# The reason why Fe and Fi users give



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

So I am an Fi user, and the reason that I give to people and help them is because I can easily put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. However, why do Fe users give? Is it because you feel socially obligated to? Explain this to me.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

I like to alleviate others' distress when I can, because I know what it's like to need help. Seeing other people in pain or in need makes me feel pain. But I also believe that part of being a good person is giving back to others in some way, so in a sense I do feel obligated because of how I want to define myself. "Socially obligated," however, as a stand-alone phrase, is not entirely accurate. Most people who know me don't know I volunteer or give money, so it has nothing to do with what others think of me, or outside pressure. It's just that knowing people are in pain or need help, and not trying to help them, is incompatible with my idea of what it means to be a good person.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

I give because that's how I make and maintain friends. Otherwise, I don't bother to spend my time with people.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

The Great One said:


> So I am an Fi user, and the reason that I give to people and help them is because I can easily put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes.


For me, as an Fe user, I feel the same way that you do. I help other people because I think of what it feels like when people help me. I also try to be empathetic and imagine how people feel.

For me, it definitely doesn't have anything to deal with a social obligation. 


But I think this varies among different types of Fe users. I read in one MBTI book that ISFJs have a very strong empathetic tendency when dealing with people one on one, but that in group situations they get confused because they're trying to please everybody all at once. I get the impression that Fi users instead stick to what they believe is right, no matter what group they're around.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> For me, as an Fe user, I feel the same way that you do. I help other people because I think of what it feels like when people help me. I also try to be empathetic and imagine how people feel.
> 
> For me, it definitely doesn't have anything to deal with a social obligation.


Me too. I get really impatient with 'social norms' -- if they don't make sense to me they get shoved to one side. I help people because I feel what they feel, put myself in their shoes and try to work out what they might need in their situation.

But Teddy is right as well, that in a group situation I'm far more reticent at offering help. I'm more likely to isolate the person who is showing the need and offer it one on one; and if it's a whole group that needs help if it's one overall need i'm all good, but if they have a variety of needs I do get stressed that I can't offer the right help to all of them at the same time.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

The Great One said:


> So I am an Fi user, and the reason that I give to people and help them is because I can easily put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. However, why do Fe users give? Is it because you feel socially obligated to? Explain this to me.


First, I learned a while ago that my life cannot be about purely helping other people because of the constraints of society in which we live and operate. 
However, when I do give to other people it's because: 
~I enjoy seeing people happy (I actually will be annoyed if I give a lot to someone and they are still complaining after I've done everything in my power to make them comfortable and I can see that I have solved every problem possible to solve)
~I help other people because I care. I see someone else's struggle and I take their burdens as my own. I see someone's situation and I have an emotional reaction. 

Example, I have just read an article about a thirteen year old girl who was forced to undergo circumcision. My instant reaction is anger. 
Is the girl angry? Maybe, maybe not. 
Would I be angry if I were the girl? Probably not. If I were the girl I would probably be sad, initially in a great deal of pain, I might hate the people who did it to me, I might justify it with some cultural slogan of misery, I might say to myself, I can handle this, and move on, etc. 
But as an outside observer I am furious, absolutely outraged. I want to kick in the teeth of the people who did that to her. If I had the ability to do something I would. 

This kind of emotional response to other people's misery is actually extremely helpful to humanity at large as we turn that anger into the productive vehicle of reform.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

I think most healthy Fe/Fi users arrive at the same place via a nominally different path. Fe feels others pain and wants to help, Fi feels universal pain based on similar experiences and wants to help.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

sts06 said:


> Me too. I get really impatient with 'social norms' -- if they don't make sense to me they get shoved to one side. I help people because I feel what they feel, put myself in their shoes and try to work out what they might need in their situation.
> 
> But Teddy is right as well, that in a group situation I'm far more reticent at offering help. I'm more likely to isolate the person who is showing the need and offer it one on one; and if it's a whole group that needs help if it's one overall need i'm all good, but if they have a variety of needs I do get stressed that I can't offer the right help to all of them at the same time.


Same here with me. If it's a group situation, I tend to be better with small groups, or people I know well.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

saffron said:


> I think most healthy Fe/Fi users arrive at the same place via a nominally different path. Fe feels others pain and wants to help, Fi feels universal pain based on similar experiences and wants to help.


I have more than one ENFP say the exact same thing. No matter how many times I read the same sentence it never makes a drop of sense to me. It was actually the confusion elicited by this sentence that led me to finally come to grips with the fact that I was an ENFJ.

Is Ni-Fe so different than Ne-Fi? If so, how? 
There are a lot of misnomers and stereotypes flying around about ENFJs. Most of the worst stereotypes and misunderstandings about Ni-Fe have their origins in relationship issues between ENFPs and ENFJs dating (granted there are surprisingly almost as many good things said about these relationship pairings as there are bad). 

The true difference between an ENFP and an ENFJ is that an ENFP's processing system has Ne-Fi on the surface and Ni-Fe in the deeper recesses of the psyche and in the ENFJ it is reversed. 
So when the ENFP mind says: "Oh, look at those doughnuts. Great Aunt Sally used to eat long johns every morning. She died from a heart attack. Still those doughnuts look delicious. I bet they'd taste really good." 
The ENFJ mind makes a conscious effort to say: "Look, smell, imagine but do not set a foot inside that bakery. Just keep walking." 

Both thought processes can be and are happening simultaneously in both ENFP's and ENFJ's. And in case you didn't notice, these thoughts are intimately connected to each other. The ENFJ decision is based on the ENFP thought process. The ENFJ decision says: You shouldn't pig out on doughnuts. The ENFP thought stream was inspired by the Ni-Fe inner dialog that fed the Ne-Fi thought stream the lesson of Great Aunt Sally's death. 

ENFJ's and ENFP's are sides of the psychological coin. 

Oh, and @The Great One, MBTI is how Enneagram is why. If you want to know why different people help people, I suggest you look into the enneagram types. 
Type 1's help people because it is the right thing to do and doing the right thing makes them happy and if they don't do the right thing they feel awful. 
Type 2's help people because they love to be loved, they love to be needed, they love to give love, they love connecting with people (most common MBTI function associated with type 2 is Fe). 
Type 3's help people for several reasons: 1st in order to demonstrate or flaunt something, 2nd in their higher levels they're likely to develop the teams manship of the type 6 and view others as their team mates that they want to share the limelight with.
Type 4's help people if it's part of their unique identity to do so. They also get overly generous when they're stressed. 
Type 5's help people by giving insight. I read that social/sexual fives are likely to want to go to the party but they want to be the DJ or have something to do. They help the most often by taking charge when they're integrating at 8.
Type 6's help people because they want certainty. Helping people for 6's is about duty but if we don't fulfill our duties we feel pain and guilt and often we feel good and happy when we have fulfilled our duties. It brings me a level of personal satisfaction and happiness when I know I was able to do so much to get it all done. 
Type 7's help people because they want people around them at the movies or the concert. It's no fun by themselves. 
Type 8's help people because a truly powerful person is powerful enough to take care of themselves and other people. And when you bring home the bacon it's your house and everyone must abide by your law. 
Type 9's help people because when someone is in their presence they have difficulty distinguishing between themselves and the other person. They help people by calming them down and giving reassurance. This is natural to them because they want peace and sometimes they have to calm you down and/or give to people in order to obtain that peace. 

That's just my theory on it anyway.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

The Great One said:


> So I am an Fi user, and the reason that I give to people and help them is because I can easily put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. However, why do Fe users give? Is it because you feel socially obligated to? Explain this to me.


Ever thought that what you refer to is your Ne? Fi does not work like Fe, in fact Fi can be quite selfish when it comes to others:


> Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

The Great One said:


> So I am an Fi user, and the reason that I give to people and help them is because I can easily put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. However, why do Fe users give? Is it because you feel socially obligated to? Explain this to me.


Well, I use my N to intui/empathize as well, so I feel bad for people; but there's another component to it, where I just feel like it's the "right thing" to do. 

It's almost a rational process -- people are people, none of us is any better than the other, and community can be very powerful, and if we expect to take from the community than we also need to give to it so that it continues to function properly and can serve everyone who is a part of it. It's kind of my duty to give back, if I want to be a part of it. And realistically, in today's dependent world, we can't really perfectly remove ourselves from society; we're always benefiting, therefore we need to put back in.

I feel the same way about my parents, at least my mom. We aren't really that close, and why I sympathize with her as a person, it doesn't really motivate me to want to do anything for her; I can sympathize with anyone. However, she took care of me when growing up, even when I wasn't exactly contributing much back; I always had food, clothes, rides, music lessons, playdates with friends, toys, books, a car to drive, etc.; she helped me find a good college, and after I graduated, she helped pay off my student loans without me asking. She never asked openly for anything in return, but I feel indebted to her (not in a bad way, just a simple acknowledgement that she did look out for me in those regards), and so I feel like I need to invest back in that relationship to some degree, even looking out for her now that she is older and might need my help.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Fe and Fi are both the humanely focused judgment processes, and can do the same things. The difference is, that for Fi, it will be more about, as the OP said, "put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes". This is the process of "abstracting", or could be called "subtracting" or "splitting". You take a given situation, and reference an internal standard of what is relevant, (with all else being subtracted or split off). And that is the universal feeling of human need.

Fe differs by focusing more directly on a _stated_ or otherwise set need of the external source. Hence, adds itself to or merges with the external object. Even without a need being stated every time, they might perceive an ongoing or whatever need through their Si or Ni.


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

saffron said:


> I think most healthy Fe/Fi users arrive at the same place via a nominally different path. Fe feels others pain and wants to help, Fi feels universal pain based on similar experiences and wants to help.


So for Fi users, can you empathize with someone else even if their experience of pain/distress isn't something you can relate to or have experienced personally? Still not sure about the Fe/Fi difference... I am reading a lot of overlap...

Personally, I too find that it's easier to relate/empathize and help a person who's been isolated from a group, rather than a group at large, and usually in group situation I suspend my Fi/Fe because it would be too confusing to try to please or feel everyone all at once. And I can definitely relate with the "imagining yourself in someone else's shoes" analogy--this describes what I do succinctly. No matter what the situation, something I've experienced personally or not, I can always manage to imagine myself in that situation, feeling those things, and finding empathy for someone. It's all about using abstraction to see things from different angles, i.e., outside yourself. 

So what cognitive function is that exactly? Fi? Fe? Ni? Thanks for the help!


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> For me, as an Fe user, I feel the same way that you do. I help other people because I think of what it feels like when people help me. I also try to be empathetic and imagine how people feel.
> 
> For me, it definitely doesn't have anything to deal with a social obligation.
> 
> ...


 I would agree with that statement. My father is an ISFJ and this is very much like him.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> I have more than one ENFP say the exact same thing. No matter how many times I read the same sentence it never makes a drop of sense to me. It was actually the confusion elicited by this sentence that led me to finally come to grips with the fact that I was an ENFJ.
> 
> Is Ni-Fe so different than Ne-Fi? If so, how?
> There are a lot of misnomers and stereotypes flying around about ENFJs. Most of the worst stereotypes and misunderstandings about Ni-Fe have their origins in relationship issues between ENFPs and ENFJs dating (granted there are surprisingly almost as many good things said about these relationship pairings as there are bad).
> ...


Thank you so much for this post. It really helped me a lot. I will incorporate enneagram type in to my analyzation of why people give.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

To Functionalysist:



> Ever thought that what you refer to is your Ne? Fi does not work like Fe, in fact Fi can be quite selfish when it comes to others:


Yes, I have recently heard this from another ENFP friend of mine. According to her, first ENFP's use their Ne which automaticallyallows them to view the other person's perspective on an issue. Then, the Fi acquaints it with their moral values. According to her though, it can take a while for the Fi to kick in.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> Fe and Fi are both the humanely focused judgment processes, and can do the same things. The difference is, that for Fi, it will be more about, as the OP said, "put myself in their shoes and can imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes". This is the process of "abstracting", or could be called "subtracting" or "splitting". You take a given situation, and reference an internal standard of what is relevant, (with all else being subtracted or split off). And that is the universal feeling of human need.


I would have to disagree with this notion, based on principles of type. First has anyone considered what it means to “walk in another’s shoes”? This entails a focus on the object. Although introverting functions can focus on the object, it’s not their first inclination. The first act is to consider the Self and how the object will affect the Self. Even if Fi does consider the object, they will conclude how the Self is affected. 

Secondly “walking in another’s shoes” at least requires a need to take in information about the person. There seems to be an implication being made that you can use Fi to do one or both these things. I am not sure how this is being implied. 

Finally, I know this is a hair-split and off topic, but the notion of walking in another’s shoes does not necessarily imply being empathetic. It could just as easily mean seeing another’s perspective. So the notion itself may not be related to either feeling function. 

But back to the subject and based on my original post, I think the confusion by the OP may be limited to their understanding of Ne. As Berens and Nardi indicate in their definitions of function similarities and differences:


> Ne and Fe often focus on people and their interactions. With Ne, it is the meanings and inferences that come to mind relative to people and their interactions. With Fe, it is the actions that keep people connected or disconnected that matter.


 Where someone using Ne may see something from another’s perspective but not take action, Fe will take some action. Specifically Ne is:


> Extraverted iNtuiting involves realizing that there is always another view. An example is when you listen to one friend tell about an argument and understand perfectly and then listen to another friend tell a contradictory story and understand that view also. Then you wonder what the real story is because there are always so many different possible meanings.


This in my opinion is where “walking a mile in another’s shoes” comes into play.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

That's true; I was only building upon that familiar expression that is often associated with Fi.
The point is, the internal reference; abstracting the object's need through the universals stored within. Yes, directly putting yourself in the person's shoes would be more of the external "merging/adding".

And also, as I did allude to, the perception function (in the opposite attitude) will also supply that opposite orientation to the evaluation.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Ever thought that what you refer to is your Ne? Fi does not work like Fe, in fact Fi can be quite selfish when it comes to others:


Well let me tell you a little story and then say again, Fi is selfish when it comes to other people.

I was in line at the liquor store yesterday. A boy of about 18 was in front of me. He had 4 bottles of wine, expensive wine.
He turned my way and smiled. We started to talk while waiting for time to pass. I could sense he was shy, he wouldn't
even look at me in the eyes when speaking. I could also sense he didn't come from a home that had much money. He told me
he worked for 2 Mts doing odd jobs to save up to buy his grandparents /parents Christmas gifts ( which was the wine he was about 
to purchase ). He needed a haircut, to see a dentist, and many other things i observed in my short time communicating with him. When he paid for his wine he was all smiles. I could somehow imagine his family hugging him and appreciating he took the only money he
had to buy them these gifts, and even if that didn't happen i wanted to believe it would. I watched him leave the store almost skipping
with joy, so proud of himself. It make me smile, huge. He didn't get to his car door when he tripped on a piece of ice. His bag went flying, the bottles smashed everywhere. My heart sunk to my feet. I left my order there, i ran out to help him. He was crying . He told me how stupid he felt at that moment. I reminded him he wasn't stupid, it was accident, a very sad accident. 


I could let him leave without the Christmas presents he came for. I took him back into the store and we picked up all the wine he originally purchased, i payed for them. The look on his face was so worth it. Would i have done that for just anyone, no.

Fi like Fe can be selfish. Although we do things out of the kindness of our hearts without expecting anything in return. Yes, we may be selective with what is morally right or wrong for us personally, but that doesn't mean we don't think about humanity. Fi is private, and we don't feel the need to express everything we are feeling. We do small subtle things for humanity often, we just don't feel the need to talk about it, or have them validated. This is just a small example of the things i do personally towards human kind. So please, before you judge Fi users, keep in mind that Fi is our private world, a place we justify what we consider good or bad. Fi will take on a personal investment with people case by case. For me personally i either have a strong connection to help, or i don't. I don't do it for the sake of it, i do it because my core is really invested.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Well let me tell you a little story and then say again, Fi is selfish when it comes to other people.
> 
> I was in line at the liquor store yesterday. A boy of about 18 was in front of me. He had 4 bottles of wine, expensive wine. He turned my way and smiled. We started to talk while waiting for time to pass. I could sense he was shy, he wouldn't even look at me in the eyes when speaking. I could also sense he didn't come from a home that had much money. He told me he worked for 2 Mts doing odd jobs to save up to buy his grandparents /parents Christmas gifts ( which was the wine he was about to purchase ). He needed a haircut, to see a dentist, and many other things i observed in my short time communicating with him. When he paid for his wine he was all smiles. I could somehow imagine his family hugging him and appreciating he took the only money he had to buy them these gifts, and even if that didn't happen i wanted to believe it would. I watched him leave the store almost skipping with joy, so proud of himself. It make me smile, huge. He didn't get to his car door when he tripped on a piece of ice. His bag went flying, the bottles smashed everywhere. My heart sunk to my feet. I left my order there, i ran out to help him. He was crying . He told me how stupid he felt at that moment. I reminded him he wasn't stupid, it was accident, a very sad accident.


So how does any of this relate to Fi? Ask yourself what were you doing in every example you provided? You were taking in information specifically any concrete observation you allude to would entail Se. Making an inference of “what ifs” would be Ne.


MuChApArAdOx said:


> I could let him leave without the Christmas presents he came for. I took him back into the store and we picked up all the wine he originally purchased, i payed for them. The look on his face was so worth it. Would i have done that for just anyone, no.
> 
> Fi like Fe can be selfish. Although we do things out of the kindness of our hearts without expecting anything in return. Yes, we may be selective with what is morally right or wrong for us personally, but that doesn't mean we don't think about humanity. Fi is private, and we don't feel the need to express everything we are feeling. We do small subtle things for humanity often, we just don't feel the need to talk about it, or have them validated. This is just a small example of the things i do personally towards human kind. So please, before you judge Fi users, keep in mind that Fi is our private world, a place we justify what we consider good or bad. Fi will take on a personal investment with people case by case. For me personally i either have a strong connection to help, or i don't. I don't do it for the sake of it, i do it because my core is really invested.


I am still unsure why you believe the examples are Fi. At best they’re Fe or some form of Fe, in taking action. Fi may not be selfish in it’s own right, but in comparison to Fe all functions are selfish, in particularly because Fe and Ne consider others. The difference as I alluded to in my last post, based on Linda Berens and Dario Nardi Ne considers the meanings and inferences that come to mind relative to people and their interactions. Your examples given in the first part were the results of inferences you were making (shy, lack of money, etc.). With Fe takes action, which is consistent with the examples you give in the latter part in paying for the person’s wine.



The Great One said:


> To Functionalysist:
> 
> Yes, I have recently heard this from another ENFP friend of mine. According to her, first ENFP's use their Ne which automaticallyallows them to view the other person's perspective on an issue. Then, the Fi acquaints it with their moral values. *According to her though, it can take a while for the Fi to kick in.*


If it ever kicks in. To answer your original question, where you may be able to “walk a mile in another persons shoes” based on aligning with their perspective using your Ne, not your Fi, the Fe may go a step further in not only walking that proverbial mile but appreciating what it felt like to walk that mile. 

Your Fi may actually prevent you from at all, but since your Ne is more dominant Fi cannot prevent you from at least considering the other person’s perspective. As I alluded to from Jung, since it is primarily controlled by subjectivity and only secondarily concerned with the person or conditions (object) Fi may not allow you to appreciate how the other person truly feels and any positive feelings toward the person may be only be inferred indirectly. Where Fe accommodates the person or object, Fi may stand above any attempt to empathize with the other person. However your Ne works in your favor by allowing you to see the other person’s perspective.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Functianalyst said:
> 
> 
> > MuChApArAdOx said:
> ...


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> MuChApArAdOx said:
> 
> 
> > Functianalyst said:
> ...


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

> It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. *The proverb 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women.* They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. *They neither shine nor reveal themselves*. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, *their true motives generally remain concealed.* *Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. *Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path.


I'm glad this information was shared. The bolded part especially the red part reminds me greatly of my ISFP friend. And, several INFP and ENFP members on this forum. It seems to be a hard function to describe in words but I think I'm starting to see the differences between Fe/Fi. Thanks for sharing this reference material @Funtianalyst. I learn so much about the cognitive functions from your posts.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Actually a mature Fi user would put themselves above what they may consider plebian (see MuChApArAdOx comments in post #31 which is indicative of how Fi users may view traditional values) traditions that that the collective unit consider important.


 I still think the "putting themselves *above* others" _attitude_ may be more immature Fi. (possibly indicating tertiary, inferior or deeper shadow). Mature Fi, again, abstracts, or takes out of the collective what is relevant (internally), or universal. It's not so much about pitting one set of values against another.


> Then we definitely have a differing points of view what “selfishness” connotes.
> 
> 1
> : concerned *excessively* or *exclusively* with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being *without regard for others*
> ...


Yes, that is the definition of selfishness I'm thinking of, but it is way too broad to paint all introverted functions with those things (particularly, in bold). Because a person chooses their own internal storehouse of data to draw perception or judgment from, has nothing to do with "disregarding" others, in the contextual sense of *putting their own advantage, pleasure, well being, etc. first*.

Fi types often can be very acquiescent towards the wants of others, and when I used to read NFP descriptions that pointed this out, it was confusing with these Fi descriptions that portray it as so "everyone else be damned".

It's not about "one's own advantage"; it's about the source of one's standard, and both good and bad values can lie in either the internal or external realm. Again, the Fe-er who "connects" with others, gains something to their own advantage as well.



> Are you attempting to correlate Berens and Nardi’s definitions with people misinterpreting assessment questions? To the best of my knowledge, they do not have assessments to indicate a type or which functions one prefers. In fact their whole process is about learning the functions and applying them, but more importantly knowing who you are.


 The Cognitive Process test everyone takes is by Nardi (that is, until that home-bred "Timeless" version that became so popular more recently), and the questions are based on his definitions of the function-attitudes.

I believe part of the problem, is that Nardi might be defining Fi with some coloring of his own experience of it as tertiary. _That's_ where it is more prone to become so "me first" and standoffish, or whatever. (Hence, why I speak of "mature" vs "immature") I make this observation from being familiar with ITJ's, and seeing that this attribute of Fi does fit them more, but is not as characteristic of what I see described for FPs, who are like the total opposite. 
But tertiary and inferior will be manifested differently from dominant and auxiliary; and while Nardi/Berens do cover this in the archetypal role descriptions, still, this can be lost or glossed over when trying to wrap the whole function up in short key phrases meant to cover the general theme of the function (in terms of _*behaviors*_) in any of the eight positions. That's why I think for a short definition "subtracting what is not relevant from humane (personal/interpersonal) situations", or "personally identifying with evolving patterns" would be less overgeneralistic or ambiguous.


----------



## Misha (Dec 18, 2011)

Fe expects a feedback when offering goodness in others (usually secretly without revealing). And once they receive a positive feedback, they tend to glow on their face. Meanwhile, Fi does not expect anything in return and they tend to be more emotionally overwhelmed when being thanked by others.

One thing is that many Fe users got confused with being empathetically influenced, when really it all stems out from sympathy. This is why Fe users have an immediate urge to give _immediately_; whereas Fi users tend to bury it inside their heart when they empathized with others, and that it takes a while for them to share their inner-appreciation when opportunity comes (usually in written forms for NFs).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Yes this is what jung says and it all makes sense but...think of it this way. If a Dr. writes how he preforms his surgery to detail mean that i can go out and now practice how to perform surgery. No. Reading how its done, and experiencing how its done is two entirely different practices. And yes different people have defined Fi for you over and over and yet you still believe in your mind you know how it operates better than those who use it.


What an assumption to believe we do not use all 8 functions. What makes you think that I have not experienced the use of Fi?


MuChApArAdOx said:


> You can't even come up with examples of your own. Anyone can easily copy and paste what jung says, no brain work required. Clearly you can't because you don't have a clear vision of what it really means to use Fi. You have no experience whatsoever. You can post all the information you want, this isn't new info to me, i've read it all. I don't need to post quotes by jung in order to get my point across because i clearly understand it through experience, not only words. So yes, this conversation is over because you don't know anymore at this moment than you did when you started. Again i don't expect you to relate or understand any of this. Please do us both a favor and don't quote me. We won't come to an agreement so therefore it is fruitless.


Yet, so far you have not determined the use of Fi and struggle to know when you’re using Ne. Do you truly believe that an introverting function can arbitrarily be used to commune with objects outside of the self? That’s silly and contradicts the principles of type. By the way, you have said more than once now that *everyone* has attempted to indicate how their Fi works. Please show in this thread where that has happened. If you find examples compare them to what you are claiming. No one with any idea of how cognitive functions work has made such a claim that they can use Fi similar to Fe except you and Eric, and Eric recanted his statement. 


MuChApArAdOx said:


> You're an ISTP, me ENFP. We speak completely different languages. We don't share even 1 function, yet you believe you have all the answers to functions 1. you don't use or practice 2. you've never experienced. That would be like me saying i can tell you without question exactly how you function, how you make your decisions, how you use your thinking preferences over your emotions. No, i can't because i am wired the opposite of you, so therefore i won't pretend to understand and relate to how you function. I haven't met an ISTP i can communicate with effectively . So, let it go. I don't see anyone here agreeing with anything you've said thus far in regards to the Fe/ Fi topic, including myself.


So you do believe that you only use 4 functions. You are attempting to apply rudimentary MBTI standards to cognitive functions. It doesn’t work that way. 

I knew it would come to this. Do you truly think you are the only ENP that has made a claim of hybrid cognitive functions? This argument has been claimed more than once on this forum and it always results in people claiming Fe can be used to introvert, Ne can be used to introvert, etc. If Fe and Fi can do the same, why have 2 different functions. You only need one based on your assertions since it’s capable of doing anything. DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. There is no either/or in function usage, there is a fluid transition as circumstances arise and the use of functions be used in tandem.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

This totally reminds me of the privilege denying dude meme.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

You have no control over what you get.. Only what you give.
So I worry about what I am doing.

Life has a really funny way of giving you exactly what you give it.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Fi: I help because it's the correct thing to do. (based on an internal set of moral standards.)
Fe: I help because then I don't have to feel bad (because I feel what they feel.)

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Peter said:


> Fi: I help because it's the correct thing to do. (based on an internal set of moral standards.)
> Fe: I help because then I don't have to feel bad (because I feel what they feel.)
> 
> Does that make any sense?


 Dear God!! No.. It does not make sense. I don't give so I don't feel bad. Try again please.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Arclight said:


> Dear God!! No.. It does not make sense. I don't give so I don't feel bad. Try again please.


Not consciously perhaps. Your brain however, does function like that and then specifically the isolated Fe function. (Since you´re more than just your Fe, it's more difficult to realize when just 1 function does something.)

Look at these quotes of some Fe users in this thread:



> I like to alleviate others' distress when I can, because I know what it's like to need help. Seeing other people in pain or in need makes me feel pain.





> ~I enjoy seeing people happy (I actually will be annoyed if I give a lot to someone and they are still complaining after I've done everything in my power to make them comfortable and I can see that I have solved every problem possible to solve)


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

saffron said:


> My point was there is very little difference, especially when you're talking about Ne/Fi Fi/Ne. But there still are differences. I can see them play out between me and a close ENFJ friend.
> 
> If something bad is happening in my life she has an immediate expression visibly and verbally as in "That's horrible/wrong/messed up." She generally pulls back after a while and contemplates the dynamics of the situation a bit, but she still leaves it at "I just don't like to see you hurt. Let me know what I can do to help."
> 
> ...


Yeah, I usually try to help them solve the problem though, too. But maybe it's like @MuChApArAdOx said, I have very highly cultivated Fi for an Fe user. My point is that I think it's possible for anyone to use all of the functions as we all have them all the time. And I think that if we do learn to use our other functions, it's possible for an ENFJ and ENFP to seem indsitinguishable. I'm not the only ENFJ I know that has a strong Fi function but I am one of the few that I know in real life. It's hard with ENFJs because while ESFJs are one of the most common types, we ENFJs are only 3% of the population. As we are so rare I think it's even more difficult to make assessments on how we are than it is to make assessments on the other types (which in itself is a broad based generalization and people are free to deviate from those generalizations).


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> I'm new to cognitive functions and am still learning. However, would Fe/Fi usage be the answer to the OP question? In other words, would Fe/Fi functions alone influence why a person gives? I guess I see why a person gives to be based more on an individual choice and/or the extenuating circumstances more so than Fe/Fi usage.
> 
> Although, I am enjoying the discussion of Fe/Fi usage. Which leads me to my next question.... can you really isolate the cognitive functions in this way? In other words, would there be shades of difference in usage depending on if it is your dom, aux, tert, or inferior function? For instance would Fi usage vary between an ISFP, ENFP, ISTJ, and ENTJ? And, do the other functions influence the usage of Fe/Fi? For instance would an ISTJ and an ESTJ use Fi in the same manner?


Enneagram is why. MBTI is how. 
The reasons we give are due to motive. 
We will see how we give related to MBTI. 
NF's and SF's are more likely to admit to being helpful because they're more sensitive to the emotions of others and that's just part of how our minds are built. We process information through feeling tones. Feeling is a function that makes sense of reality based on the way something makes us feel. So we are most likely to help via empathy, concern, and direct channels of helpfulness. 

Thinking types might say they don't care or that they aren't generous. But even a 378 ENTJ can be generous in his/her own way.
I was asked recently how Steve Jobs helped the world in anyway--compared to Bill Gates he wasn't a philanthropist and he seemed purely and absolutely selfish in every way. I argued that Steve Jobs got people excited about computers and it was largely due to his success that Bill Gates became the wealthiest man in the world. Let's face it, while Bill Gates may have made the computers most people could actually afford, actually worked, and were the practical option, if Steve Jobs hadn't made the computer "cool" it would not have taken off as quickly as it did.

All I'm trying to say is that we all give back in our own way. Even if it doesn't look like someone is being generous, often times, they are without anyone realizing it.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> What an assumption to believe we do not use all 8 functions. What makes you think that I have not experienced the use of Fi? Yet, so far you have not determined the use of Fi and struggle to know when you’re using Ne. Do you truly believe that an introverting function can arbitrarily be used to commune with objects outside of the self? That’s silly and contradicts the principles of type. By the way, you have said more than once now that *everyone* has attempted to indicate how their Fi works. Please show in this thread where that has happened. If you find examples compare them to what you are claiming. No one with any idea of how cognitive functions work has made such a claim that they can use Fi similar to Fe except you and Eric, and Eric recanted his statement.
> So you do believe that you only use 4 functions. You are attempting to apply rudimentary MBTI standards to cognitive functions. It doesn’t work that way.
> 
> I knew it would come to this. Do you truly think you are the only ENP that has made a claim of hybrid cognitive functions? This argument has been claimed more than once on this forum and it always results in people claiming Fe can be used to introvert, Ne can be used to introvert, etc. If Fe and Fi can do the same, why have 2 different functions. You only need one based on your assertions since it’s capable of doing anything. DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. There is no either/or in function usage, there is a fluid transition as circumstances arise and the use of functions be used in tandem.


Now i'm beginning to think you have a crush on me. I asked you not to quote me, kindly i must add, and yet you couldn't resist, now could you. 

Anyhow, yes i do believe we are capable of using all the functions...but....our DOM and Aux are our primary way of thinking, so therefore we will automatically use our primary ones first. If we could use all 8 functions so easily, why is there such a thing as MBTI. We wouldn't have to be any particular type or another. So what you are saying makes no sense. We have strengths and weakness in our 8 functions, i wouldn't be an ENFP if my natural way was using Te as an Dom function. There is obviously reasons why there are 16 personality types, we will lean strongly towards our primary functions first...the rest of your post is blah blah blah. If you can't see where others have given you examples, then grab your glasses....and who said that we can use Fi the same as Fe ? Me ? No, i said we can compromise and give Fe what it needs in group dynamics...basically what this means is this....Fi gets sick and tired hearing Fe wine and complain, so Fi will say, fuck it, give them what they want to shut them up. We are capable of compromising our own values in order to keep peace. How many times do i have to say this to you...do you understand this concept now ? I didn't read anywhere that anyone said that Fi is the same as Fe or used the same way by both users.. This is something you perceived all on your own. Now stop quoting me. You don't get it, and by the way you're throwing your Fe around in your comments, you never will. It would probably serve you well to do a search in the cognitive forums and do some reading.....and what are you talking about Fe being used to introvert? What language is that you're speaking, i don't understand more than 1/4 of what you're saying. Sorry i don't speak SP.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

I personally don't see Fe as necessarily doing whatever society says.

I see Fe as objectively looking at all the data perceived and creating the value rule that fits everything. Naturally though, a lot of the data comes from trusted people close to the Fe person since they are who the Fe person pays more attention to.
(Similar to how a Te person will spend more time reading articles written by experts instead of by crackpots.)

If the Fe person spends enough time seeking objective data with their perceiving functions from all sorts of sources, and not just one side, then I think it can end up looking quite like Fi.

Since Fe is an objective rule, it needs feedback and data to confirm it. Creating a value rule that says, "Calling people fat is bad." with underlying thinking of perhaps, "People feel hurt when they are called fat." cannot be confirmed when people don't react to you calling them fat or if they chuckle with glee when you do.

If the latter happens, then this kind of ruins Fe since it breaks the rule. What happens is that perhaps Pi/Pe is used to see that perhaps the person is just putting on a mask and the rule is still true. Or Pi/Pe comes in to see that the person really is happy and Ti gets activated and says no then, your rule does not make sense and Ti runs around trying to figure out how you derived the Fe rule when there is data here that suggests it is wrong. "Maybe that person is stupid." or "Maybe being fat isn't so bad." "Maybe they think I smell like a sewerpipe." and that's why they are laughing when I called them fat.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

From what I've read on PerC, there seems to be a general glorification of Fi and resentment toward Fe. I don't really understand how one can be seen as better than the other. I also don't understand why people assume Te or Ti users can't be empathetic or caring. We each posses a feeling function, and it expresses itself differently in each of us. I've seen both selfish and selfless acts from people of every type. It's more a matter of personal maturity and the ability to see from other perspectives, not so much which function you happen to use as your dom/aux. I'm not saying that JCF are completely unrelated to "why people give" (the topic of this discussion), but that the answers to *why* depend on so _much more_ than simply Fi vs Fe.

And *no*, having Fi does not automatically make one more "deep" than an Fe user.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

pc3000 said:


> I personally don't see Fe as necessarily doing whatever society says.
> 
> I see Fe as objectively looking at all the data perceived and creating the value rule that fits everything. Naturally though, a lot of the data comes from trusted people close to the Fe person since they are who the Fe person pays more attention to.
> (Similar to how a Te person will spend more time reading articles written by experts instead of by crackpots.)
> ...


If you don't mind me asking what do you mean by rules ? Correct me if i am misunderstanding you, do you believe that there is a set of rules with our morals and values ? Or do you mean rules according to what society would believe, what is universal ?


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Spades said:


> From what I've read on PerC, there seems to be a general glorification of Fi and resentment toward Fe. I don't really understand how one can be seen as better than the other. *I also don't understand why people assume Te or Ti users can't be empathetic or caring.* We each posses a feeling function, and it expresses itself differently in each of us. I've seen both selfish and selfless acts from people of every type. It's more a matter of personal maturity and the ability to see from other perspectives, not so much which function you happen to use as your dom/aux. I'm not saying that JCF are completely unrelated to "why people give" (the topic of this discussion), but that the answers to *why* depend on so _much more_ than simply Fi vs Fe.


Really good post. Sometimes I think we fall into a habit of forgetting about the Eneagram and other environmental factors, not to mention the place everyone is in life...how much growth and maturity they have gained. 


I really like the part I bolded in your post too. My ESTJ friend is maybe the most compassionate and caring person I know. My ISTJ mom is very much the same way. Strong Te users, but I view them as more compassionate and caring than many feelers.

However, I generally have a harder time seeing this in NTJs. But they have the same placement of Te and Fi as the STJs I know. What I've learned is that my perception of them through my Si vs. their Ni makes it harder for me to see and understand their emotions. But it's all based on my perceptions, not their intentions. I'm the one who's wrong about them because I have a harder time understanding them due to this confusion. 

But I've learned that the way they show their caring is very different than the way I do. From what I've observed, very quick problem solving is the way an NTJ cares, because that's what they're passionate about. If they don't take the time to do it with someone, it means they don't care. However, because I have different values, it comes across as abrasive to me. But this doesn't mean that they are mean-spirited...in fact, it may be the opposite. We just have different values and goals, and I'm the one at fault if I assume they don't care simply because they don't care in the same way that I do.


I think it's possible that sometimes Fe and Fi users feel the same about each other. They have trouble understanding the way the other person cares, so sometimes they don't view it as caring at all.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> If you don't mind me asking what do you mean by rules ? Correct me if i am misunderstanding you, do you believe that there is a set of rules with our morals and values ? Or do you mean rules according to what society would believe, what is universal ?


 I have no idea. I suppose I see Fi as giving things value based on some internal personal thing. So one person might think icecream rocks, another thinks it sucks. While Fe sees things as having a value independent of the individual since what people think of the thing or feel about it does not determine it's worth.

So Fe is measuring the worth of something by outside variables, how people react to it is one way to tell but it's not the only way or even the best way. If society is saying something is good but Fe sees by experience it is destructive then it cannot consider it good.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

pc3000 said:


> I have no idea. I suppose I see Fi as giving things value based on some internal personal thing. So one person might think icecream rocks, another thinks it sucks. While Fe sees things as having a value independent of the individual since what people think of the thing or feel about it does not determine it's worth.


Thank you for clarifying that for me. You used a good example in order to show the difference between Fi vs Fe here in this post 
Fi=independent thinking, or feeling. Fi considers how it makes us feel internally, personally. We will act according to how it will effect us personally how it makes us feel. Fe= attaching their emotions to how it makes others feel, group thinking. I don't want to go against the group, that would appear selfish, Fe. Fi, i have an independent view with what is true for me personally, i won't go against my personal belief system in order to make you feel better. Then there is this. Fi will compromise depending on with whom, the importance, if they value/love the person . They will go against their own internal personal belief system in order to maintain peace. Fi doesn't change their belief system, only compromise in certain situations.


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

I'll throw my own interpretation of Fi/Fe into the mix too...

Just thought of this analogy: You believe very strongly in fair labor practices around the world. You are diligent about thinking about the ethics behind every purchase you make, because you believe that the best way to influence trends as a consumer is to put your 'money where your mouth is.' You buy fair trade coffee and domestic whenever you can. This is something very important to your core values.

At Christmas time, you've need a new Gadget for school. Gadget A, which is the most popular/best Gadget for your needs, is made in a factory in China, which was recently criticized in the media over its questionable labor practices. Now, you would never buy this Gadget for yourself, but a family member or close friend buys it for you as a Christmas gift. How do you react?

Fe: You graciously accept the gift. Even if it goes against your personal moral standards, you accept these are your own personal standards, not everyone else's. Moreover, it is a well-meaning gesture, and the person put a lot of thought into giving it to you, and you don't want to offend them.

Fi: You thank the giver, but explain that you'll be returning it for another Gadget manufactured under more fair labor practices. You let the person know they shouldn't be offended, because they didn't know, but this is something you personally feel very strongly about, so you cannot live with yourself if you accept this gift.

I'm new to this whole cognitive functions world, so I am open to criticism/reworking.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

sts06 said:


> I obviously wasn't clear here, but it wasn't _his_ values that were being stretched, but mine. He was having a discussion of something that he found interesting, but nothing that was said was a problem with his value system - he didn't agree with my position, but it wasn't contradicting his core values.


Okay, fair enough.



sts06 said:


> They were strong enough that I thought they were real and deliberate.


When you opened with saying you were extremely sensitive to these things and noticed them really easily when they were subtle, I sort of assumed that was describing what happened - by emphasising your sensitivity I assumed by extension that he wasn't being obvious. In my experience, Fe is able to notice these things when they are minor - or sometimes nonexistant - so it sort of fit with that too. But I will take your word for it here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



sts06 said:


> For me it's about respect. If someone doesn't respect the position the other person holds even while disagreeing then there can be no genuine progress in the conversation. If the attitude is 'this is stupid and not worth bothering with' then yeah I will find that problematic when it sits at the core of how I see myself, because in that situation it feels like what is being said is 'you are stupid and not worth bothering with.' So someone can disagree with me, they can disagree with my deeply held values even, but if they show me that they find my values ridiculous in the way they talk about them (and that can be either the words used or the body language associated with them) then yes I will go on the offensive because I will feel offended.


Yeah, this is very alien to me. I have a friend, for instance, who loves this 'respect' thing and insists on, basically, reverent silence when he talks (rather like the way a lot of men seem to act in intellectual discussions with women, treating it like a lecture not a conversation). And then he describes an instance where a friend called a homosexual man a ****** (but wait, it's okay because he thought he was straight! :/). Sorry, not going to sit there passively when you describe something that nasty - I will react with disgust, disgust at said homophobia. It is just about the topic, not the speaker, and expressed as such. I suppose I separate the two more easily. 

I have seen INTPs do this too - I remember one former member in particular would endlessly sidetrack discussions complaining about the ways others expressed themselves - pages of this, completely off-topic demands for what he considered respect - that he didn't necessarily earn, or narrowly defined according to certain rules not everyone shares. I do have a problem with deliberate personal attacks, though I think I define them more narrowly than you do, but I can't imagine caring enough about that stuff to derail a discussion like that. I might end it, but not_ demand_ anything. I don't define respect that way and I don't hold it as high a value - and if I did, I would_ apply it to myself _rather than policing other people for it. I might be offended, that is anyone's right, but I wouldn't think they _owed_ it to me if it isn't their value. That tends to be the part that bothers me the most about the policing. I understand feeling offended even if I wouldn't, happens all the time and people have a right to their feelings - but criticising as if someone has a responsibility to live up to your values rather than their own is something I constantly encounte and never can accept. Fi tends to have a problem with it. If they just say they feel offended, rather than complaining that I didn't live up to standards I don't share or _have_ to share, then the conversation tends to move forward much better and I can adjust to_ that._ I'm not_ trying_ to hurt people after all.



sts06 said:


> I don't tend to be comfortable in those situations either and will do my best to move the conversation away from the topic I'm not happy with, but I'm more comfortable keeping conversational harmony and agreeing with only the bits I do agree with than I am in confronting something in a situation where I could end up in a fight over something that is basically meaningless. If it's meaningful then yeah of course I will make my case.


If it is meaningless then it wouldn't be a value issue, in my case - though I might disagree simply because it is meaningless and so not a big deal to differ in opinion. Any value issue is never meaningless to me. Hence the refusal to even appear to agree in this situation overriding conversational harmony. We both argue with the strong ones but the lesser issues, if they are a value issue, can't just be glossed over for me; I have to withhold certain positive markers, even if they also have a social function, to avoid appearing to support values I do not, whereas you seem to treat the positive markers mainly as having a social purpose.


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I don't define respect that way and I don't hold it as high a value - and if I did, I would_ apply it to myself _rather than policing other people for it. I might be offended, that is anyone's right, but I wouldn't think they _owed_ it to me if it isn't their value. That tends to be the part that bothers me the most about the policing. I understand feeling offended even if I wouldn't, happens all the time and people have a right to their feelings - but criticising as if someone has a responsibility to live up to your values rather than their own is something I constantly encounte and never can accept. Fi tends to have a problem with it. If they just say they feel offended, rather than complaining that I didn't live up to standards I don't share or _have_ to share, then the conversation tends to move forward much better and I can adjust to_ that._ I'm not_ trying_ to hurt people after all.


That's interesting. To me respect just seems like an obvious value to have. In my eyes, if you can't disagree in a polite, unemotional way, it reflects more than a disagreeing of an idea, but a projection of negative feeling onto the person as a whole. I see that you distinguish between the two, but it's so hard to truly understand! It's good to know, though. 

It seems like in order to communicate properly with someone, sacrifices need to be made on both sides where each person consider the other's values. So for example, the Fi user could prevent hurting a Fe user by speaking respectfully, and in turn, the Fe user should be sensitive to saying things that step on a Fi users values. 

Or would you say it is better to not compromise--Fi user expresses when his/her values in whatever manner they please, and Fe users expressing their values (respect?) however they please?

Also, what is your purpose in expressing when someone has offended? Is it to change their opinion, or to express hurt to you personally?

What's the difference between Fe policing and Fi showing disgust about something? (What's the difference between a Fe person saying, "it is wrong that you're not speaking respectfully" and Fi saying, "your homophobic ideas disgust me.") Isn't there implication that the person who offended the Fi person with their values should not have such ideas? If there is no implication, what is the point of expressing? 

Thanks, this helps me understand Fi better.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

elemental said:


> Just thought of this analogy: You believe very strongly in fair labor practices around the world. You are diligent about thinking about the ethics behind every purchase you make, because you believe that the best way to influence trends as a consumer is to put your 'money where your mouth is.' You buy fair trade coffee and domestic whenever you can. This is something very important to your core values.
> 
> At Christmas time, you've need a new Gadget for school. Gadget A, which is the most popular/best Gadget for your needs, is made in a factory in China, which was recently criticized in the media over its questionable labor practices. Now, you would never buy this Gadget for yourself, but a family member or close friend buys it for you as a Christmas gift. How do you react?
> 
> ...


I could see this more for a dominant Fi type and I'd be doing what you said for Fe and I'm about 99.9...% sure I'm an aux Fi user, at least. Maybe someone else will pitch in too. My Fi is much more flexible, but the concern over offending someone who had gifted me would be the greater "sin" any day.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

eunoia said:


> That's interesting. To me respect just seems like an obvious value to have. In my eyes, if you can't disagree in a polite, unemotional way, it reflects more than a disagreeing of an idea, but a projection of negative feeling onto the person as a whole. I see that you distinguish between the two, but it's so hard to truly understand! It's good to know, though.
> 
> It seems like in order to communicate properly with someone, sacrifices need to be made on both sides where each person consider the other's values. So for example, the Fi user could prevent hurting a Fe user by speaking respectfully, and in turn, the Fe user should be sensitive to saying things that step on a Fi users values.
> 
> Or would you say it is better to not compromise--Fi user expresses when his/her values in whatever manner they please, and Fe users expressing their values (respect?) however they please?


I don't think respect and courtesy are bad things, but I find in some situations it can, essentially, _place more responsibility on the oppressed party_. Someone can unemotionally and 'politely' say bigoted things and the homosexual/woman/visible minority who is the target of the bigotry is chastised for not responding to their oppression 'politely.' That's why the tone argument is considered a derailing tactic. Even when it isn't so big an issue as systematic oppression it still sounds like a derail to me.

Fi is in some senses very uncompromising so I do find the second scenario, in principle, preferable but in terms of having a functional discussion I think appealing to *empathy* as a way to reach the Fi user is the most effective strategy. For me, my ideals are far more important than conversational protocol, so I won't respond to that but I will usually respond to 'you are hurting me.' Except when they are being unforgivably offensive, I can probably apologise and say 'just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I respect you less, I know you are a good person' or rephrase a few things. The other option is, of course, to agree to not discuss hot button things. I basically feel a moral obligation to defend certain values - and love the people who argue it for me so I don't have to - simply biting my tongue when there is a values clash is already a compromise for me, so the avoidance issue when people are feeling hurt is one I use a lot.



eunoia said:


> Also, what is your purpose in expressing when someone has offended? Is it to change their opinion, or to express hurt to you personally?


Neither for me. It isn't an interpersonal issue or situational, but an abstract one. Some things are right and some wrong and what is right should be defended and what is wrong should be criticised - or at least not actively supported, depending. My goals in defending my values usually aren't that situational. I might express hurt to me personally if I consider it a courtesy issue, but a values issue isn't about me. And if it were about changing another's opinion then I would probably be doing more ass-kissing rather than being honest about what I think is wrong.



eunoia said:


> What's the difference between Fe policing and Fi showing disgust about something? (What's the difference between a Fe person saying, "it is wrong that you're not speaking respectfully" and Fi saying, "your homophobic ideas disgust me.") Isn't there implication that the person who offended the Fi person with their values should not have such ideas? If there is no implication, what is the point of expressing?


Similar to above. The implication really isn't the point though it can be read into it. The expression isn't so much a strategic interpersonal decision but an abstract idealistic one. It's great if someone changes their mind about hating on gay people but I don't really expect it to be that easy and I'm more interested in _defending_ gay people in that situation. Like Fe can consider body language an attack, Fi can consider an opinion to be an attack though it may not be personal. In most cases, I think, each person, Fe or Fi, feels they are on the defensive. That and similar to above, the Fi person isn't necessarily, in any way, being harmed by the homophobia - it is possibly the case but isn't of necessity the case. It's not really about them personally, what makes them comfortable. Whereas, 'it's wrong you aren't speaking to me respectfully' is more about what the speaker wants for themselves. Plus, to be honest, I just basically consider what someone says to be far more important than how they say it so to me that makes it different too. I hope that makes sense.

(Anyone who also has Fi who has different ways of reacting, feel free to point out if I generalise too much about it or share your experience.)


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

saffron said:


> I don't know, most of those Fe examples would apply to Fi users as well. Most of the people I'm closest to happen to be Fi users (especially dom - both ISFP and INFP) and we would all exhibit most of those behaviors.
> 
> I'm not sure that's a great distinction between the two functions.


Here is a description of both Fi/Fe that i find interesting and more in depth. It also shows more of a distinction between the two much better than the previous post left by freedom.

introverted feeling | The Third Eve


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Peter said:


> No. I'm saying that Fe dominants tend to give in order to avoid feeling bad.
> 
> This statement says nothing about Fi.


You say that Fe dominants give in order to avoid feeling bad as if it differentiates between them and Fi types. I fail to see why it is only Fe types who do something in order to avoid feeling bad. Otherwise if that is true then, for example I'm going to call all those people who take drugs or get drunk to numb their pain Fe types, and feel stupid doing so.

The only reason why an Fe type feels bad is because they have gone against their introverted thinking, which is not always conscious. Any bad emotion felt merely points to a disonance in their thinking. I imagine similarly, Fi types feel bad when they go against their introverted feeling judgement.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Here is a description of both Fi/Fe that i find interesting and more in depth. It also shows more of a distinction between the two much better than the previous post left by freedom.
> 
> introverted feeling | The Third Eve


I can relate to a lot of the introverted feeling description, and it rings true especially for the Fi-doms I know. But it does a good job at isolating the essence of the functions even if some of it is tempered by where it shows up in the order.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

pc3000 said:


> You say that Fe dominants give in order to avoid feeling bad as if it differentiates between them and Fi types. I fail to see why it is only Fe types who do something in order to avoid feeling bad. Otherwise if that is true then, for example I'm going to call all those people who take drugs or get drunk to numb their pain Fe types, and feel stupid doing so.
> 
> The only reason why an Fe type feels bad is because they have gone against their introverted thinking, which is not always conscious. Any bad emotion felt merely points to a disonance in their thinking. I imagine similarly, Fi types feel bad when they go against their introverted feeling judgement.


Nope.

Fe causes people to feel what other's feel. What you see in Fe dominants is that they can be really tough towards people they don't have to deal with directly but completely fail to be tough towards people they do interact with. (unless they don't like these people ofcourse.)

When an Fe dominant interacts with a person that's not happy, s(he) will start to feel the same and as a result want to help because that will take away that bad feeling they picked up.

Fe is not the opposite of Fi.

And if Ti would be the reason for being helpful, INTP's and ISTP's should be the most helpful types there are and ....... they´re not.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Fi=independent thinking, or feeling. Fi considers how it makes us feel internally, personally. We will act according to how it will effect us personally how it makes us feel. Fe= attaching their emotions to how it makes others feel, group thinking. I don't want to go against the group, that would appear selfish, Fe. Fi, i have an independent view with what is true for me personally, i won't go against my personal belief system in order to make you feel better. Then there is this. Fi will compromise depending on with whom, the importance, if they value/love the person . They will go against their own internal personal belief system in order to maintain peace. Fi doesn't change their belief system, only compromise in certain situations.


Yeah, that's what I have noticed too.
Fi people aren't necessarily selfish, they can be quite selfless as you point out.
The Fi function itself can appear selfish to others, I think mostly because it personalizes everything. This is more obvious in unbalanced or immature Fi users (where Ne/Se isn't as well developed as it needs to be)

For example take an ISFP I know.. She accidentally caused a minor cut to her granddaughter. The next day the mother had a bandaid on the cut. She got upset, not because her granddaughter was cut, but because her daughter was "trying to make her feel guilty" by putting the bandaid there. She does that all the time. Everything is about her and how she feels. Now this is an extreme example, I suspect she doesn't have enough Se and too much Ni which causes these interpretations.

Most of the Fi users I know do not show this extreme behavior. They show alot more concern for others, and can be quite selfless, but they still show this personalized way of processing feeling (example: taking things personally that have nothing to do with them)


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

It seems to me that this article introverted feeling | The Third Eve is comparing/contrasting two of the Jung's Eight personality types. I'm relatively new to all of this but does the eight personality types by Jung have a one-to-one correspondence to the eight cognitive functions? Because somehow I thought they were different. Can someone who has solid knowledge of both help me with this?


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

I think I may have forgot the most important thing about when I give when it comes to things like Christmas which is just that people's consideration of me and how it makes me feel makes me want to not necessarily return it,no it's something else I can't place right now. But when I'm initiating I'm hoping to give someone else the same feeling I get.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> It seems to me that this article introverted feeling | The Third Eve is comparing/contrasting two of the Jung's Eight personality types. I'm relatively new to all of this but does the eight personality types by Jung have a one-to-one correspondence to the eight cognitive functions? Because somehow I thought they were different. Can someone who has solid knowledge of both help me with this?


One-to-one correspondence? What do you mean?


----------



## MelodyGirl (Dec 18, 2010)

I give because I feel strongly that it is part of a higher standard to do so, and I enjoy it and people.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

madhatter said:


> One-to-one correspondence? What do you mean?


 Does Jung's Introverted Feeling Personality type = Introverted Feeling Cognitive Function, Extraverted Feeling Personality type = Extraverted Feeling Cognitive Function. Or, are they describing different things?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

His "types" were based on the *dominant* function, so there were the eight types consisting of the four functions, with the two i/e attitudes for each, (which we have come to call the "cognitive functions").

The auxiliary function was just that. Auxiliary; and to support the dominant. He did not originally consider it apart of the type. That was Myers' expansion of his theory.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> Does Jung's Introverted Feeling Personality type = Introverted Feeling Cognitive Function, Extraverted Feeling Personality type = Extraverted Feeling Cognitive Function. Or, are they describing different things?


Oh yes, they're the same things, but like Eric said they are only the dominant function in the type. ExTJ, IxTP, no differentiation between ISTP and INTP, etc.


----------



## Enz8 (Aug 24, 2011)

This seems like the are to post this question.

Is it Fe or Fi that I give presents because it is something that I know that I would like (do unto others) and I know that they'll feel good when they receive a present, although I don't expect anything in return?

I've been trying to develop my other cognitive functions, and my Fi and Ni are weak.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Eric B said:


> His "types" were based on the *dominant* function, so there were the eight types consisting of the four functions, with the two i/e attitudes for each, (which we have come to call the "cognitive functions").
> 
> The auxiliary function was just that. Auxiliary; and to support the dominant. He did not originally consider it apart of the type. That was Myers' expansion of his theory.


So in theory is the difference between the use of the first and second function the same as that between the second and the third? For instance are IFPs an equal amount more Fi users than EFPs as EFPs are more than ITJs?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

It's not really about "amount" of "use", but what I would call "maturity", which would be mainly in an archetypal sense; so that would be hard to answer.

The difference, is that the dominant is the ego's main perspective, so yes, it will be much more prominent. Hence an INFP usually displaying more Fi than an ENFP, who is leading with Ne. 
The auxiliary is still "preferred" by the ego, as an assistant to the dominant. It provides the opposite rationality (the decision-making for a primary information-gatherer, and vice versa), as well as being the main carrier of the opposite orientation (i/e).

The tertiary is a less mature reflection of the auxiliary, from what is left over from it, basically. Its opposite function, and orientation (which by a double-negative ends up the same as the dominant orientation). Because of this, it actually ends up picked up by the ego a lot as a sort of backup to the dominant. This is called "tertiary inflation" or "tertiary temptation". It may even seem stronger than the aux. at time, especially if it is underdeveloped.

But to compare the "strength" or whatever of aux/tert to dom/aux (and in a general sense like that); it's really not as clear cut as that.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Peter said:


> Fe causes people to feel what other's feel.


What you are describing is empathy which Fi people are capable of too and so again does not differentiate Fe from Fi. Fe like Fi is a judging function not a 'feeling emotion' function.
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp: "Don’t confuse Feeling with emotion. Everyone has emotions about the decisions they make."

When articles say Fe/Fi deals with how they or people 'feel' about something, they are not referring to emotion, but more like an opinion. For example, saying 'Your dress is nice'. It's a judgement that on the surface is not related to 'fact' as the thinking function is. But instead is more related to values such as the person values polka dot dresses more than stripey ones that is why they judge the dress as 'nice'.



> When an Fe dominant interacts with a person that's not happy, s(he) will start to feel the same and as a result want to help because that will take away that bad feeling they picked up.


I'd say that's only to a certain extent that their less conscious Ti agrees with that. Perhaps for instance it says: "this person is upset, when people are upset something is wrong, i feel upset when something is wrong."
Then of course, the Fe person is going to feel upset.
However should their thinking be more: "this person is upset, this person is my mortal enemy, they did something wrong and people who do wrong things need to be punished."
Then the Fe person is not going to be upset at all that the other person is crying.



> Fe is not the opposite of Fi.


No, I don't believe it is. If anything, Te is the opposite of Fi. Fe and Fi both deal with F matters. Ti and Fi both deal according to personalised systems. 



> And if Ti would be the reason for being helpful, INTP's and ISTP's should be the most helpful types there are and ....... they´re not.


Ti is an introverted function, so it has a habit of sometimes not paying attention to objective information. When it is dominant, the person may have a habit of only using the auxiliary Pe function to only take in information that Ti chooses.
Perhaps their Ti is saying: "people don't always appreciate their help, i only have limited time and energy and as the other person are not meeting my needs, if i spend time meeting the other person's needs, i won't be able to meet my own needs. i don't even know what my own needs are." In that case, the ITP is not going to feel that they should help.
Or if they do, since Ti might not even know the reasons underlying why they feel they should help, they are going to ignore this 'feeling'. I mean if FJ can go against their feeling judgement and it's their _dominant_ or_ auxiliary _function, how much more easier it is for ITPs to go against what they 'feel' when it's inferior!


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

pc3000 said:


> > Fe is not the opposite of Fi.
> 
> 
> No, I don't believe it is. If anything, Te is the opposite of Fi. Fe and Fi both deal with F matters. Ti and Fi both deal according to personalised systems.


Actually, in a way, Fe is the opposite of Fi (as is Te to Ti, Se to Si, etc). Te and Fi are complementary to one another, while Fe and Fi are opposed by the nature of being opposite orientations. You cannot use the same function with both orientations at the same time, and they certainly can clash. Te and Fi can clash as well, especially on the dom-inf spectrum, but in reality, when you mature, these functions are meant to be used in tandem.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Correct, Fe is not just empathy, I simplified too much. One's first function does not leave much choice. It's the function that does its thing all the time and you can't really switch it off. Fe in the first position therefore forces the person to feel what others feel without having the power to stop this process. The options left then are to avoid people, which isn't a real option for an extrovert, or to try to make unhappy people happy (by giving for example).

The 2 Fe dominant types are ENFJ and ESFJ and both types fit this kind of behavior.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

madhatter said:


> Actually, in a way, Fe is the opposite of Fi (as is Te to Ti, Se to Si, etc). Te and Fi are complementary to one another, while Fe and Fi are opposed by the nature of being opposite orientations. You cannot use the same function with both orientations at the same time, and they certainly can clash. Te and Fi can clash as well, especially on the dom-inf spectrum, but in reality, when you mature, these functions are meant to be used in tandem.


Yes, I agree with your message, even though not the actual words. Because Fe and Fi are similiar and Ti and Fi are similiar, they clash with each other. They are both fighting over the same sort of information or in the same realm. Ti complements Fe because it is different to it. But in the less mature person, one is usually more conscious of one and not the other since the other one seems totally foreign so it gets shoved into the unconscious where it picks up negative characteristics.

And I sort of realise that I've been merely talking about Ti as more conscious in the TP or less conscious in the FJ, and not so much about Fe itself. But I still see Fe as much the same thing, as trying to harmonise the value of things so each object has one objective value.


----------



## Beyond_B (Feb 2, 2011)

I help because there is no reason not to when I can provide help where it is needed and don't have something better to do. I know that I am weak (as a human)and will need help from time to time, so how can I expect to get help when I am not ready to give it when I can?


----------



## Beyond_B (Feb 2, 2011)

madhatter said:


> Actually, in a way, Fe is the opposite of Fi (as is Te to Ti, Se to Si, etc). Te and Fi are complementary to one another, while Fe and Fi are opposed by the nature of being opposite orientations. You cannot use the same function with both orientations at the same time, and they certainly can clash. Te and Fi can clash as well, especially on the dom-inf spectrum, but in reality, when you mature, these functions are meant to be used in tandem.


Crystals, energy ...*shrug*...


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Beyond_B said:


> I help because there is no reason not to when I can provide help where it is needed and don't have something better to do. I know that I am weak (as a human)and will need help from time to time, so how can I expect to get help when I am not ready to give it when I can?


This indeed looks more like Ti reasoning to explain why to help.

I especially liked the "and don't have something better to do." part. :happy:


----------



## Beyond_B (Feb 2, 2011)

Peter said:


> This indeed looks more like Ti reasoning to explain why to help.
> 
> I especially liked the "and don't have something better to do." part. :happy:


 Guess that's my P saying hello ...


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Beyond_B said:


> Crystals, energy ...*shrug*...


I am confused. What do crystals have to do with functions?


----------



## Beyond_B (Feb 2, 2011)

madhatter said:


> I am confused. What do crystals have to do with functions?


Sorry, I just thought that Fe and Fi are like crystals of the same kind but with different orientation(if not opposite) ...
Just one of my stupid thoughts lol... This leads to high chemical energy... Sorry just a random thought that is off topic:sad:


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

pc3000 said:


> Yes, I agree with your message, even though not the actual words. Because Fe and Fi are similiar and Ti and Fi are similiar, they clash with each other. They are both fighting over the same sort of information or in the same realm. Ti complements Fe because it is different to it. But in the less mature person, one is usually more conscious of one and not the other since the other one seems totally foreign so it gets shoved into the unconscious where it picks up negative characteristics.


Yes granted, I agree completely. However I think that Ti-Fe complement each other not only because they are different, but also that they need each other for balance. Ti-Fe together fill in the blanks for each other, make up for what the other lacks. That's why I think someone cannot have the two feeling functions or two thinking functions or two introverted judging functions or two extraverted judging functions as their two judging functions. I think the clash in these areas comes from more than just being similar. With Fe and Fi (or Te and Ti), they are at first the same function (Feeling). However, it's the orientation of the attitudes, introverted and extraverted, that makes these functions in a sense opposite. They are coming at Feeling from opposite directions, objective other-oriented vs subjective self-oriented. With Ti and Fi, as introverted judging functions, they share similar attributes. They are both subjective and holistic. They are coming from the same place of subjective introverted judgment, but have completely opposite focuses, the impersonal vs the personal. 

But you're absolutely right: at the dom-inf level (in IxTPs), Fe is rejected in the less mature individual in favor for the dominant perspective Ti. The best way to see how functions are complementary and in tandem is at the aux-ter level, since there is not the same competition or tension in that environment as there is at the dom-inf level. So, in ExTPs and IxFJs, you can best see the complementary nature of Ti-Fe. I think that Ti-Fe are essentially the opposite sides of the same coin, and when one is at the inferior level, the dominant side is facing up, while the inferior is hidden. 

Looking over my post, I felt like I was almost reiterating what we both already said, PC. So I think we're in agreement, but just focusing on different details.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Beyond_B said:


> Sorry, I just thought that Fe and Fi are like crystals of the same kind but with different orientation(if not opposite) ...
> Just one of my stupid thoughts lol... This leads to high chemical energy... Sorry just a random thought that is off topic:sad:


Haha, no it's okay! I just was confused because there was no explanation, and I knew nothing about crystals. An interesting analogy though.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

n2freedom said:


> Does Jung's Introverted Feeling Personality type = Introverted Feeling Cognitive Function, Extraverted Feeling Personality type = Extraverted Feeling Cognitive Function. Or, are they describing different things?


Jung provides a description of the cognitive function, followed by a description of the type using the function, i.e.:


> *Feeling*​
> Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined -- they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.
> 
> Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately [p. 491] presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself. This is the mystical, ecstatic stage, which prepares the way over into the extraverted functions repressed by feeling, just as introverted thinking is pitted against a primitive feeling, to which objects attach themselves with magical force, so introverted feeling is counterbalanced by a primitive thinking, whose concretism and slavery to facts passes all bounds. Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values. But so much the more [p. 492] does unconscious thinking fall a victim to the power of objective facts.





> *4. The Introverted Feeling Type​*
> It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. The proverb 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness. [p. 493]
> 
> One may even be made to feel the superfluousness of one's own existence. In the presence of something that might carry one away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive object. But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his undervaluation. Such, however, is not always the case, since very often the deficit remains unconscious; whereupon the unconscious feeling-claims gradually produce symptoms which compel a more serious attention.
> ...


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> His "types" were based on the *dominant* function, so there were the eight types consisting of the four functions, with the two i/e attitudes for each, (which we have come to call the "cognitive functions").
> 
> The auxiliary function was just that. Auxiliary; and to support the dominant. He did not originally consider it apart of the type. That was Myers' expansion of his theory.


Agreed, that his type descriptions are based on the dominant function. But he always indicated there is an auxiliary function and that it makes a difference in the type:


> *11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions*​
> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. *Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]*
> 
> For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.
> ...


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

This continued argument that Fe and Fi are similar is as asinine as saying Ne-Ni are similar. Fe and Fi will always be different from one another. If a person uses Fe or Fi as their dominant, auxiliary, tertiary or inferior function, the other will be its opposing, senex, trickster or demonic function or what Beebe calls a shadowy function. 

To paraphrase *Marie –Louise von Franz*. Fi struggles to use Te (the inferior function), but has no ability to Fe. Going back to John Beebe, he as a dominant Ne user, gives a good example how he uses Ni:


> Von Franz had postulated that the greatest difficulties that
> occur between people are on the basis of one using a function with a particular attitude (e.g., extraversion), and the other using the same function with the opposite attitude (e.g., introversion). I decided to apply that idea to the situation within a single psyche, in which the antagonism was not between two people, but between two functions with opposite attitudes.....
> 
> Even more in shadow were the functions opposite in attitude to my first two functions—that is, the introverted intuition that my superior extraverted intuition tended to inhibit, and the extraverted thinking that my auxiliary introverted thinking looked down upon. These four functions—introverted intuition, extraverted thinking, introverted feeling, extraverted sensation—continued to express themselves, however, in shadowy ways. What, then, were the archetypes that carried these repressed shadow functions? Answering this question led me to take up the problem of the types in shadow, which has preoccupied me ever since. Work in this area has to be tentative, because we never fully see our own shadow, but in my case I began to identify typical, shadowy ways in which I would use the four functions that lie in the shadow of my more differentiated quartet of individuated function-attitudes. My introverted intuition, shadow in attitude to my superior extraverted intuition, has decidedly oppositional traits: it expresses itself in ways I could variously describe as avoidant, passive-aggressive, paranoid and seductive, in all cases taking up a stance that is anathema to the way my superior extraverted intuition wants me to behave. I decided to call the archetype carrying this bag of oppositional behaviors the Opposing Personality. Similarly, my fatherly introverted thinking, a patient teacher of complex ideas, was shadowed by a dogmatic, donnish extraverted thinking that didn’t listen, or even care about others’ ideas. I decided to call this rather pompous, unrelated figure my Senex, using James Hillman’s (1967/1979) choice of name for an archetype that is coldly, arrogantly, judgmental, in an old-man-pulling-rank sort of way.


There will be someone make the idiotic claim that they're not necessarily referring to Fi at the opposing level alluded to by Beebe. It doesn't matter. My top four functions are: Ti-Se-Ni-Fe, which means my shadow functions (Te-Si-Ne-Fi) will be in the same order using the opposite attitude. So whether Fe is the dominant function through the inferior (4th place) function, Fi will be 4 lower(and vice-versa). That will go for any function.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> This continued argument that Fe and Fi are similar is as asinine as saying Ne-Ni are similar. Fe and Fi will always be different from one another.


 Since I seem to be the one saying they are similar.., I agree they are different since one looks to how things relate to the self, and the other looks to how things relate to the external world. But I also think they are similiar in that they both deal with Feeling and they are both judging functions. And the person can't make a feeling judgement according to both the self and the world so they conflict.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Agreed, that his type descriptions are based on the dominant function. But he always indicated there is an auxiliary function and that it makes a difference in the type:[/COLOR][/COLOR]


 Was this _Psychological Types_ or one of his later works? The "types" of Psychological Types were the simple eight function-attitude combinations, and thus referred to the dominant. So that's what I had in mind. 
Event though what he's describing her obviously suggests 16 types; it seems like he's still not really considering them separate types, but like just variations of each of the eight types.

It is interesting how he mentions "For they would convert the judging *attitude* into a perceiving one..." (that is, if the auxiliary could reach the "same level of differentiation" as the dominant). Like practically a coining of j/p as a dichotomy by him (instead of using "rational/irrational" that time).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

pc3000 said:


> Since I seem to be the one saying they are similar.., I agree they are different since one looks to how things relate to the self, and the other looks to how things relate to the external world. But I also think they are similiar in that they both deal with Feeling and they are both judging functions. And the person can't make a feeling judgement according to both the self and the world so they conflict.


Which is what I have said all along. For whatever reason, people cannot seem to grasp Jung's work without applying Myers' method of forced dichotomy. People want to group by function merely because they both use the misnomer feeling, thinking, sensing, intuiting? Why, Jung doesn't do it, and neither does Myers Briggs when it comes to describing her types. So I can only surmise it's another way of people taking short cuts to understanding type, instead of reading about it. Makes no sense, there is nothing complicated about Jung's work. 


Eric B said:


> Was this _Psychological Types_ or one of his later works? The "types" of Psychological Types were the simple eight function-attitude combinations, and thus referred to the dominant. So that's what I had in mind.
> Event though what he's describing her obviously suggests 16 types; it seems like he's still not really considering them separate types, but like just variations of each of the eight types.
> 
> It is interesting how he mentions "For they would convert the judging *attitude* into a perceiving one..." (that is, if the auxiliary could reach the "same level of differentiation" as the dominant). Like practically a coining of j/p as a dichotomy by him (instead of using "rational/irrational" that time).


*Psychological Types*. I am not sure what later works you allude to, by Jung.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Which work did the statement "*There are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function types.*" come from? (I see it quoted without citation in places). 

I heard it was from some later work, and it does seem to be a change from _Psychological Types_, where he does speak of "introverts" and "extraverts" in terms of people.

And while the concept might not be complicated, his writing is just dense. Even that selection you quoted was hard to read through. It might be something about the sentence structure or the flow of ideas (He tacks on a lot of side points). An individual sentence might be easy to understand, but it seems easy to lose the main point being addressed.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> Which work did the statement "*There are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function types.*" come from? (I see it quoted without citation in places).
> 
> I heard it was from some later work, and it does seem to be a change from _Psychological Types_, where he does speak of "introverts" and "extraverts" in terms of people.


the link to Psychological Types was posted in my previous thread. I am not sure what you are referring to. Are you saying those comments you quoted were in the principles of auxiliary? 



Eric B said:


> And while the concept might not be complicated, his writing is just dense. Even that selection you quoted was hard to read through. It might be something about the sentence structure or the flow of ideas (He tacks on a lot of side points). An individual sentence might be easy to understand, but it seems easy to lose the main point being addressed.


I admit it's something that requires repeated reading and a weeding out of side comments, but it's his work. So the choice seems to be, determine how he indicates cognitive functions work or attempt to convey how one perceives they should or could work. The latter seems to be what people prefer to do, instead of actually reading the material.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> the link to Psychological Types was posted in my previous thread. I am not sure what you are referring to. Are you saying those comments you quoted were in the principles of auxiliary?


 No, I'm asking which work of his they came from. Was it Psychological types, or something else? One place it is quoted is here: Wellness Resources of Vermont

It seems to come in handy for Beebe followers who tend to make the eight function-attitudes the fundamental elements of personality, (which IMO leads to a lot of the problems you're addressing).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> No, I'm asking which work of his they came from. Was it Psychological types, or something else? One place it is quoted is here: Wellness Resources of Vermont
> 
> It seems to come in handy for Beebe followers who tend to make the eight function-attitudes the fundamental elements of personality, (which IMO leads to a lot of the problems you're addressing).


I am really unsure what that is you refer to. Why do you believe it's Beebe's model? His model can be located *here*. I think where the problem generally lies is people not taking the time to reference what they read and attempting to correlate theories. Beebe's work is also "dense", but again if one wants to know the truth, go to the source. Anyone attempting to understand cognitive functions should read Jung. Anyone attempting to understand how the 8 functions work, read Beebe. If you want to discover your type, read Myers Briggs and not spin-offs.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Again, what I'm referring to is the statement 
_"There are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function types."_

I mentioned Beebe followers, because both the site I linked, and the owner of the site you linked use Beebe's model, and also use that quote. It's not Beebe's model in itself I'm referring to, but that some interpreters of his who focus on function attitudes as indivisible solid items, (hence, only _functions_ can be "introverted" or "extraverted"; not people) but that doesn't seem to be the way Jung originally conceived of them in _Psychological Types_. (Particularly your link, who I've seen use the function-attitudes on people like that, saying people "use too much Fi or Te" to be a certain type, etc. —Which can be oversimplistic. My link was Hunziker, and I'm not sure if he does that, but it was just the first site I found to use the quote).

All of that was just a side note. What I'm asking is if you know which work that quote came from.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> Again, what I'm referring to is the statement
> _"There are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function types."_
> 
> I mentioned Beebe followers, because both the site I linked, and the owner of the site you linked use Beebe's model, and also use that quote. It's not Beebe's model in itself I'm referring to, but that some interpreters of his who focus on function attitudes as indivisible solid items, (hence, only _functions_ can be "introverted" or "extraverted"; not people) but that doesn't seem to be the way Jung originally conceived of them in _Psychological Types_. (Particularly your link, who I've seen use the function-attitudes on people like that, saying people "use too much Fi or Te" to be a certain type, etc. —Which can be oversimplistic. My link was Hunziker, and I'm not sure if he does that, but it was just the first site I found to use the quote).
> ...


I am completely lost on your side note, and I never heard the statement until you raised it. I only referred to Jung's Personality Type, which is what you asked. The quote apparently came from some link you clicked on while on the Personality Type site. I have never ventured beyond the work from Jung, so no I have no idea. Jung does say that using a pure function is rare.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> What i was saying is that Fe is predictable . Fi is quite the opposite, very unpredictable. Fe adapts their morals and values from external observations from *social norms*, across the board.* Ex: From the beginning of time people have acted or reacted this way towards people, this is how i was taught in school, church, home, at Grandmas house etc.* Fi adapts to what feels right for them internally, personally, they don't conform to what society has been doing or saying since the beginning of time. That is the difference. Fe is more agreeable in group dynamics, wanting to keep peace and harmony.* Fe will consider what is morally right or wrong by what is accepted in social norms.* Then they will use those external influences to push what they consider is the correct way , or correct use onto other people because they have perceived it to be the right way for everyone, everywhere. Fi isn't concerned with everyone, Fi focus on the internal belief, individually. I don't understand what part of any of this you don't understand. In my mind its quite simple. So i may be getting a bit impatient :/ Keep in mind that Fi is an abstract function, so those who actually use Fi will be more capable of explaining it than those like yourself who use Fe. Even those of us who do use it have difficulties , its much like trying to explain Ni Ti.


I think you're confusing Fe with Si.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

I use Fe to understand the gravity of someone's situation. I am able to feel exactly what they do, and that is natural for me. What is different for a dominant/auxiliary user is that I don't actively engage it. Often I will be caught off guard by someone's feelings. In order to restore harmony, I will often perform acts of kindness to alleviate some of what they are feeling. However, I rarely let any of this show between the cracks. I am often uncomfortable with displaying these emotions as I am often unable to know where those emotions come from. I show my empathy in a different way. I am not the one where one comes to in order to get some kind words. However, I will bend over backwards for the other person if I judge it necessary.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Ubuntu said:


> I think you're confusing Fe with Si.


Si is not really concerned with social norms. I know SJs are considered the "traditionalists", but that's Keirsey's temperament theory and not the function theory. Si as a perception function does not make judgments or determine right or wrong.


----------

