy btw, and the ISFP actually has stronger social extroversion tendencies than the INFJ (to just get that prejudice out of the road straightaway).

* *





Fi dom: Decision process almost always happens either straightaway (almost instinctual) or requires significant alone time where that isn't the case. He does of course talk things through with me because he cares about me, but you can also tell that's an effort for him. There's a very strong sense of "Yes/No", "Right/Wrong" attached to everything, reasons of which are not always communicated verbally because to him, they "just are".
In case of an argument, and trying to resolve things, he'll most likely react like this: Leave the room, avoid all attempts of others to initiate contact for a while (I assume in an attempt to find his equilibrium/reason with himself on his own terms, instead of having someone else confuse/disturb his inner balance further, and I can meanwhile live with that). He can also act as if nothing happened on occasion - that's actually the preferred way of resolving things, and I know he secretly hopes it works out  If the whole matter isn't that serious, he'll most likely still show you some non-verbal signs of affection over the next couple of days.
Apologies are either attempted non-verbally (coming back out of his hole, having a certain look on his face I am very capable of reading, and initiating physical contact, e.g. trying to take my hand or giving me a hug). In case that isn't enough, he says something along those lines: "Sorry, *I *feel rotten and like an idiot for saying that." Talking things through after that, if necessary, can still feel like a struggle for him, but he is generally more open to listen and take in another point of view when he's prior experienced the state of discomfort of leaving things unresolved/insisting there's only one way to see things.

Fe aux: Decision process is very fluid and requires feedback. I need alone time in general, but NOT if I need to decide stuff. For that, I literally need to bounce ideas off other people. Simple example that drives him up the wall: He asks what I'd like to do today, and I answer with: "What would _you_ like to do?" That's not down to not having an idea what to do, or being a pushover though; it's almost like a pre-emptive measure to see if we will be able to align. It also gives me a chance to prepare explaining why I'd like to do X if he'd rather do Y, or to run his preference through my head initially and come to the conclusion that it actually IS a better idea to do Y today and X tomorrow instead.
I also have a sense of "Yes/No" or "Right/Wrong" btw, but you'll most likely hear this from me in that case: "Can you actually see though why what you just said/did upset that person/would be considered incredibly rude etc?" If someone says "No", I might try to explain it once, but not twice. 
In case of an argument, and trying to resolve things, I'll most likely react like this: I feel a need to explain myself, but I am able to hold back if I notice he can't/doesn't want to talk. I can wait for him to initiate contact because I can rationalise that things will get worse if I push him, but I can't find equilibrium without involving the other person. The state of upset grows exponentially with the time of leaving things unresolved (if it gets too long, I am most likely the person who tries to initiate contact first). It is much harder for me than for him to act as if nothing happened (that's not the same as holding a grudge btw - he's much better at that than I am ).
Apologies are always attempted verbally, usually something along those lines: "Sorry I upset *you*, I know I pushed *your *buttons." I don't necessarily feel the need to talk things through, or chew everything over once again though - the feeling of achieved mutual understanding is enough. In the cases where no compromise has been achieved yet, talking things through always feels like a massive relief though.



It's rather easy to understand that about yourself I guess, but in others, it requires a bit more time.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> In case of an argument, and trying to resolve things, he'll most likely react like this: Leave the room, avoid all attempts of others to initiate contact for a while (I assume in an attempt to find his equilibrium/reason with himself on his own terms, instead of having someone else confuse/disturb his inner balance further, and I can meanwhile live with that).


If you have ever seen an attack of his inferior Te, you will probably understand that his going away is much better than hanging around until he blows up. His escaping is as much for your/other's sake as it is for him. If I can't escape, the end result is almost invariably an explosion--which I hate, and avoid if at all possible.


----------



## Aleysia (Dec 31, 2012)

Just thought of one based on conversations with the ENFJ I know.

Whenever I remark on something about him (e.g. that he is too helpful to others, that's why he's so busy!):

Fe: "People have told me that before."
Fi: "I know that."


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> In case that isn't enough, he says something along those lines: "Sorry, *I *feel rotten and like an idiot for saying that." Talking things through after that, if necessary, can still feel like a struggle for him, but he is generally more open to listen and take in another point of view when he's prior experienced the state of discomfort of leaving things unresolved/insisting there's only one way to see things.


I like how you point out the difference in vocabulary there. His emphasis is on *I*, and yours on *you*. My wife and I have noticed this difference--and to be honest, it kind of bugs her... 



> Fe aux: Decision process is very fluid and requires feedback. I need alone time in general, but NOT if I need to decide stuff. For that, I literally need to bounce ideas off other people. Simple example that drives him up the wall: He asks what I'd like to do today, and I answer with: "What would _you_ like to do?"


I so relate to this! But in our situation, it's a bit different. For instance, I ask if she wants to eat out--and offer a suggestion--chinese. She agrees, but before we leave (or worse, on the way), I remember another option--mexican? I'll ask (or some such), and I see the steam coming from her ears... actually, when traveling, this frequently happens. We see a sign for someplace along the interstate, and I offer it as a suggestion, but at the exit, there are a bunch of places that hadn't advertised, so I start offering suggestions to the family, and my wife and NFJ daughters start complaining, while my SP son is going "YEAH!" Go figure. ;-)




> In case of an argument, and trying to resolve things, I'll most likely react like this: I feel a need to explain myself, but I am able to hold back if I notice he can't/doesn't want to talk. I can wait for him to initiate contact because I can rationalise that things will get worse if I push him, but I can't find equilibrium without involving the other person. The state of upset grows exponentially with the time of leaving things unresolved (if it gets too long, I am most likely the person who tries to initiate contact first). It is much harder for me than for him to act as if nothing happened (that's not the same as holding a grudge btw - he's much better at that than I am ).


It took me ages to see that my wife needs to talk these things out, and that the longer I don't, the worse she gets. I just absolutely cannot relate to that. For me, if you push me too soon, I may blow up--so I expect/fear the same from her, and keep quiet. I used to expect that if she had a problem she needed to talk out, she would initiate. But she won't/can't/refuses. This has been an enigma to me for years--At least with MBTI/cog. functions, I have an explanation--her inferior Fe. She needs/insists/demands that I initiate conversation. Of course, due to my inferior Te, I so greatly fear conversations, because I invariably screw something up, making it worse on and for her. It is such a delicate balance... But at least now I understand how and why it works this way...

I have to ask about those grudges, though. I don't hold grudges. In fact, I'm constitutionally incapable of holding grudges, simply because I seldom remember the _reason_ for the grudge. ;-) And I don't let past offenses build up. I tend to just let things go, and forget them. 

On the other hand, if somebody loses my respect, they've essentially lost it forever, and I am incapable of maintaining normal relations or contact with such a person. I just cut them loose, and never communicate with them again--or as seldom and little as is physically possible. Now, in truth, this has happened only in a couple or small handful of cases. In every case, however, the person was the sort that had no respect for others, in particular, for people weaker than themselves, or people who couldn't "help" them back, and so treated them poorly (or animals, but typically, such people also mistreat animals). People who use others get no respect from me. 

But like I said, the number of people who lost my respect is very few--partly because of how careful I am making relationships, but also probably because of the circles in which I run in more general terms... but I don't consider this holding a grudge. It is a person who has cut themselves off due to their mistreatment and disrespect for others (but ironically, never myself--in every case, they treated me well--probably because I had something they needed. I don't know)


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> (this post got lost in the shuffle, so I'm only now replying to it. sorry)
> I'm sorry! I was intending that to be a joke! (hence the smiley and "more seriously" after it) I'm not good at jokes, it seems--or maybe this phenomenon of questioning type is too common on PerC... who knows. ;-)


Oh, I know  The thing is, I actually was beginning to question my type lately, and beginning to think that perhaps Fe wasn't my aux, since I value individuality so much and always fight any attempt of others to conform me. I think that, finally, I understand Fe and Fi, and that has clarified a lot. I am an INFJ. And thanks for all your input - I know I was floundering about with my attempts to understand Fi for awhile there, and making a mess of it, and your input really did help me understand better.



> (about the bold part) Isn't that really what introverted vs extroverted is about? One focuses inwardly, and one outwardly. The real problem is in describing how that looks. ;-) Also, with whether or how it operates, or impacts things like values.


Yes, exactly. Very true - the problem really is in describing how the two operate differently.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> On the other hand, if somebody loses my respect, they've essentially lost it forever, and I am incapable of maintaining normal relations or contact with such a person. I just cut them loose, and never communicate with them again--or as seldom and little as is physically possible. Now, in truth, this has happened only in a couple or small handful of cases. In every case, however, the person was the sort that had no respect for others, in particular, for people weaker than themselves, or people who couldn't "help" them back, and so treated them poorly (or animals, but typically, such people also mistreat animals). People who use others get no respect from me.
> 
> But like I said, the number of people who lost my respect is very few--partly because of how careful I am making relationships, but also probably because of the circles in which I run in more general terms... but I don't consider this holding a grudge. It is a person who has cut themselves off due to their mistreatment and disrespect for others (but ironically, never myself--in every case, they treated me well--probably because I had something they needed. I don't know)


I find this part of your reply rather interesting, and I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain for a second (theorize here). I'm wondering what the difference is between Ni/Fe and Fi/Se when it comes to holding grudges and letting go of the past. In theroy, I want to say you would see if the argument/conflict is worth worrying about compared to your values and let it go, but if Se would make you hold onto the details of it (maybe I'm thinking more Si)?

For example:

My memories of the past (both good and bad) come to me in a form of a point. It's like having an old photograph that eventually becomes damaged over the years and I can barely see what it is anymore, but I still remember the point of what it was. "Oh, this is when Sam and I went to the fair." But, the details are lost, I can only wish I remember them as much as I want.

So, I find it's rather easy for me to stick people in my past, because I focus on the point of conflict, not the actual being of it. I don't even know if I can make sense of that...

For example:

I can't for the life of me remember the day to day details of when my ex and I were together, only moments of conflict that help me come to the conclusion that our relationship was unhealthy (and some of the good moments). I begin writing in a private blog to make a record of these moments more, but I don't read that far back, because I find it rather depressing to reflect on what was and what I can't change.

It's like looking at a fuzzy picture, not so much a detailed one.

In the same sense, this is how communicating with a dom/aux Si can make me feel at times, like I'm forced to backtrack. Se, my inferior function, I can't wrap my mind around it, but I don't have this problem with them as much.

---

Sorry for the overkill of thought above, but how does your memory and "letting go" look for you? Is it like it happened yesterday, where is your focus...the details, the point, feelings, etc?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> I find this part of your reply rather interesting, and I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain for a second (theorize here). I'm wondering what the difference is between Ni/Fe and Fi/Se when it comes to holding grudges and letting go of the past. In theroy, I want to say you would see if the argument/conflict is worth worrying about compared to your values and let it go, but if Se would make you hold onto the details of it (maybe I'm thinking more Si)?
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


Actually, what you described sounds very similar to my own experiences. There are particular points in time that I remember, but I couldn't tell you details, except maybe a sentence or couple words, nor dates, times, etc. I do actually sometimes have photos of things, and I like photography, because it helps me with my memories. But, like you, with sad or painful memories, I would rather not remember them, and some photos tend to recreate those feelings and emotions, and I'd rather not go back there, and yeah, it can be depressing. I wonder if this is partly why I don't like to hold resentment, and would rather just forgive and forget. It's better to let it go than let it fester. I don't like festering, even against myself. (although, it might be a combination of both Se and Fi there, desiring to let go rather than hold on.) Ironically, I do fear others holding on to those memories/resentment. I've had some experience with that with Si and Ne types, so I tend to fear how they might hold on to these things. Hm. now I write that, I think I understand what you meant about communicating with dom/aux Si types. ;-)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I totally get what you mean about wishing you could remember things as much as you want. My lack of memory (it's not just a poor memory, it's a total lack) is probably my most frustrating characteristic to me...


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Actually, what you described sounds very similar to my own experiences. There are particular points in time that I remember, but I couldn't tell you details, except maybe a sentence or couple words, nor dates, times, etc. I do actually sometimes have photos of things, and I like photography, because it helps me with my memories.


It appears that I have a bit more information on Si than I do with Se at this point, but now that you share your experience it makes sense. I know Si is known for storing pretty detailed information and recalling it, but I wasn't sure with you having Se as your aux if you could re-call more than maybe I could. But yes, it makes sense with Se wanting to objectively collect sensory information in the moment.



> But, like you, with sad or painful memories, I would rather not remember them, and some photos tend to recreate those feelings and emotions, and I'd rather not go back there, and yeah, it can be depressing. I wonder if this is partly why I don't like to hold resentment, and would rather just forgive and forget. It's better to let it go than let it fester. I don't like festering, even against myself. (although, it might be a combination of both Se and Fi there, desiring to let go rather than hold on.)


This experience you mentioned above sounds familiar. When I think of painful moments in my life, I do have an emotion, but I can't say that it evokes anything strong in me. It's almost like, "Yeah, that sucks, but whatever!" It's not the same as if I'm feeling an emotion in the moment, but I do tend to have more of an emotional reaction to my future (my ideas) than I do my past. I spend a lot of time thinking about what could be more than I do thinking about what was, but I'm pretty sure that's Ni (could explain why you too want to move on and not be nostalgic as well (Se/Ni).



> Ironically, I do fear others holding on to those memories/resentment. I've had some experience with that with Si and Ne types, so I tend to fear how they might hold on to these things. Hm. now I write that, I think I understand what you meant about communicating with dom/aux Si types. ;-)


My ESTJ mother still throws things up in my face from YEARS AGO that I forget at times and I'm like, "How is that even relevant anymore?" Although it can be frustrating, I do think it's inspiring!



> Oh, and I forgot to mention that I totally get what you mean about wishing you could remember things as much as you want. My lack of memory (it's not just a poor memory, it's a total lack) is probably my most frustrating characteristic to me...


I have a system to help me not lose things (I'm really organized). It does fail me at times, though. But, I do forget names when I first meet people unless I get to know them to a certain extent. In school/college, I would understand the concept of a subject, but when they asked for dates and stuff on the test, I really had to study.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> It appears that I have a bit more information on Si than I do with Se at this point, but now that you share your experience it makes sense. I know Si is known for storing pretty detailed information and recalling it, but I wasn't sure with you having Se as your aux if you could re-call more than maybe I could. But yes, it makes sense with Se wanting to objectively collect sensory information in the moment.


Looking at my daughter and son, (both Se dominant), I would guess that Se tends to not be about recalling info, but rather assessing and manipulating the present moment. 



> This experience you mentioned above sounds familiar. When I think of painful moments in my life, I do have an emotion, but I can't say that it evokes anything strong in me. It's almost like, "Yeah, that sucks, but whatever!" It's not the same as if I'm feeling an emotion in the moment, but I do tend to have more of an emotional reaction to my future (my ideas) than I do my past. I spend a lot of time thinking about what could be more than I do thinking about what was, but I'm pretty sure that's Ni (could explain why you too want to move on and not be nostalgic as well (Se/Ni).


Future. Yuck. I have real difficulties trying to think about the future. It is stressful, and I tend to want to not think about it until absolutely necessary. I am really bad about visualizing the future, and to foresee or plan for it




> I have a system to help me not lose things (I'm really organized). It does fail me at times, though. But, I do forget names when I first meet people unless I get to know them to a certain extent. In school/college, I would understand the concept of a subject, but when they asked for dates and stuff on the test, I really had to study.


I'm bad about names, but never forget faces. I don't know why that is. What's more, I can see somebody many years later, and then remember things we did or talked about--but I can never remember the name... That is weird--even more so, it isn't until I see them that I can remember it.


----------

