# Need Help With Fi.



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Hey, can someone describe -- through a *small amount of text* and *plain English* -- the functions of Fi?


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

First things first, it is -not- emotions or emotionality, itself. Key to Fi is that it is _abstract_. 

Here's some various sources... 



OrangeAppled said:


> Check my sig for the basic function of Feeling - _to assign value._
> 
> Now remember that Fi is introverted, meaning the focus is on the internal world of the individual, as opposed to external objects or concepts. These Feeling valuations then are made by considering inner ideals, as opposed to ideals formed by an external measure (as Fe evaluates). How do these inner ideals form? Jung basically says through a vision or images via the unconscious - in short, its fantasy, a mental creation of what is perfect that arises from a "psychological instinct" (the collective unconscious). The Pe functions also serve to bring in fodder for the imagination, which is why ISFPs are often more first-hand experienced focused & INFPs are more theoretical in forming ideals.
> 
> ...





Functianalyst said:


> Years ago, I questioned the difference between Fi types appreciating their internal value systems and Ti types valuing their ruling principles. What's the difference?





OrangeAppled said:


> Yea - my favorite topic :tongue:
> 
> Here's my basic description of my introverted feeling (there may be some Ne in this, as it's hard to unbake a cake, so to speak). I copied & pasted these from a few places I posted & added/edited a bit, so I may repeat myself.....
> 
> ...


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Do you mean what Fi feels like? 
I have been thinking a lot lately about how different thoughts "feel" and am wondering if that's what you are asking. 
Or are you asking what is the purpose of Fi? What is it that Fi does in theory?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Fi compares everything to your own personal ideals. It's a judging function that determines the value of everything by comparing it subjectively to yourself and your feelings about it.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Fi is a _subjective_ function. A strong Fi-user will readily go against society simply because they perceive society to be unethical. If they are told, "you should believe potatoes are evil," they will ask why. It's only by taking in information and sifting it through already-held ideals that they will judge something.

Fi-doms are generally content as long as their surroundings live up to their ideals. They're conflict-avoidant because conflict ruins the "inside peace." If a value of theirs is strong enough and is being violated, they will speak up (and loudly), but will otherwise leave well enough alone.

Fi-users need to understand themselves before they're able to understand others. If they haven't been through a similar situation, it's tough for them to sympathize. 

This is my experience, anyway.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Paradigm said:


> Fi is a _subjective_ function. A strong Fi-user will readily go against society simply because they perceive society to be unethical. If they are told, "you should believe potatoes are evil," they will ask why. It's only by taking in information and sifting it through already-held ideals that they will judge something.
> 
> Fi-doms are generally content as long as their surroundings live up to their ideals. They're conflict-avoidant because conflict ruins the "inside peace." If a value of theirs is strong enough and is being violated, they will speak up (and loudly), but will otherwise leave well enough alone.
> 
> ...



I think this is pretty good, except the last part. Since Fi develops general concepts of the human condition & what is necessary/good, we don't need to experience something directly to understand it. You can sort of simulate that person in your mind & how they feel & grasp it, even if you would never personally feel that way. You can do this because you determine the core, fundamental feeling that person has that is shared by all people.

Although, this seems most true of NFPs, and no doubt it's the influence of Ne.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Depends on what you mean by conflict. When I feel offended, my instinct is to argue until I can relate to the other person's argument. I suppose you are right that we need to have felt something similar to what the other person has felt. That's why i strive to find common ground, so that I might put myself in their shoes. 

I am an Fi user and I think the major difference in my arguments compared to other Fe or Ti users the level of emotional involvement with my arguments. I am deeply involved certain beliefs that I hold to be true. 

What is Fi? 
In school we are taught all about different kinds of thinking judgments. Logic, spatial reasoning, the scientific method, and observations of the natural world. But what about emotional reasoning? So often we play off emotional reasoning as unimportant but without it how do we even know what is important enough to analyze? There is so much going on in the world around us that we could use logic and science to observe and try to understand but how do we know what is pertinent to ourselves, our loved ones, or humanity at large? 
That is where emotions come in. Emotions tell us what is important. 
I will give an example to demonstrate.
Pretend that we are all living on a tropical island. We drink from a clean spring of water. 
Scientifically, we could analyze all the properties of the water. We could observe and learn all about every dimension on the island, every pot-hole, every landmark, every detail about the purity of the water, soil, coconuts. We could get into detail about how photosynthesis works and everything around us. These all require "thinking." 
Emotional reasoning tells us to focus first on feeding ourselves and each other and to "think" about whatever does this. 
Emotional reasoning is: "I want our group to survive. I love the people I'm with right now." If someone is hurt or sick, emotions kick in to warn us that we might lose that person and our emotions urge us to rescue them. Emotions tell us to rescue people, heal the sick, love one another, reproduce, protect our young, protect our brothers. 
There are two emotional palettes from which to derive our emotions. To every emotion there is one palette to which Fe users are aware (despite the fact that Fi is strongly present but less developed) and one palette Fi users are aware (despite the fact that Fe is also strongly present but less developed). 
Fe users are aware of emotions such as: "I want...happiness, love, kindness, smiles" Fe is aware of: despair, anger, love, infatuation, affection, etiquette, etc. Fe might change at the drop of a hat. Fe might feel sorrow one second and the next pure joy.
Fi users, on the other hand, although they might use the words: "I want" the "I want" is deeply tied up in other arguments. If you tell an Fi user they are selfish they will be totally confused because, in their opinion, their emotions are primarily centered around what is best for all humanity at large. Fi takes the same information as Fe but instead of being aware of the instantaneous change in the second, take the emotions of the room, the etiquette, the fear, sorrow, pain, despair, joy, etc. and internalize the Fe. All the Fe is sucked into the whirl pool of an Fi user where the emotion is felt within. 
For me at least, as an ENFP, I use the collected Fe as a starting point from which Fi arguments start bubbling to the surface such as, "We need to help these poor children! Can't you see they're starving?" or "Come on, let's go get some coconuts so these starving children might eat." (island scenario). 
Of course, the Fi experience will be felt differently among the types who use it. And the sensitivity of emotional types makes it difficult to really get a straight answer sometimes.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

This is the way I look at it

Fi - Your feelings*
Fe - Common feelings*
Ti - Your logic
Te - Common logic

VERY Basic though,

*Relative to morales


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

This is my view which is only a brief glimpse into what I think Fi is about... I may be wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me...


People say Fi is about what _"you like"_ and only _"your own feelings"_. 

I think the notion of simply "liking something" is too superficial. Valuing things is a much deeper process than merely, "prefering something". Why would you be deeply moved to defend something you merely "liked?". In order to attribute value to create a cohesive system, you have to assess all things universally. To weigh the value of all things- this process allows you to extrapolate, as Orangeappled suggested. For "Fi develops general concepts of the human condition & what is necessary/good, we don't need to experience something directly to understand it".
Fi is known to promote the defense of core values. This may be because the core, universal importance of such things (like freedom) are placed above the reality of the world. Ideals go above and beyond the self and the real world. As such they end up resonating deeply with the Fi-dom or Fi type. This all contributes to inner intensity or vividness. There's a world of scenarios and ideals and emotions inside, which carry information, images and feeling tones about the core of human nature. An outsider may see that as self pity and "being emo", but that is because they cannot see below the surface. Fi may be compelled to explore all the human facilities available to grasp what it means to be human (emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc). 

"Your own feelings" implies that these feelings (notions about the world) don't go further than the self. I contend that Fi ideals extend far above and beyond the individual self. Why else would an Fi-dom be compelled to defend such ideals in the real world if it didn't go beyond "self"? I would say the self is constantly subjugated to the ideal with Fi. Why do you think Fi-doms are so hard on themselves and so self-disparaging? the ideal is specific, but expansive. 

Fi is abstract and idealistic. It hones in on the core of the human condition and extrapolates. It goes beyond current reality.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Wow, awesome.
This is all awesome stuff, thank you very much!

And here's hmwith's take on the matter:


hmwith said:


> Fi = values. Focus on finding your own set of them. Start by asking yourself a few questions.
> 
> _What are you inner principles? Morals?
> 
> ...



[I'm linking this thread to a collection of a lot of research, thanks for helping!]


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> I think this is pretty good, except the last part. Since Fi develops general concepts of the human condition & what is necessary/good, we don't need to experience something directly to understand it. You can sort of simulate that person in your mind & how they feel & grasp it, even if you would never personally feel that way. You can do this because you determine the core, fundamental feeling that person has that is shared by all people.
> 
> Although, this seems most true of NFPs, and no doubt it's the influence of Ne.


I find it very natural for me to understand people who have different notions of the world, and different experiences to me. Empathy is where I feel at home. It allows me to use my inner reserves of understanding. 

Maybe it is fi+ne, and "extrapolating notions of the human condition".... but I agree with you. I find myself being able to empathise with and understand drug addicts, murderers, people who have been through divorce, the mentally disturbed etc. I have none of these experiences, but I can still relate and understand where they are coming from.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

susurration said:


> I find it very natural for me to understand people who have different notions of the world, and different experiences to me. Empathy is where I feel at home. It allows me to use my inner reserves of understanding.
> 
> Maybe it is fi+ne, and "extrapolating notions of the human condition".... but I agree with you. I find myself being able to empathise with and understand drug addicts, murderers, people who have been through divorce, the mentally disturbed etc. I have none of these experiences, but I can still relate and understand where they are coming from.


I think Fi empathy is different from Fe empathy.

In order to empathize, I have to be able to imagine myself in another person's situation, and guess how I would feel as that person, based on everything I know about what that person is like, and what the situation is like. I have to think, "Okay, if I were afraid of A, and valued B, and if I were in situation C, which was in direct conflict with goal D, what would I feel like right now?"

I am pretty sure Fe types have some other way that isn't quite so self-referential, that doesn't require imagining how they, themselves, would feel if they were the other person. I think they might be able to just directly know what someone else is feeling without having to pull things into themselves first.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

snail said:


> I think Fi empathy is different from Fe empathy.
> 
> In order to empathize, I have to be able to imagine myself in another person's situation, and guess how I would feel as that person, based on everything I know about what that person is like, and what the situation is like. I have to think, "Okay, if I were afraid of A, and valued B, and if I were in situation C, which was in direct conflict with goal D, what would I feel like right now?"
> 
> I am pretty sure Fe types have some other way that isn't quite so self-referential, that doesn't require imagining how they, themselves, would feel if they were the other person. I think they might be able to just directly know what someone else is feeling without having to pull things into themselves first.


The way I think I empathize with people (and this might be combined with a bit of intuition,) but when someone else is in pain I feel like I'm in pain. Example:

Little sister (Pretty sure she's an ISFJ): When my brother was younger, he used to be a bit naughty, and he'd do stuff that would make my sister cry, (pulling her hair, taking her stuff etc.) Anyway, my dad gave him hidings, and my sister freaked out, she yelled and screamed and cried and got very angry with my parents. She did this with all kinds of punishments no matter who was the subject. I think that is what Fe is like.

Scratch the intuition part I guess 

Another thing that @WickedQueen mentioned in http://personalitycafe.com/articles/48813-si-te-fe-vs-ni-te-fe-wickedqueens-mbti-theory.html is that Fe works with impressions. So you could say we get the impression that someone is in pain or happy or sad etc. and just go with that instead of the Fi method of putting ourselves in the same situation.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

MrShatter said:


> The way I think I empathize with people (and this might be combined with a bit of intuition,) but when someone else is in pain I feel like in pain. Example:
> 
> Little sister (Pretty sure she's an ISFJ): When my brother was younger, he used to be a bit naughty, and he'd do stuff that would make my sister cry, (pulling her hair, taking her stuff etc.) Anyway, my dad gave him hidings, and my sister freaked out, she yelled and screamed and cried and got very angry with my parents. She did this with all kinds of punishments no matter who was the subject. I think that is what Fe is like.
> 
> Scratch the intuition part I guess


Yes, I would have been severely traumatized if I had ever had to watch anyone committing acts of violence against my brother, even without the Fe. Fortunately that never happened because my parents weren't abusive.

But how does that work? In elementary school, I used to cry when other children got sent to the principal's office, back when physical abuse was still legal in schools, even when they deserved to be in trouble, but it was mostly because I could imagine what it would be like to be in that situation, and how terrified I would feel if I were ever in trouble. I ended up feeling my own terror for them, but it was still something personal that came from my imagination. One of the troublemakers who was repeatedly sent there didn't seem scared at all, but I still felt afraid for him as though I were the one in that situation. (Back then I didn't know how to adjust the setting to take other people's personalities into account, and just assumed everyone would feel the way I would.)


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

snail said:


> Yes, I would have been severely traumatized if I had ever had to watch anyone committing acts of violence against my brother, even without the Fe. Fortunately that never happened because my parents weren't abusive.
> 
> But how does that work? In elementary school, I used to cry when other children got sent to the principal's office, back when physical abuse was still legal in schools, even when they deserved to be in trouble, but it was mostly because I could imagine what it would be like to be in that situation, and how terrified I would feel if I were ever in trouble. I ended up feeling my own terror for them, but it was still something personal that came from my imagination. One of the troublemakers who was repeatedly sent there didn't seem scared at all, but I still felt afraid for him as though I were the one in that situation. (Back then I didn't know how to adjust the setting to take other people's personalities into account, and just assumed everyone would feel the way I would.)


Sorry I edited in the impressions part at the end of my post. I think it's just a method thing then, (In this aspect of the Fe/Fi)

Fi empathy seems to be more real, where as Fe is more all encompassing... they both have their perks and disadvantages.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> Fi-users need to understand themselves before they're able to understand others. If they haven't been through a similar situation, it's tough for them to sympathize.
> 
> This is my experience, anyway.


I think it's more I can understand something _better_ if I've experienced a similar circumstance. It adds an extra dimension to the preexisting empathy.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

MrShatter said:


> Another thing that @_WickedQueen_ mentioned in http://personalitycafe.com/articles/48813-si-te-fe-vs-ni-te-fe-wickedqueens-mbti-theory.html is that Fe works with impressions. So you could say we get the impression that someone is in pain or happy or sad etc. and just go with that instead of the Fi method of putting ourselves in the same situation.


I have a theory about Fe vs Fi, but I'm not truly convinced yet.

I remember one of members here mention about his Ti function and how he use it in math test. He can tell the result without having to crack the calculations in the right order to finally find the answer. His teachers often accused him for cheating because he didn't provide his answers with descriptions. In the same time, even though he often can tell the result, it is difficult for a Ti to _describe_ how the hell he get that result. It's like the result just pop up on his mind.

On the other hand, Te function doesn't work like this. When given a math question, Te user know how to describe and solve the problem, but he has no idea what the result will be. He will get the result once he finished cracking the question with orderly descriptions, from beginning to end. Te can't jump to conclusion. Te must _trace the_ _reasons_ first before he end up with the same conclusion as Ti.

The same thing, I think, happens to Fe and Fi when it comes to sympathizing. It's easy for an Fi user to feel sympathy/empathy without having to understand the whole situation first. When someone describing how sad he is, an Fi can easily connect with the sad feelings. Fi does not need to trace the reasons of why this person is sad.

On the other hand, a Fe will demand _reasons_ first. "_Why_ this person feels sad?"
If the reasons make sense, then Fe will allow his emotion to make a connection with the person and to emphatize.

This is why most of Fe dom members here are known for their long posts. It's because they are trying to give reasons for their action.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

To add to what WickedQueen said;

I sometimes feel that like marzipan has alluded to, there are basic emotional states- love and fear. Then there are basic emotions like sadness, anger, happiness, and emotional states branching off from them i.e. sadness (loss, hurt), anger (hatred, malice, frustration) etc. I think I have an emotional bank of what these states feel like, and experiences of what triggers these kind of emotions.

Now, for example, I haven't felt much malice at all in my life (at all, really), and I haven't been in many situations that provoke such malice, but I might be able to understand why a person feels malice. That's possible because I've felt anger (the core, base emotion), and I know the kinds of situations that prompt anger responses in humans... in me. Tie that in with an understanding of the motivations, beliefs of the other person, and I can extrapolate understanding and access empathy. 

I do like to understand the logic of another person, that's something that develops as I get to know other people. But that "emotional connecting" that WickedQueen refers to, comes very automatically. Because the emotion is understood. The situation prompts the emotion, but at the core of all human experience is the human condition. If you understand the human condition, you go straight to the core of emotional experience, without going from A -> Z in the situation. Of course, I never assume any two people react in the same ways to things, and I view people as unique individuals. Which is why I need to put myself in another persons shoes. I don't assume to know what people feel like. I don't like to say that I can "read people well"- because I don't assume I can. 

I want to add, that I don't think i'm so good at sympathy....


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Wow. This is super interesting and makes so much sense now why my Fe friends get so mad at me when after hearing two sentences or talking to a person for 15 seconds I can assess what that person was feeling. They are always like: "You're assuming their emotion. You don't know." and on and on. But when they ask me I tell them all these details I didn't even realize I picked up on until I'm asked how i know what I know. I remember last time this happened my ENFJ friend paused and said, "That was based on a surprising amount of information." lol.
I can do this but it's not all the time...I mean, I'm not magical--just an ENFP.


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

"Fi-users need to understand themselves before they're able to understand others."

I kind of agree with this but I would replace NEED with LIKE, and ABLE with CONFIDENT IN THEIR ABILITY. I introduce events into my life, hypothetical or real, in order to analyze my feelings and reactions towards them and then once I have reduced the complexities down to one or two simple truths about human nature, I then feel able to extrapolate those onto others when I see them going through similar situations - even though their feelings and reactions to the situation might be different on the surface, I find that at the core they are often very similar.

"If they haven't been through a similar situation, it's tough for them to sympathize."

I actually agree with this. But if you meant empathize then I don't. Sympathy and empathy are two very different beasts. I can empathize with anybody in the world by putting myself in their shoes and imagining myself reacting to whatever situation they are describing. A while ago I caught myself at it: my colleague was telling me about something that had happened the previous evening and as she was telling the story I was going through a very vivid mental picture of MYSELF cooking the dinner, tripping over the cat, spilling the food on the floor, then as she was telling me how she reacted I was simultaneously playing my own movie of laughing at the situation and being mad at the cat then feeling bad for shouting at it...so in the end I really did feel exactly what she had felt and we left each other feeling bonded and connected by the story.

But it's true that I mostly only sympathize with someone if I've been through what they have, as if I haven't then I feel emotionally at one remove from what they are telling me. This is when my Fe kicks in and forces me to show sympathy, because I know that is what they want from me, but if my natural Fi is left unchecked like it sometimes is, I can appear a bit uncaring.

Something that I have realized only recently is that I only seem to care about something if I have directly seen/read/heard a personal story and imagined myself or a loved one going through the situation. Once that has happened, the floodgates are opened and it can devastate me. Until that happens, it's as if the situation doesn't exist. For example: when the Boxing Day tsunami occurred in 2004 I watched the news channel for days, I read all the news stories relating to it, I was consumed by grief for all the people affected by it and I was on a downer for months afterwards because of it. But this latest Japanese earthquake and tsunami hit just after I gave birth to my daughter. My life was totally filled with day-to-day family affairs. I didn't watch TV. I didn't read newspapers or watch any videos on the Internet. All I knew about it was the random Facebook statuses of my friends, expressing their condolences and giving me statistics. And I hate to admit it but I felt nothing but a fleeting "Oh dear" for all these thousands of dead people and their families, until a few weeks later when my life wasn't completely haywire and I managed to read a couple of personal accounts that left me feeling very emotionally wrought.

So I can feel nothing for thousands of people whose lives have been cut short or upended by a massive earthquake, but feel tremendous grief for a mother that lost her child in a housefire the same day, because I happened to be told the details of one particular news story but only the headline of the other. Is that normal? Is this ability to disassociate from the harsh reality of the world by simply not paying attention to certain things common as a survival tactic for living in a less-than-ideal world? Or is it my Enneagram type 9 influence?

Anyway, I think I am digressing a bit. Perhaps it is just me, but I posit that a major difference between Fi and Fe is that Fi-users are naturally empathetic and the sympathy is auxiliary whereas Fe-users are naturally sympathetic and the empathy is auxiliary. Fe-users might immediately express an emotional reaction at what they are being told "OH my GOD! That is horrific! Oh you poor, poor thing, my heart goes out to you!" and only later FEEL what it must have been like, whereas Fi-users, by substituting themselves for the person who experienced it, might immediately FEEL the reality of the situation but not attach the emotion to it until later at which time they feel it appropriate to express the sympathy. Thoughts?


----------

